Five Actors Who Should Take Over the Rambo Series
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Ummmm... no.
There is no reason to keep doing Rambo movies with no Stallone. Just end it, it's the only thing that makes sense.
Also:
Ryan Gosling is fuckin' terrible. He has one mode: confused guy who doesn't emote, so he responds with an awkward smile.
Jai Courtney? I would honestly expect a bit more respect for such a long running series of movies. That guy is a terrible actor and just looks like an asshole.
There is no reason to keep doing Rambo movies with no Stallone. Just end it, it's the only thing that makes sense.
Also:
Ryan Gosling is fuckin' terrible. He has one mode: confused guy who doesn't emote, so he responds with an awkward smile.
Jai Courtney? I would honestly expect a bit more respect for such a long running series of movies. That guy is a terrible actor and just looks like an asshole.
Michael Jai White - has the build, has the skillz (Black Dynamite was one of the best movies ever made)
And to anyone who says Rambo has to be a white dude, this guy's name is White so we can let him into the club.
And while we are throwing out long shots.... if Jake Gyllenhaal (i looked up how to spell it) hit the gym I think he could WRECK as Rambo. He nailed it as the only partially in-control cop from Prisoners.
And to anyone who says Rambo has to be a white dude, this guy's name is White so we can let him into the club.
And while we are throwing out long shots.... if Jake Gyllenhaal (i looked up how to spell it) hit the gym I think he could WRECK as Rambo. He nailed it as the only partially in-control cop from Prisoners.
No love for Tom Hardy? He already resurrected Mad Max pretty well. I bet he can do an even better job with Rambo provided that the script is good.
Now my thoughts on 80's/early 90's action stars are heavily influenced by nostalgia, but that highlights on thing that's really missing with the loss of that genre. Say what you want about the quality of those movies, but the actors that starred in them were all extremely distinct: Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis, Norris, Lundgren, Van Damme, Seagal, etc etc. You didn't got see a movie as much to see the movie as you did to see these guys play in them.votemarvel said:
Today the prototypical Hollywood male lead actors all kind of look samey and are most of them interchangeable. As a disclaimer I have extremely poor facial recognition, but an example of this could be The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Heath Ledger passed away before they did the blue screen filming, and in his honour Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrel took turns playing his role. The only time I even noticed it was a different person was with Depp!
Anyways for the Rambo thing, if it's going to be a TV show they're not going to get an A-lister like Ryan Gosling to play the part. The other guys I can't comment because I've never heard of.
Rambo should be allowed to pass with Stallone, it was his character, and I think a lot of the meaning of Rambo has been lost behind the cheese that came later from people who probably never even saw "First Blood". I don't think you can capture the right kind of situation and angst with more recent conflicts, and 'Nam and it's realities are increasingly being lost on the younger generation.
That's just my opinion.
That's just my opinion.
Repeated for truth. First Blood was a fantastic movie. It was meaningful. It wasn't just another 80's popcorn action flick, it had a message and depth. I can sum it up as "not just another action flick" with one sentence.Therumancer said:
Only one person dies in the whole movie... and he wasn't shot.
Now the other Rambo movies... were popcorn action flicks. They existed solely for the action segments and the 80's style "shootin the commies rescue the soldiers" jingoist blah blah blah.
I can't think of 5 actors who should take over the Rambo series... I can't think of even one doing it. Rambo was 1 good movie and you can still watch THAT GOOD ONE.
I'm going to disagree there, the second movie, the one actually called "Rambo" was being critical of the government for not doing enough for the POWs left behind. It was less about a red blooded American blowing away commies, as much as it was about the government being less than assertive in it's efforts to get our people back, and when Rambo actually takes action, they wind up betraying him. Understand the ending of Rambo isn't him having some knock-down, drag-out brawl with an evil commie mastermind, it's him unloading weapons into his own government's command center. Now for the popcorn munching commie-bashing version see Chuck Norris' "Missing In Action".Kyrian007 said:
I think "Rambo" winds up getting labeled the way it does because of the time it came out, and because it did involve some over the top action set pieces, that said I think as a series Rambo was a bit more thoughtful than a lot of other movies in the same vein. In Rambo movies the violence usually existed to illustrate some point, as opposed to simply being an action showcase with the plot built around the action scenes they wanted to highlight.
Sit down some time and watch "Rambo: First Blood Part II" back to back with a couple of "Missing In Action" movies. Both are pretty good, both are action movies, and both have the same message but you'll notice a definite difference in how they cover the same material, Chuck (who is actually pretty awesome) was in movies that were far more pro-American as a whole as fitting with the actor's general demeanor.
