18 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

There is no doubt that the original FIRST BLOOD was an original, ground breaking action flick, however, has anybody noticed how the sequels seemed to structurally rip off the later Bond series?

In OCTOPUSSY (1983), Roger Moore faced off against Steven Berkoff as a mad Russian general, in film noted for it's Asian jungle settings (in this case, India.)

In RAMBO: First Blood Part II (1985), Sylvester Stallone faces off against Steven Berkoff as a mad Russian general, in an Asian jungle setting (in this case, Vietnam.)

In THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (1987), Timothy Dalton must rescue a kidnapped friend (so he thinks,) from the Russians, while allying himself with the Mujahadeen in Afghanastan.

In RAMBO III (1988), Rambo must rescue a kidnapped friend (In this case, Col. Trautman) from the Russians, while allying himself with the Mujahadeen in Afghanastan.

In CASINO ROYALE (2006), Daniel Craig must outwit a terrorist banker in a game of Hold 'Em poker.

In RAMBO (2008), Rambo must kick and take names as he rips out Burmese throats, to save a group of Christian missionaries.

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

Edited by Dr.Mirakle32, 14 July 2008 - 12:29 AM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

Yes. Bad hair.

[dinovelvet]

In CASINO ROYALE (2006), Daniel Craig must outwit a terrorist banker in a game of Hold 'Em poker.

In RAMBO (2008), Rambo must kick and take names as he rips out Burmese throats, to save a group of Christian missionaries.

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

You could make the case that :

Casino Royale was a gritty, back-to-basics do-over that stripped away the cartoonish aspects that the character had developed over the years in favour of more realistic, violent action, sparking new life into this ageing franchise

Rambo was a gritty, back-to-basics do-over that stripped away the cartoonish aspects that the character had developed over the years in favour of more realistic, violent action, sparking new life into this ageing franchise

[Safari Suit]

I think the Octopussy/FBII connection is a little tenuous, but the others have some validity. The Living Daylights one is interesting, although I imagine Rambo III was a fair way along in production once TLD was released.

[baerrtt]

In CASINO ROYALE (2006), Daniel Craig must outwit a terrorist banker in a game of Hold 'Em poker.

In RAMBO (2008), Rambo must kick and take names as he rips out Burmese throats, to save a group of Christian missionaries.

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

You could make the case that :

Casino Royale was a gritty, back-to-basics do-over that stripped away the cartoonish aspects that the character had developed over the years in favour of more realistic, violent action, sparking new life into this ageing franchise

Rambo was a gritty, back-to-basics do-over that stripped away the cartoonish aspects that the character had developed over the years in favour of more realistic, violent action, sparking new life into this ageing franchise

The difference being that whilst CR was well received by most audiences AND critics RAMBO well.....wasn't.

[AngryPolarBear]

Rambo, while not critical acclaimed or a huge box office success, was well recieved by fans of the series.

[Loomis]

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

Yes. Bad hair.

And bad films.

But, to echo AngryPolarBear, RAMBO (2008) delighted Rambo fans the way CASINO ROYALE delighted (most) Bond fans.

Many DIE HARD fans consider LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD vastly inferior to the original, and there are plenty of Indy Jones fans who view KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL as a disappointment and in no way in the same league as RADIERS. Many fans of the Cameron TERMINATOR flicks see T3 as poor.

For Stallone fans, however, RAMBO and ROCKY BALBOA were absolute triumphs, and both of them the CASINO ROYALE of their franchises, restoring quality beyond fans' wildest dreams to sagas sullied by RAMBO III and ROCKY V.

[baerrtt]

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

Yes. Bad hair.

And bad films.

But, to echo AngryPolarBear, RAMBO (2008) delighted Rambo fans the way CASINO ROYALE delighted (most) Bond fans.

Many DIE HARD fans consider LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD vastly inferior to the original, and there are plenty of Indy Jones fans who view KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL as a disappointment and in no way in the same league as RADIERS. Many fans of the Cameron TERMINATOR flicks see T3 as poor.

For Stallone fans, however, RAMBO and ROCKY BALBOA were absolute triumphs, and both of them the CASINO ROYALE of their franchises, restoring quality beyond fans' wildest dreams to sagas sullied by RAMBO III and ROCKY V.

