|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 13, 2007 19:33:42 GMT -5
Just kidding.
But this is a topic about what Sly will do after John Rambo is in the film can. I realize he's emphatically declared his intentions to go strictly directorial, and he may very well do that. But I still think there's a chance, if this Rambo film succeeds, we could easily see another Rambo; the man probably has it left in him physically, and if this one is super-successful, then I can't see him turning down the chance to get oiled up oncemore. I think to a degree, he lives for it; why else would so much of his career be based on his body?
So what does everyone else think? Will Sly deliver on his declaration of no more physical roles, or will he have one last stretch of action films left in him?
Let's not forget, also, that to be physical one does not necessarily need to be in stellar shape. Just look at Bruce Willis' career, or even some of the action stars of yesteryear. They took a licking and kept on ticking.
|
|
|
Post by thebumfromthedark on May 13, 2007 23:16:07 GMT -5
Well, I for one don't want another Rambo movie. I don't really want this one, but since it's going, I'll go along for the ride. I may be a little more receptive to it if Richard Crenna weren't dead.
As for SLy's work being physical, that wasn't really his doing. It can actually be blamed on Arnold. Yes, Sly is muscular and fit in Rocky and Rocky II, but nothing like say, Victory and forward. Sly said that the reason he became super-muscular was because of Arnold. Arnold smashed onto the screen in "Conan" and he saw that and said "This man was Mr. Olympia... Shit! I'd better get to the gym!" And the rest if history.
Honestly, I'm sure Sly wouldn't have agreed or wanted this, but I wish that "Rocky Balboa" was Sly's last film forever. It's really the only thing worthy enough to cap his great career. Rambo isn't going to be as good as RB. It just isn't.
Oh... and as to Rambo vs. Predator. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Murtaugh took a Predator. Rambo's got this in the bag.
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 14, 2007 9:01:52 GMT -5
Bum, of course it won't top RB as a work of artistic value.... But as strange as this sounds, all it has to be is minimally embarrassing and action packed for it to eclipse RB's box office numbers. Rambo is something that has some currency and nostalgia among more people right now in this nation at war, consumed with thoughts of reviving pride and glory.
We have a country of people right now basically in a downhearted, defeated mood. We're politically divided, we're bloodied in the eyes of the international press, we are questioning our moral footing constantly and second guessing our own god given right to defend ourselves with pure brute force. We need heroes. We need people who don't second-guess, don't apologize for standing up.
Enter Rambo, an embodiment of that confident and morally certain spirit. Standing up for very simple, unchanging principles. You see how this is something that could be bigger than RB?
|
|
|
Post by thebumfromthedark on May 14, 2007 16:11:28 GMT -5
Rambo is an anti-war figure. He always has been. He's against violence. "He never draws first blood... he only fights back."
Rambo's not going to make this country feel any better. No, that won't happen until 2008 or we impeach Bush and Cheney. Whichever comes first.
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 14, 2007 16:58:29 GMT -5
Rambo is an anti-war figure. He always has been. He's against violence. "He never draws first blood... he only fights back." Rambo's not going to make this country feel any better. No, that won't happen until 2008 or we impeach Bush and Cheney. Whichever comes first. "Rambo is a natural born fighting machine with only a desire to win a war that someone else lost..." -Col. Trautman Rambo: Sir, do we get to win this time? Trautman: This time, it's up to you. "We didn't make you this fighting machine, we just chipped away the rough edges" -Col. Trautman And never drawing first blood certainly doesn't mean anti-war. It just means you don't start the war. I didn't mean to imply, either that I'm politically aligned with the Bush administration. I'm not. I don't think it would matter either way to Rambo, either. I think he went to Vietnam, he would have gone to Iraq. He's not against war, he's against the way combat soldiers were treated upon returning from Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by thebumfromthedark on May 14, 2007 17:25:53 GMT -5
Better take it up with Sly then, cause he says otherwise. Rambo speaks out against all war in "John Rambo".
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 14, 2007 17:26:46 GMT -5
Better take it up with Sly then, cause he says otherwise. Eh, I don't doubt it... But explain the quotes if you can. Baffles me.
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 14, 2007 17:37:45 GMT -5
Actually, I think I may have the answer. It may not be a complete inconsistency.
Sly says Rambo is an antiwar figure, but doesn't say that the character himself is actually anti-war. He may mean that Rambo is supposed to symbolize the reasoning for the antiwar movement, not that he goes to sit-ins and protests - it's a sort of Frankenstein monster allegory, after all. War creates violence and terror for everyone involved, that kind of thing.
