28 ms·

Nakatomi Space

153 points by djnym 17y ago

angelbob 17y ago
Quick summary: What I find so interesting about Die Hard—in addition to unironically enjoying the film—is that it cinematically depicts what it means to bend space to your own particular navigational needs. This mutational exploration of architecture even supplies the building's narrative premise: the terrorists are there for no other reason than to drill through and rob the Nakatomi Corporation's electromagnetically sealed vault. The article is all about how "Die Hard" and an Israeli invasion of Palestinian territory in 2002 are both about using space in unexpected ways, and moving through everything except doors, streets and hallways.
brandnewlow 17y ago
Excellent find. However he mischaracterizes one segment of Die Hard that would actually strengthen his thesis. The article argues that the logic of Die Hard rewards those who "infest" the spaces they inhabit, traversing them creatively rather than via their intended corridors, elevators, and doorways. He uses the L.A. SWAT team running across Nakatomi Plaza's rose garden as an example of this. I'd counter that the SWAT team's approach was actually conventional. They try to get in through the front door, and get blown away. Had they tried to tunnel in from below, for example, in Die Hard's world they would have been more successful. Also, his point that the subsequent Die Hard films would have been improved by holding onto the premise of exploring an architectural space rings true. Die Hard 2 tried to do this with an airport, but it was a much less interesting locale. You could debate whether or not Die Hard 3 was taking the same approach to NYC or not... If, as he says, Die Hard is more about architecture than characters, I'd argue that the true spiritual sequel to Die Hard is Steven Seagal's Under Siege, aka, "Die Hard on a boat." Throughout the (awesome) film, Seagal travels around a navy ship in all sorts of unconventional ways, letting the viewer explore the unfamiliar space in a fashion similar to John McClane's adventure in Die Hard.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > Die Hard 2 tried to do this with an airport, but it was a much less interesting locale Im not sure it is less interesting; I think mostly they used it poorly. Airports are a fascinating place and at times (i.e. when he used the storm drains to get out to the runway) I think there were examples of "Nakatomi Space". The main problem was that an Airport is a very large and very open space - they didn't use that well.
zandorg 17y ago
For a more general look at this topic: http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/air-vents-are-for-air http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/air-vents-are-for-air
lmkg 17y ago
This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion described in the article: using the doorway is almost always the wrong choice. The computer will have the door covered. If you knock through/down the right wall, they have to spend the rest of the turn with their guns pointed the wrong direction (the game has overwatch) and their backs exposed. The most powerful weapon in the game does just enough damage to knock a man-sized hole in the side of a UFO; the qualitative change in gameplay is significant. Those corridors are twisty and treacherous, but entering from the middle instead of the start turns the advantage around. The other game I thought of is the Splinter Cell series. Pandora Tomorrow, the second game, gave the series a very asymmetric multiplayer style of spies vs mercenaries. In addition to wildly varying, and anti-complementary, abilities, the two sides were practically playing on different maps. The spies could fit in air ducts climb over fences. The mercenaries could only navigate around in the "normal" space of rooms and doors, but effectively owned the places where they could walk, on account of automatic weapons. The result was effectively two maps, one wrapped around and between the other. Even before I was exposed to the idea of scripted spaces, the idea was mind-bending to me. After reading the article, it's even more impressive: one side in the asymetric conflict has an architectural advantage, balancing against its comaprative weakness in more traditional areas. I was never any good at the multiplayer, but it was still fascinating. Chaos Theory, the third game in the Splinter Cell series, also had some impressive work in the single player. It's the first game I've played where using a non-traditional route like a duct or a drophole actually felt like I was hacking the level rather than following the route that was laid out for me. Games have been using air ducts since Half-Life, but whenever they're available it feels like you're supposed to use them, often because you have no other choice. I feel like I'm finding the way to advance the level. It's difficult to describe, but the holes in the environment felt more natural, like I was following real-world logic rather than game-logic. I haven't played Mirror's Edge for myself, I would be interested to hear people's perspective on how original that game's use of space is.
- potatolicious 17y ago
10ren 17y ago
Fascinating. I never thought of Die Hard like that, but he's right. The hero doesn't just improvise ingeniously - a standard hero trope - but specifically in terms of architecture. He isn't given clever gadgets like James Bond, but conjures them from the mundane. It's definitely hacking. An architecture is a theory of space; he has other theories.
philwelch 17y ago
"What I find so interesting about Die Hard—in addition to unironically enjoying the film—is that it cinematically depicts what it means to bend space to your own particular navigational needs. This mutational exploration of architecture even supplies the building's narrative premise: the terrorists are there for no other reason than to drill through and rob the Nakatomi Corporation's electromagnetically sealed vault. Die Hard asks naive but powerful questions: If you have to get from A to B—that is, from the 31st floor to the lobby, or from the 26th floor to the roof—why not blast, carve, shoot, lockpick, and climb your way there, hitchhiking rides atop elevator cars and meandering through the labyrinthine, previously unexposed back-corridors of the built environment?" So, basically, just like a hacker. Like Mel using the values of opcodes as numeric constants, spacing instructions just right on the drum to slow down the computer's execution rather than using time delay loops, and exploiting a register overflow instead of a loop test. Not constraining one's self to the artificial rules the system is built to enforce, but dropping back to the fundamental physical rules the system was built upon in the first place.
- gwern 17y ago
  Exactly! The MIT hackers in particular were famous also for their exploration of the physical plant; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_and_tunnel_hacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_and_tunnel_hacking
Qz 17y ago
Would anyone really characterize the villains in Die Hard as 'terrorists'? What exactly is terrorizing about drilling into a vault in a secure building in order to steal money? How are they not just robbers?
- brandnewlow 17y ago
  They pass themselves off as terrorists to the public to hide the robbery plans, for a lot of people, that's probably what stuck.
  - devinj 17y ago
    Also, it conveniently avoids spoilers.
    - donw 17y ago
      The movie was released in 1988. It's hard to spoil something that has already been consumed, processed, excreted, and reused to make a garden.
      - devinj 17y ago
        Consumed and processed by you, perhaps. The film was released (somewhat shortly) before I was even born. I watched Die Hard for the first time last year. Before then, the only thing I knew about it was that it had Bruce Willis in it. I don't think I'm particularly special, I just don't watch that many old movies. The point is, spoiling it adds nothing to the conversation: "I watched the movie and you got this plot element that, while important to the film, is completely unimportant to your point ... wrong!". On the other hand, not spoiling it lets anyone a bit too young to have seen it the first time around not have their experience of the film permanently altered for the worse. There is no contest. Don't spoil things, even if it's old as hell. It really, honestly ruins things for some people who are a bit behind the times and care about this sort of thing.
wallflower 17y ago
In the Pixar film "Ratatouille", there is an amazing visual sequence where Remy the cutely digitally-rendered rat runs through the hidden spaces between houses/walls/interior.

