52 replies to this topic

[PaulMc]

I was reading this article about Rambo and thought some of the ideals sounded familiar.

Stallone is not afraid of metaphor, of being opaque, of answering some questions with questions and other questions with a hail of bullets. What he wanted to say in the new Rambo came down to one smart speech: "Old men start wars. Young men fight them. And everyone in the middle gets killed. War is natural. Peace is an accident. We're animals." Stallone eventually cut all that dialogue out because Rambo is a silent man, and blurting out your thesis is for college papers, not movies.

...

The guy who created Rocky is a cheery pessimist who believes that despite an ugly world, you can make incredible things happen with great effort. "Rocky represents the optimistic side of life, and Rambo represents purgatory," he says. The world, Rambo realizes, is perpetually chaotic and dangerous. "If you think people are inherently good, you get rid of the police for 24 hours?see what happens," Stallone says. "I could start a war in 30 seconds. But some countries spend 100 years trying to find peace. Just like good manners, peace has to be learned."

Full article here. Stallone's new Rambo movie

[Mike_The_Barbarian]

I was reading this article about Rambo and thought some of the ideals sounded familiar.

Stallone is not afraid of metaphor, of being opaque, of answering some questions with questions and other questions with a hail of bullets. What he wanted to say in the new Rambo came down to one smart speech: "Old men start wars. Young men fight them. And everyone in the middle gets killed. War is natural. Peace is an accident. We're animals." Stallone eventually cut all that dialogue out because Rambo is a silent man, and blurting out your thesis is for college papers, not movies.

...

The guy who created Rocky is a cheery pessimist who believes that despite an ugly world, you can make incredible things happen with great effort. "Rocky represents the optimistic side of life, and Rambo represents purgatory," he says. The world, Rambo realizes, is perpetually chaotic and dangerous. "If you think people are inherently good, you get rid of the police for 24 hours?see what happens," Stallone says. "I could start a war in 30 seconds. But some countries spend 100 years trying to find peace. Just like good manners, peace has to be learned."

Full article here. Stallone's new Rambo movie

That's a nice find.
If you believe what he says or not about the 'Old men start wars...ect,' it rings true to the Rambo franchise. I watched First Blood, and thought it was a great film, but when I tried to watch one of the other Rambo movies I couldn't, it just wasn't anything like First Blood.
The new film looks like it might appear to people on these boards.

Thanks for that, Paul!

[Strom]

Thanks Paul - I haven't seen the new movie but the barbarism vs. civilization struggle is familiar.

REHupa Editor and new REH Foundation board member Bill "Indy" Cavalier posted some thoughts on the subject on the REHupa blog:

Rambo-nan

[ACertainMrDoe]

Thanks Paul - I haven't seen the new movie but the barbarism vs. civilization struggle is familiar.

REHupa Editor and new REH Foundation board member Bill "Indy" Cavalier posted some thoughts on the subject on the REHupa blog:

Rambo-nan

I've never thought about it that way, but Cavalier's statement is interesting:
"Rambo putting the fear of Crom in Brian Dennehey and David Caruso in the Oregon woods is as close to Conan as we?ve ever seen in a movie."

After thinking about it for some time and tossing the movie and the Conan stories around in my mind, I think that's a very lucid statement. I will have to watch "First Blood" again now...

[nomadic]

I was reading this article about Rambo and thought some of the ideals sounded familiar.

Stallone is not afraid of metaphor, of being opaque, of answering some questions with questions and other questions with a hail of bullets. What he wanted to say in the new Rambo came down to one smart speech: "Old men start wars. Young men fight them. And everyone in the middle gets killed. War is natural. Peace is an accident. We're animals." Stallone eventually cut all that dialogue out because Rambo is a silent man, and blurting out your thesis is for college papers, not movies.

...

The guy who created Rocky is a cheery pessimist who believes that despite an ugly world, you can make incredible things happen with great effort. "Rocky represents the optimistic side of life, and Rambo represents purgatory," he says. The world, Rambo realizes, is perpetually chaotic and dangerous. "If you think people are inherently good, you get rid of the police for 24 hours?see what happens," Stallone says. "I could start a war in 30 seconds. But some countries spend 100 years trying to find peace. Just like good manners, peace has to be learned."