But when a man kills another man by shooting him with an exploding arrow, eh, I question his devotion to pacifism. I think we're supposed to feel conflicted about Rambo, I think that is part of the point. Just like we should always feel conflicted about war. He is a biproduct of war and seems incapable of thriving without it.
|
|
|
Post by thebumfromthedark on May 14, 2007 18:03:40 GMT -5
He shot that jerk with the exploding arrow tip because that guy was the one who shot Co (his woman). That one was personal. I'd have done the same thing.
I also added something above you may have missed. It's from the interview I posted elsewhere today.
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 14, 2007 18:07:54 GMT -5
He shot that jerk with the exploding arrow tip because that guy was the one who shot Co (his woman). That one was personal. I'd have done the same thing. I'd have done it just because it was Julia Nickson. But I don't claim to be anti-violence. You just don't do that kind of thing if you're against violence. But I really believe this: you have to be nuts to really just not believe in violence wholesale. You have to be without emotion, either that or the most oppressed and defeated person on the planet. Sh*t happens, and then you have to go and hurt people. That's just the way life is. You won't even say that's inconsistent? Those lines I quoted and what Stallone said about the character being anti-war?
|
|
|
Post by thebumfromthedark on May 14, 2007 21:45:23 GMT -5
Hey, I'm just reporting the facts. Don't shoot the messenger. Like I said, go find Sly and take him to task for it. I agree with you about the quotes, but movies are always saying things about its characters that aren't true (Do you really think Rocky isn't better than anyone in Andy's Bar?). If Sly says something about Rambo, I'll go along with it... he's Rambo!
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on May 15, 2007 9:11:08 GMT -5
Hey, I'm just reporting the facts. Don't shoot the messenger. Like I said, go find Sly and take him to task for it. I agree with you about the quotes, but movies are always saying things about its characters that aren't true (Do you really think Rocky isn't better than anyone in Andy's Bar?). If Sly says something about Rambo, I'll go along with it... he's Rambo! No messengers getting shot here, brother Bum. I was just taken aback by the inconsistency of it, but yeah, movies do have misleading lines about their characters. How many times has Sly openly admitted to wondering, "what the hell was I thinking!?" in his career? I won't make any comment about John Rambo (the film)'s intrinsic value or its artistic value, or even how American moviegoers will react to it. I have my beliefs on it... and I am actually pretty excited about the film, mainly because I think Sly's on a roll and will make certain of the movie's quality.
|
|
kent
Bruiser
Yo Adrian, I Did It!
Posts: 126
|
Post by kent on Aug 19, 2007 21:36:58 GMT -5
I do believe Stallone is wrapping his career as an actor. Not only do I take his word, but look at what he's doing to the two film characters that brought him so much fame and fortune: He is ending the Rocky series on a note that makes it more final than Rocky V attempted. And with Rambo, doing the same thing; although I don't know if Rambo was ever supposed to be the final Rambo at the time. I was too young at the time and plus we didn't have the internet.
It could be possible he may make cameos or may have very minute roles in some movies but I doubt it. He's a great director, writer, producer, etc. I'm sure he'll do great behind the camera for as long as he wants to be in that position.
|
|
62sg
Meatball
Posts: 89
|
Post by 62sg on Oct 19, 2007 20:06:49 GMT -5
Rambo hates war. He hates it. It got him captured and tortured for 6 months. It shattered his life. The problem is, he was built into a warrior, even though he hates it. War turned him into a monster. Even when he saw the dead cop in First Blood, you could see it in his eyes, it was bringing him back. Turning him into that beast. Adding PTSD to his already twisted psyche equals trouble for those who draw first blood.
|
|
|
Post by masterofdisaster19 on Oct 28, 2007 10:38:12 GMT -5
Sly isn't wrapping his career up as an actor, apparently, since he's quoted by Harry of AICN as saying that he doesn't even feel that the newly retitled "Rambo" (remember, what you refer to as Rambo is technically First Blood), will even be the final Rambo picture.
This is from the site:
"Sly stated, 'You know Lionsgate jumped the gun on this. I just was thinking that the title JOHN RAMBO was derivative of ROCKY BALBOA and might give people the idea that this is the last Rambo film, and I don't necessarily feel that it will be. He's not an athlete, there's no reason he can't continue onto another adventure. Like John Wayne with THE SEARCHERS.'"
So now he's John Wayne or Charlie Bronson, rather than Clint Eastwood. We all love the guy, and personally I would rather see him as a Charlie Bronson or a John Wayne type of aged action star, a few steps slower but a whole lot nastier with each new movie. I know he can direct, I just don't think it's the main thrust of what he has to offer. He does characters extremely well when he focuses on it, and that is, IMO, what he should be doing.
I know this train of thought on Sly's part could dissolve at any minute, but it could also return the next minute. The guy flip flops more feverishly than John Kerry at the beach.
|
|