Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Enterprise is Great, Aug 21, 2013.
They already did.
The cop version wasn't very good.
Pfft, TNG did it first.
I could see that as a movie, just not a Rambo movie. Hell, Stalone could be in it and it would be fine, just not a Rambo movie.
I never saw it.
In fairness, I think Sly has had the rights for a long time and has tried to make it as a standalone movie. The studio wouldn't fund it but eventually said 'we'll give you the money if you re-tool it as a Rambo movie.' So, wanting to make it, he agreed to their terms. To his credit, when he saw the backlash from Rambo fans, he agreed that it wasn't a good idea to turn Rambo into a sci-fi series and nixed the idea.
Rambo is a period piece, plain & simple. The sentiment of the concept is outdated. The character concept is that he's a jilted, emotionally damaged, rogue ex-commando, with a war hero's record, who no one respects as such. Long hair or not, if people saw a man today who had clearly been in the service, nobody would be dumb enough to treat him like shit
So the notion of making a show about him in post-Vietnam USA is I'll conceived. The only show that would work at all is either one set during the war, or one set many years later when he's the boat ferrier from the last movie, wandering foreign lands, when his history beyond being a war machine is long behind him
Frankly, a Bourne series with a recast Jason Bourne would be much more relevant.
If he had gone through with this perhaps Far Cry: Blood Dragon would never have been made.
Sadly, that's not so clear cut. There are always those who are so deranged that they will heap scorn on any member of the military - even those who need help the most. So if Rambo were to be rebooted as a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan, and returned home with the scars earned thereby, he'd still find shit being aimed at him just like in First Blood.
I don't agree. Controversial as the wars of the last decade or so have been, they didn't divide the American nation as much as Vietnam did. And, for the most part, the actual troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan were not criticised as much as the leadership (though I've read that the stories of soldiers returning from Vietnam to be spat on or have blood thrown on them were exaggerated anyway). Having said that, there are sadly many veterans of the last decade suffering from PTSD and the like and I'm not seeking to downplay what they may have undergone.
Also, in writing Rambo, David Morrell was putting together the hostility to veterans with the hostility to the counterculture and hippies; Rambo looked like a hippy in FB, not a military man, and this in part annoyed the small-town sheriff in that story. I don't think that there's quite the same schism or coming together of factors today as there was at the time that Morrell wrote First Blood.
Then again, a TV network might be quite happy just to have the character of a tough but traumatised green beret war veteran and 'update him for a new generation', so what do I know?!
I think it's just as bad. There is a HUGE amount of controversy over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that is never, ever going to stop. And of course the troops are just caught in the middle.
As for the original film, I found something interesting: the small town sheriff is a veteran of the Korean War - he is just as decorated, if not more so, than Rambo was. And that's another source of conflict - the sheriff is kind of jealous that everyone has forgotten Korea but Nam is still fresh in their minds.
^ I don't deny that the last 2 wars are divisive but are troops really being looked down on as a result? I'm not American so I can only offer an outsider's view. However, I do get the impression that, whatever their views on Iraq or Afghanistan, the American people are largely supportive of their soldiers. That's the view from over here anyway but obviously I'd yield to an American perspective on it (and would quite like to hear one, actually).
Yeah, the troops are generally held in high regard here in America. Since the first gulf war there has been a real effort to make sure what happened in Vietnam was not repeated. At one point it went a bit overboard portraying them almost as blessed fighting angels or something. I'd say at this point they're seen as doing a very dangerous job and performing a noble and important duty protecting their country. Not everyone agrees with the wars but there's very little backlash against people for serving.
My Vietnam vet father would set you straight on that. More than likely the people saying that are the people who did the most spitting.
^ Fair enough. As I say, it was merely something I read. I don't deign to know better than those who actually went through it.
Separate names with a comma.