True but for an action/adventure franchise that never captivated critics to be able to do so with a later entry (like CR), IMO, is far more impressive than captivating fans who are initiated anyway. All those franchises/characters have a wider reach than fans and my (much mentioned) problems with RAMBO is that it's preaching to the already converted and isn't (once again IMO)good enough to convince those audience members/critics into thinking that the character has turned a corner.

[Safari Suit]

Bond has never been as critically derided as Rambo (or Stallone in general) though. Heck, DAD got mostly positive reviews at the time.

[marktmurphy]

And Rambo never exactly started out that well; First Blood is decent post-pub stuff but not as profound as it thinks it is. For a sequel of a not-great film to be equally not-great (and much, much shorter) doesn't seem that incredible an achievement to me.

[Safari Suit]

I wouldn't say First Blood really aims for profoundity, it's more held up that way when people use it as fodder against the sequels, to be honest.

[dodge]

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

Yes. Bad hair.

And bad films.

But, to echo AngryPolarBear, RAMBO (2008) delighted Rambo fans the way CASINO ROYALE delighted (most) Bond fans.

Many DIE HARD fans consider LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD vastly inferior to the original, and there are plenty of Indy Jones fans who view KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL as a disappointment and in no way in the same league as RADIERS. Many fans of the Cameron TERMINATOR flicks see T3 as poor.

For Stallone fans, however, RAMBO and ROCKY BALBOA were absolute triumphs, and both of them the CASINO ROYALE of their franchises, restoring quality beyond fans' wildest dreams to sagas sullied by RAMBO III and ROCKY V.

Well put, as always. Just one small change would sum up my own position better: I believe R and RB were absolute personal triumphs for Stallone. I'm happy that he made both films. I enjoyed each one immensely--especially enjoying seeing him in top form again as a writer. Mission accomplished. One last bitter-sweet taste, with real kick, for two series that had made his bones and fortune...then did worse than just lose their luster. Now, if luck smiles on him, I'd like to see him do new, important work in the final 5-6 years wherein he might still play the lead. Move on and be Rocky again, Sly--this time with a mindblowing roll of the dice in a film that rolls of your talents in one.

[Roebuck]

Okay, so maybe that last one is a stretch, but has anyone else noted the similarities between Rambo's middle two films, and the Bond series in the 80's?

In their literary incarnations, Bond and Rambo fit into the same standard warrior role. We have two men trained by their governments as highly effective killers. Bond, like Rambo, is generally without back-up against better resourced and numerically superior opponents. Both have a level of training and physical preparedness that allows them a better chance of survival than even the best ''regular'' soldier.

Then, in their movie incarnations, they are both gradually transformed into Teflon supermen, defined by the outlandish weapons they use (Bond becomes the pilot of an invisible, rocket firing car. John Rambo takes to using exploding arrows and sporting ever larger and more impractical bits of cutlery). Eventually neither hero has much credibility with the public, though still successful on a sort of pantomime character level, and get pared back to something more closely resembling the original books.

[Loomis]

And Rambo never exactly started out that well; First Blood is decent post-pub stuff but not as profound as it thinks it is. For a sequel of a not-great film to be equally not-great (and much, much shorter) doesn't seem that incredible an achievement to me.

I keep reading the claim that RAMBO has an incredibly short running time. The IMDb gives its running time as 91 minutes, with FIRST BLOOD a whopping three minutes longer at 94. RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II clocks in at 97 minutes, with RAMBO III unfolding at a leisurely 101.

RAMBO certainly has the shortest running time of the four films, but then again there's not really an awful lot of difference, is there?

[Skudor]

And Rambo never exactly started out that well; First Blood is decent post-pub stuff but not as profound as it thinks it is. For a sequel of a not-great film to be equally not-great (and much, much shorter) doesn't seem that incredible an achievement to me.

I keep reading the claim that RAMBO has an incredibly short running time. The IMDb gives its running time as 91 minutes, with FIRST BLOOD a whopping three minutes longer at 94. RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II clocks in at 97 minutes, with RAMBO III unfolding at a leisurely 101.