153 points by djnym 17y ago

Quick summary: What I find so interesting about Die Hard—in addition to unironically enjoying the film—is that it cinematically depicts what it means to bend space to your own particular navigational needs. This mutational exploration of architecture even supplies the building's narrative premise: the terrorists are there for no other reason than to drill through and rob the Nakatomi Corporation's electromagnetically sealed vault. The article is all about how "Die Hard" and an Israeli invasion of Palestinian territory in 2002 are both about using space in unexpected ways, and moving through everything except doors, streets and hallways.

brandnewlow 17y ago

Excellent find. However he mischaracterizes one segment of Die Hard that would actually strengthen his thesis. The article argues that the logic of Die Hard rewards those who "infest" the spaces they inhabit, traversing them creatively rather than via their intended corridors, elevators, and doorways. He uses the L.A. SWAT team running across Nakatomi Plaza's rose garden as an example of this. I'd counter that the SWAT team's approach was actually conventional. They try to get in through the front door, and get blown away. Had they tried to tunnel in from below, for example, in Die Hard's world they would have been more successful. Also, his point that the subsequent Die Hard films would have been improved by holding onto the premise of exploring an architectural space rings true. Die Hard 2 tried to do this with an airport, but it was a much less interesting locale. You could debate whether or not Die Hard 3 was taking the same approach to NYC or not... If, as he says, Die Hard is more about architecture than characters, I'd argue that the true spiritual sequel to Die Hard is Steven Seagal's Under Siege, aka, "Die Hard on a boat." Throughout the (awesome) film, Seagal travels around a navy ship in all sorts of unconventional ways, letting the viewer explore the unfamiliar space in a fashion similar to John McClane's adventure in Die Hard.