Now, please note I will agree with you when you get into the whole line of Rambo merchandising, which is something even as a kid I did not get. The whole "Rambo, the force of freedom!" schtick that fueled the cartoon show which is how I am guessing most people remember Rambo nowadays had very little to do with the movies. I mean Rambo is a dude who feels like he was betrayed by his government and the American people, gets sent to jail when some rednecks make his life miserable and try and kill him, agrees to perform a covert mission for the government and while he DOES engage the enemy they literally abandon him in the middle of a hellhole for a second time. The rest of the guy's life is spent in places like scenic Afghanistan (Rambo III is probably the closest to the action movies it's accused of being) and then later hides out in the third world as a nobody just trying to find peace. This is not a character running around draped in The American Flag, punching commies because Uncle Sam is awesome. If anything a young Rambo might have actually believed something like that going to 'nam but as we meet him he's totally disenfranchised with it.
Not one of my favorite series of movies, but one I occasionally defend. I do not think the legacy these movies left behind is deserved, and honestly I don't think millennials can really "get" this since Rambo is grounded in things that happened before their time. I mean the 80s-90s generation can to some extent (this includes me) because we were closer to it and were dealing with the fathers, uncles, etc... that went through that for real, and the whole POW-MIA thing from 'Nam was a lot closer.
If someone did a new Rambo it would be a bloody nightmare as they would do it based on the expectation, they would probably create some gritty yet self-aware pseudo-satire of 80s action movies and that would do nobody justice, except the pocket book of whomever holds the rights to the character. The character aged with Stallone, and they should probably just leave it where it is. They could reboot it with some kind of PTSD ridden special forces guy from Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever, but really if they want to tell that story they should just make a new franchise, not try and call it "Rambo". It wouldn't work though because soldiers are treated with more respect nowadays, and oddly enough you can probably thank Rambo for helping raise some of that awareness. People really did treat 'Nam veterans like crap, nobody ever told Rambo "thank you for your service" and meant it.
I get that, but I kind of saw it in a different light. I more or less saw part 2 as trying, and failing, to capture that "not pro-America" vibe from the first one. First Blood did it effortlessly, there weren't any commies to shoot. The bad guys WERE the government, the establishment. Rambo is powerless against it, until he uses the skills they gave him to turn the tables. And in the end he is still powerless, he can't go through with his revenge. Because the establishment IS his side, he's just jacked up with the PTSD his own side exposed him to and isn't properly helping him with.Therumancer said:
Now part 2: foreshadows a betrayal in the first 15 minutes, then we get about 45 minutes of Tactical Action Espionage, then the betrayal in about 2 minutes, then huge guns and splosions action blowout for 40 minutes, and ends with about 5 minutes of "you gubment fellers ain't the real 'murica."
Now, I'm oversimplifying. It really was more nuanced than that, and a better film like you said. It was just so much less effective at expressing itself than the first movie I really do dismiss it. For me I can't see that big action firefight in the 3rd act without seeing Charlie Sheen holding that M60 and doing the Stallone "YUYUYUYUYUYUYUYUYU" yell while the "body count" counter ticks up with each gunned down commie. By contrast I can't see ANYONE doing a parody of First Blood, it just wouldn't be funny. It had moments of self-parody, something that the second didn't really achieve. Except possibly the CIA (or whatever) douche's Coke-Cola cravings, which was actually just a set-up for a decent FU joke later.
I guess I'll admit that the second one isn't really that bad. But if it is a choice between the series existing like it does and continuing with that second one, but knowing someone is going to continue to screw up the franchise going forward. Or somehow erasing everything but the first movie and making sure no one ever tarnishes it's message... I'll take option 2.
I disagree with this assessment in so much as the Third Rambo movie was in some ways actually about a conflict going on at the time. He even gave credit space at the beginning of the films credits to honour the brave men and women of the Mujahideen... Not exactly PC at this point but... there you have it.Kyrian007 said:
On topic:
So long as the actor is an actor, it should be fine. I mean that. The strong part of the Rambo series, much like the Rocky series, to my mind, is Stalone. Not the actor, but the writer/director. There aren't many people willing or else able to do quite what he's achieved with his work. It's got heart, it's got soul, it's got philosophy and artistic integrity... and a blue collar guy with no education is as happy watching it as a college professor and both types of people walk away from it with something. You can't say that about much of anything in life. Stalone's work, to me, is like a good family film. Except instead of being fun for kids and tolerable for adults, it's fun for people of all educational backgrounds.
The best of the series was certainly the first film. But I actually like this idea of Rambo the dad. I don't know where he found time to reproduce or how his kid wound up in America ? lets be honest, he does spend most of his time abroad. But I like it. I like the premises it opens up.