Full article here. Stallone's new Rambo movie

The problem with these comparisons is that neither of these men (Robert Howard and Sly Stallone) have ever done anything but entertain folks. I know soldiers, lived among them, and they do not fight to maintain some small civility between chaos. No they fight to stop the occasional outbreak of chaos. Entertainers who live in the confines of civilization to create entertainment in relative peace need to take a hard look at their world philosophy and where they are in the world. I like Stallone but to look good for the cameras this "real" tough guy took human growth hormones.
Sounds real Spartan doesn't it?
Stallone lives in luxury due to his life pretending to be a hard case.
I think he needs to stop trying so hard to promote his movie. His pretend world is now colliding with the real one.


Rick

[Kortoso]

The movie would have been a lot more interesting and *yawn* relevant if he went back to Afghanistan or somehow met up with his old Muj buddies and found out that they had turned against the US of A. The collecting of debts in that story would be bloody indeed, and bring some of the audience to tears.

[daknight]

The movie would have been a lot more interesting and *yawn* relevant if he went back to Afghanistan or somehow met up with his old Muj buddies and found out that they had turned against the US of A. The collecting of debts in that story would be bloody indeed, and bring some of the audience to tears.

Not a bad idea at all. Maybe for the next one? The last one?

Ironically enough the speach that Stallone cut from the film is alot, I mean ALOT, like what Rambo said in First Blood THE NOVEL, on which the movie was based. Of course in the book he died.

[Borumas]

The movie would have been a lot more interesting and *yawn* relevant if he went back to Afghanistan or somehow met up with his old Muj buddies and found out that they had turned against the US of A. The collecting of debts in that story would be bloody indeed, and bring some of the audience to tears.

Actually he chose Burma because there has been a civil war there with genocide going on for the past 60 years, but no one really hears about it. If he went back to Afghanistan he likely would have found both allies and enemies in his "old friends".

[Mikey_C]

Afghanistan is becoming "the forgotten war". I think Rambo should have gone there, but it would probably just be too politically contentious...

[daknight]

True, but it is a storyline that would practically write itself well that one hopes they consider it for a next film.

[sheets75]

Afghanistan is becoming "the forgotten war". I think Rambo should have gone there, but it would probably just be too politically contentious...

Stallone has been too deeply stung by the media's need to affiliate Rambo with a political side ever since Reagon endorsed the character. He sees Rambo as an essentially apolitical character so he needed a place he could set him where he could kill bad guys without anyone accusing him of pushing an agenda or teaming up with the wrong side, so he called the editors of Soldier of Fortune magazine and asked them what the most unambiguously foul and inhuman place on Earth was, and they told him it was Burma.

[Afghan Barbarian]

Afghanistan is becoming "the forgotten war". I think Rambo should have gone there, but it would probably just be too politically contentious...

Stallone has been too deeply stung by the media's need to affiliate Rambo with a political side ever since Reagon endorsed the character. He sees Rambo as an essentially apolitical character so he needed a place he could set him where he could kill bad guys without anyone accusing him of pushing an agenda or teaming up with the wrong side, so he called the editors of Soldier of Fortune magazine and asked them what the most unambiguously foul and inhuman place on Earth was, and they told him it was Burma.

Sheets75 & Mikey_C:

Sylvestor Stallone mentioned in an interview the reason why he didn set it in Afghanistan was because he thought it was be disrespectful to the troops fighting there that a one man army can take out an entire enemy force. In the Rambo III DVD there is an excerpt where he mentions the original freedom fighters he allied with in the movie were based off of the actual forces of legendary Afghan Guerilla fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud in the valley of Panjsher (Valley of the 5 Lions).

Edited by Afghan Barbarian, 01 February 2008 - 05:56 PM.

[Kortoso]

Massoud was assassinated near the beginning of our involvement there. He was great man.