ErrantX 17y ago
> Die Hard 2 tried to do this with an airport, but it was a much less interesting locale Im not sure it is less interesting; I think mostly they used it poorly. Airports are a fascinating place and at times (i.e. when he used the storm drains to get out to the runway) I think there were examples of "Nakatomi Space". The main problem was that an Airport is a very large and very open space - they didn't use that well.

zandorg 17y ago

For a more general look at this topic: http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/air-vents-are-for-air http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/air-vents-are-for-air

lmkg 17y ago

This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion described in the article: using the doorway is almost always the wrong choice. The computer will have the door covered. If you knock through/down the right wall, they have to spend the rest of the turn with their guns pointed the wrong direction (the game has overwatch) and their backs exposed. The most powerful weapon in the game does just enough damage to knock a man-sized hole in the side of a UFO; the qualitative change in gameplay is significant. Those corridors are twisty and treacherous, but entering from the middle instead of the start turns the advantage around. The other game I thought of is the Splinter Cell series. Pandora Tomorrow, the second game, gave the series a very asymmetric multiplayer style of spies vs mercenaries. In addition to wildly varying, and anti-complementary, abilities, the two sides were practically playing on different maps. The spies could fit in air ducts climb over fences. The mercenaries could only navigate around in the "normal" space of rooms and doors, but effectively owned the places where they could walk, on account of automatic weapons. The result was effectively two maps, one wrapped around and between the other. Even before I was exposed to the idea of scripted spaces, the idea was mind-bending to me. After reading the article, it's even more impressive: one side in the asymetric conflict has an architectural advantage, balancing against its comaprative weakness in more traditional areas. I was never any good at the multiplayer, but it was still fascinating. Chaos Theory, the third game in the Splinter Cell series, also had some impressive work in the single player. It's the first game I've played where using a non-traditional route like a duct or a drophole actually felt like I was hacking the level rather than following the route that was laid out for me. Games have been using air ducts since Half-Life, but whenever they're available it feels like you're supposed to use them, often because you have no other choice. I feel like I'm finding the way to advance the level. It's difficult to describe, but the holes in the environment felt more natural, like I was following real-world logic rather than game-logic. I haven't played Mirror's Edge for myself, I would be interested to hear people's perspective on how original that game's use of space is.

potatolicious 17y ago

10ren 17y ago

Fascinating. I never thought of Die Hard like that, but he's right. The hero doesn't just improvise ingeniously - a standard hero trope - but specifically in terms of architecture. He isn't given clever gadgets like James Bond, but conjures them from the mundane. It's definitely hacking. An architecture is a theory of space; he has other theories.

philwelch 17y ago

"What I find so interesting about Die Hard—in addition to unironically enjoying the film—is that it cinematically depicts what it means to bend space to your own particular navigational needs. This mutational exploration of architecture even supplies the building's narrative premise: the terrorists are there for no other reason than to drill through and rob the Nakatomi Corporation's electromagnetically sealed vault. Die Hard asks naive but powerful questions: If you have to get from A to B—that is, from the 31st floor to the lobby, or from the 26th floor to the roof—why not blast, carve, shoot, lockpick, and climb your way there, hitchhiking rides atop elevator cars and meandering through the labyrinthine, previously unexposed back-corridors of the built environment?" So, basically, just like a hacker. Like Mel using the values of opcodes as numeric constants, spacing instructions just right on the drum to slow down the computer's execution rather than using time delay loops, and exploiting a register overflow instead of a loop test. Not constraining one's self to the artificial rules the system is built to enforce, but dropping back to the fundamental physical rules the system was built upon in the first place.

gwern 17y ago
Exactly! The MIT hackers in particular were famous also for their exploration of the physical plant; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_and_tunnel_hacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_and_tunnel_hacking

Qz 17y ago

Would anyone really characterize the villains in Die Hard as 'terrorists'? What exactly is terrorizing about drilling into a vault in a secure building in order to steal money? How are they not just robbers?

brandnewlow 17y ago
They pass themselves off as terrorists to the public to hide the robbery plans, for a lot of people, that's probably what stuck.
- devinj 17y ago
  Also, it conveniently avoids spoilers.
  - donw 17y ago
    The movie was released in 1988. It's hard to spoil something that has already been consumed, processed, excreted, and reused to make a garden.
    - devinj 17y ago
      Consumed and processed by you, perhaps. The film was released (somewhat shortly) before I was even born. I watched Die Hard for the first time last year. Before then, the only thing I knew about it was that it had Bruce Willis in it. I don't think I'm particularly special, I just don't watch that many old movies. The point is, spoiling it adds nothing to the conversation: "I watched the movie and you got this plot element that, while important to the film, is completely unimportant to your point ... wrong!". On the other hand, not spoiling it lets anyone a bit too young to have seen it the first time around not have their experience of the film permanently altered for the worse. There is no contest. Don't spoil things, even if it's old as hell. It really, honestly ruins things for some people who are a bit behind the times and care about this sort of thing.

wallflower 17y ago

In the Pixar film "Ratatouille", there is an amazing visual sequence where Remy the cutely digitally-rendered rat runs through the hidden spaces between houses/walls/interior.