You've got a situation where it could easily be not Rambo reaching out to his adult son, but the son suddenly reaching out to aged Rambo after a tour of duty. Think about it. His son, or even more interesting daughter, might have hated Rambo for never being there. Then, doing the same job the absentee parent did, might have developed a new understanding of his or her father's life, and tried to reconnect. With that in mind, you could have the show focus on any number of recent conflicts and the condition of the veterans from those conflict in the US, and even abroad. Rambo really touched on the veterans of Vietnam from a US perspective. This show gives an opportunity to do that again, but also to expand beyond that to bigger pictures. You could end up with a father son/daughter team heading to Iraq to help someone that once helped the son/daughter, or even back to Afghanistan because of Rambo's past there. The stories are infinite really and allow a great deal of introspection for both the characters and the conflicts they've seen in themselves and around the world.
I love the idea of Rambo becoming a show, especially after seeing how well the 4th instalment was done.
I agree even the third wasn't completely brainless. It's just the comparison to the first that KILLS it for me. Actually in three it was just as it was in the second, the enemy was the local warlord or guerillas and his/their communist allies. 3 seemed like just a "reskinned from Vietnam to Afghanistan" version of 2 with Trautman playing the part of prisoner to "ramp up the stakes."Namehere said:
Also, unlike you I didn't find the 4th particularly well done. Make the main character anyone but John Rambo and you just get a kind of "man with no name vs modern pirates" action movie. Yeah, it wasn't a generic seeming 80's action commie shooter. But to me it came off as just a generic vs pirates modern action thriller that they put John Rambo into the main character's role so it would sell better on name recognition. I KNOW that wasn't how the 4th movie came about... but that's just how I felt after watching it. Like it wouldn't have been much different if the main character had been an aging Ben Richards (ahhnold's character from The Running Man) instead of Rambo.
Ooohh, someone call Hollywood, I just had a revival idea.
That's funny, because I thought the 4th was better then the 2nd and 3rd. Not quite better then the first. I didn't find it too generic either. I thought his reasons for doing what he did and how and why were pretty well... reasonable. And he only fought pirates for like... a couple scenes. Most of the movie his him fighting Burmese troops. I also thought it hit an interesting philosophical point: at what point does aid cease to matter compared to intervention?Kyrian007 said:
And then there was the violence... Nothing will ever measure up to Rockford short of the news, but my god was the movie ever violent and efficaciously so.
As to the Rambo character himself... He shines in his interactions with the mercenaries to my mind. He's different, for better or worse.
I just really enjoyed it, right down to his walking home to his farm... Which seemed odd to me, I always pictured him more as a rough and tumble street punk raised in an urban setting, not a farm boy. But it worked, at least for me.
"I always felt like this kid has gotten short shrift with his role as the jilted BFF of Jennifer Lawrence's Hunger Games hero. That may be less the filmmaking behind that series and more the half-baked love triangle of the source novels,"
That's a bit unfair, there wasn't much of a love triangle cause she spends most of her time trying to not get killed rather than worrying over which guy she's going to end up with.
Also, Rambo did a lot to promote the idea that returned soldiers finding it hard to readjust are dangerous individuals society needs protection from, rather than individuals in danger society needs to protect.
That's a bit unfair, there wasn't much of a love triangle cause she spends most of her time trying to not get killed rather than worrying over which guy she's going to end up with.
Possibly, First Blood really doesn't have much of the connotations the word "Rambo" conjures up. Though a soldier being alienated once they return hasn't gone away.Therumancer said:
Also, Rambo did a lot to promote the idea that returned soldiers finding it hard to readjust are dangerous individuals society needs protection from, rather than individuals in danger society needs to protect.
No.
Stallone is Rambo. We don't need more rehashes and reboots and remakes and reimaginings and hypes and hypes and ads and brand recognition and fuuuuuuuck.
Stallone is Rambo. And there are more than enough Rambo films. Hell, Rambo has buried more of Rambo's plots and themes with Stallone, you don't need to bring out someone else to keep it up.
Why would anyone suggest Ryan Gosling as Rambo? Like, really. Come on now. Surely you are messing with us.
Stallone is Rambo. We don't need more rehashes and reboots and remakes and reimaginings and hypes and hypes and ads and brand recognition and fuuuuuuuck.
Stallone is Rambo. And there are more than enough Rambo films. Hell, Rambo has buried more of Rambo's plots and themes with Stallone, you don't need to bring out someone else to keep it up.
Why would anyone suggest Ryan Gosling as Rambo? Like, really. Come on now. Surely you are messing with us.
All horrible selections.
5) Scott Adkins
4) Michael Jai White
3) Terry Crews or anyone from the Expendables
2) Karl Urban (he did better in Dredd so why not Rambo)
1) Nobody, let the fictional life of John Rambo be at peace.
5) Scott Adkins
4) Michael Jai White
3) Terry Crews or anyone from the Expendables
2) Karl Urban (he did better in Dredd so why not Rambo)
1) Nobody, let the fictional life of John Rambo be at peace.