Not a huge amount of difference, it seems to me.

Nope.

I think RAMBO (2008) really benefits from a short running time. It does its job (lots and lots of cool action) without trying to pad it with pretentious nonsense.

[Loomis]

I believe R and RB were absolute personal triumphs for Stallone.

Exactly. It's something that makes them unique among the recent Belated 1980s Action Hero Sequels™. For instance, signing for DIE HARD 4 didn't exactly seem a great personal achievement for Willis, and there was nothing impressive about Schwarzenegger's lazy, in-it-purely-for-the-money, self-parodic, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVERish "performance" in T3. You never felt that those guys and others were exactly putting their whole hearts and souls into their recent cash cow-milking.

I'll add that Craig's work in CASINO ROYALE was another very personal triumph, as he proved his many detractors horribly wrong. I also enjoy watching, say, Brosnan in DIE ANOTHER DAY (yes, really), but while he's great fun and a decent Bond and everything, there isn't that good old Balboaesque underdog-wins-through feeling I get from watching CR.

[dodge]

I believe R and RB were absolute personal triumphs for Stallone.

Exactly. It's something that makes them unique among the recent Belated 1980s Action Hero Sequels™. For instance, signing for DIE HARD 4 didn't exactly seem a great personal achievement for Willis, and there was nothing impressive about Schwarzenegger's lazy, in-it-purely-for-the-money, self-parodic, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVERish "performance" in T3. You never felt that those guys and others were exactly putting their whole hearts and souls into their recent cash cow-milking.

I'll add that Craig's work in CASINO ROYALE was another very personal triumph, as he proved his many detractors horribly wrong. I also enjoy watching, say, Brosnan in DIE ANOTHER DAY (yes, really), but while he's great fun and a decent Bond and everything, there isn't that good old Balboaesque underdog-wins-through feeling I get from watching CR.

Thank you. And if the following news is true--it's reported in IMDb--Sly may have used his triumph as a proper springboard:

In production, so they say, is a cable TV film called Notorious:

A film about the deaths of Biggie and Tupac, and the Los Angeles Police Department corruption scandal that lurks beneath the story...

Sly's said to be directing and starring. And, actually, I'm glad to note he hasn't written the screenplay. Let's see him focus and get back down to business.

[Loomis]

I'd be a bit careful about that one if I were you, dodge. AFAIK, it's a dead project that languished in development hell for years before ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO even went into production.

I don't know what Stallone is doing next. Of course, there's the rumoured-for-decades POE (with the Slymeister on writing and directing duties only), which I seem to recall was mentioned as an upcoming project even as far back as in a biography of Stallone that came out in the 1980s (!), and CLIFFHANGER 2. I wouldn't put money on either of those flicks actually ending up getting made, though.

There were also reports a while back of a DEATH WISH reboot/remake that he'd write, direct and star in, but that doesn't sound too exciting, if you ask me. Also rumours of RAMBO V and even ROCKY VII, but when you've been in the Stallone fandom game as long as I have you'll know that such rumours are about as credible as rumours that Brosnan will return for BOND 23.

Finally, it's rumoured that Tarantino's upcoming INGLORIOUS BASTARDS will feature a role for Stallone. I doubt it, though, but, still, given that Sly was apparently considered for PULP FICTION (the Bruce Willis role), JACKIE BROWN (the De Niro role) and DEATH PROOF (the Kurt Russell role), it may be that this time QT will finally get his man.

Personally, I'd like Stallone to do one more RAMBO (but only if he has an absolutely amazing idea for it) and a couple more (if high quality, natch) action flick lead roles, plus one or two COP LAND-style Changes Of Pace™ and interesting supporting roles - I've always felt, for instance, that he'd have been a superb addition to the cast of THE SOPRANOS.

After that, once he starts pushing 70, I'd like him to settle into an Eastwood-style directorial career.

[DR76]

Exactly. It's something that makes them unique among the recent Belated 1980s Action Hero Sequels™. For instance, signing for DIE HARD 4 didn't exactly seem a great personal achievement for Willis.

I thought it was. It turned out to be slightly better than the second and third DIE HARD films.