Editing Openai/69436832-f488-800c-9b81-bf381025a116 (section)

=== Assistant: You’re right about what the movie spends most of its runtime doing. ===
You’re right about what the movie spends most of its runtime doing. Scene-to-scene, Die Hard is absolutely focused on John McClane stopping the terrorists. The reconciliation is not the primary activity of the film.

Where people push back is on the difference between focus and purpose.
* Focus (what we watch): action, gunfights, tactics, survival
* Narrative purpose (why it matters): John getting his family back together

The terrorists aren’t random obstacles—they’re the thing John has to overcome to earn the reconciliation. Classic action structure: external conflict resolves internal conflict.

That said, your point still lands because:
* The reconciliation is minimal and efficient, not dwelled on
* If you removed it, the movie would still function as a complete action film
* The audience’s adrenaline, not sentiment, is what carries the experience

So a fair framing of your argument is:

: Die Hard contains a reconciliation subplot, but it’s secondary, not defining—and that makes Christmas flavor, not foundation.

At that point the disagreement becomes philosophical:
* Does a Christmas movie need Christmas to be the emotional core?
* Or is it enough that Christmas is just part of the framing?

From your criteria, Die Hard doesn’t make the cut—and that’s a consistent, defensible position.