It's probably disrespectful to every troop to suggest that Rambo can wipe out any army single-handed. And who of us doesn't fantasize paying a visit to bin Laden?

[Mikey_C]

I don't think anyone's going to disagree that Burma's a s**thole. On reflection it's probably a wise commercial (whoops I mean artistic ) decision not to bog the film down in politics. There's so much mudslinging going on.

[Axerules]

Massoud was assassinated near the beginning of our involvement there. He was great man.

The Lion of Panjshir was assasinated two days before 9/11/2001. Talk about coordination. He warned Westerners numerous times about Bin laden.

I do agree with you, Stallone probably decided to make a non-political Rambo. Well said, Mikey: a "wise artistic/commercial" move.

[Mikey_C]

Massoud was assassinated near the beginning of our involvement there. He was great man.

The Lion of Panjshir was assasinated two days before 9/11/2001. Talk about coordination. He warned Westerners numerous times about Bin laden.

It shows my ignorance, but i didn't know about him. I've found a fascinating letter from him here. A straight biopic would be a good idea.

Re. Rambo - a satirical view from today's Guardian:

...I was still intrigued by the John Rambo story, and I wondered where he'd be now, seeing as we'd left him in 1988 supporting the Afghan Mujahideen. The answer - in Guanatanamo Bay - seemed too pat. Not only would it drag in the second act, it was not something that would permit me to knife a bunch of Asians in a jungle. Do they even have tree snakes there? I need to dispatch a tree snake within the first reel or I get antsy. Ultimately, Burma had the right of vibe: a ruthless Charlie-like army, a government one bandanna-swaddled man could overthrow fairly swiftly, and many indigenous reptiles. The result is Rambo 4.

PS: The Guardian's worth getting today as it has a free dvd of Battleship Potemkin. Up the Revolution!

[daknight]

"Apollo Greed?"

[deuce]

Actually he chose Burma because there has been a civil war there with genocide going on for the past 60 years, but no one really hears about it.

Hey Borumas! An excellent book about Burma, the civil war and the jadeite mines that drive the conflict is The Stone of Heaven, by Levy and Scott-Clark. The Myanmar regime that controls the mines is perpetrating unspeakable things there. There are 100,000 miners and prostitutes working the jadeite mines, forced/tricked into servitude. Heroin-addiction and AIDS are rampant.

[deuce]

Stallone has been too deeply stung by the media's need to affiliate Rambo with a political side ever since Reagon endorsed the character. He sees Rambo as an essentially apolitical character so he needed a place he could set him where he could kill bad guys without anyone accusing him of pushing an agenda or teaming up with the wrong side, so he called the editors of Soldier of Fortune magazine and asked them what the most unambiguously foul and inhuman place on Earth was, and they told him it was Burma.

Sylvestor Stallone mentioned in an interview the reason why he didn set it in Afghanistan was because he thought it was be disrespectful to the troops fighting there that a one man army can take out an entire enemy force. In the Rambo III DVD there is an excerpt where he mentions the original freedom fighters he allied with in the movie were based off of the actual forces of legendary Afghan Guerilla fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud in the valley of Panjsher (Valley of the 5 Lions).

Hey AfBar! Good to hear from you again and thanks for bringing up Ahmad Shah Massoud. I greatly admire the man and meant to mention him on this thread, but I was unavoidably detained in Greece. I'd heard of Ahmad before 9/11, but it wasn't until shortly after that (and after his assassination) that I really appreciated his greatness. As Axe noted, Ahmad tried to warn the West about the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The European Union, at least, let him come to Europe. He was not allowed to come to the United States. In frustration, Ahmad wrote a letter to the President of the United States of America, warning of the threat of the Taliban. This was in the summer of 2001. As Axe noted, Ahmad was assassinated by al-Qaeda on September 9th, 2001, two days before the attacks on the US. The Taliban and bin Laden knew that Ahmad and his Northern Alliance would be the first people the US would turn to if an assault against the Taliban was launched. I wonder if Washington even knew (or cared) if this great man had been slain.

BTW, reading these posts, it appears that Stallone is (at least slightly) more politically sophisticated than some give him credit for.