First Blood / Rambo: First Blood Part II / Rambo III 4K UHDs (1982-1988)

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It made $45 mil domestic. $113 was fantastic for a reboot of a dead franchise with an over the hill action star who hadn't had a hit in a decade. Rocky 6 was a bigger hit with $155 mil worldwide off a smaller budget, but both films did respectable numbers.

And that's realistically probably as good as could have been hoped for. The major theatrical audience just isn't there for these films anymore. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, etc., are all still loved, but mainly at home, and by an older audience. The youths who go to the cinema today want to see truly big stars like, er, Ryan Reynolds and Seth Rogen. Sad, but true.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

I’ll take it over and what gets released today. It works as great entertainment and grit with something to say. It’s not any less sophisticated than Terminator or Die Hard. Which are rightfully considered classics.

My problem with First Blood is that if you try to take it all too seriously it's shortcomings are all too apparent. Conversely, you simply can't take the sequels seriously, which is why they work better as entertainment. They are what they are: Loud, dumb, and fun. First Blood works in parts -- the opening act is especially strong and Stallone's speech at the climax is genuinely moving (though the liberal critics were too busy laughing at it). But the director loses his grip along the way and what could have been a powerful action-drama becomes merely a pretty good one. Stallone actually rectifies some First Blood's issues in his own Rambo (IV), which is why it's - for me - the best in the series.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My problem with First Blood is that if you try to take it all too seriously it's shortcomings are all too apparent. Conversely, you simply can't take the sequels seriously, which is why they work better as entertainment. They are what they are: Loud, dumb, and fun. First Blood works in parts -- the opening act is especially strong and Stallone's speech at the climax is genuinely moving (though the liberal critics were too busy laughing at it). But the director loses his grip along the way and what could have been a powerful action-drama becomes merely a pretty good one. Stallone actually rectifies some First Blood's issues in his own Rambo (IV), which is why it's - for me - the best in the series.

Most movies have flaws. Even Taxi Driver.... It’s one of the better movies from an artistic point of view, but it’s not the entertaining, and an entertainment biz is what Hollywood is. From an entertainment stand point it is flawed.

I do think sometimes people can get too caught up in the artistic side of filmmaking and forget that’s about entertainment.

I do agree that FB is flawed, but I’d still give it an 8.5/10.

[Noremac Mij]

First Blood is a masterpiece and so is Rambo II. Some of the best movies ever made. They have no flaws.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

First Blood is a masterpiece and so is Rambo II. Some of the best movies ever made. They have no flaws.

At least and that is what really matters to me and for others too, they have no flaws. However there is not exist a movie that everyone likes.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

people can get too caught up in the artistic side of filmmaking and forget that’s about entertainment.

Likewise, sometimes people fail to see how cinematic artistry can be entertaining. "Artsy" is not mutually exclusive with "entertaining." Rather, artsy might best describe how a film goes about being entertaining to the film's admirers. Crass or kitsch might be other ways.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

First Blood is a masterpiece and so is Rambo II. Some of the best movies ever made. They have no flaws.

Part 2 has script issues

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Part 2 has script issues

It’s a Jim problem, right?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Lol you’re so ridiculous.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Lol you’re so ridiculous.

If you only knew who Agen Kay is and how many socks he has...

[indisposed]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, $113M worldwide ain't great. They just about scraped back the budget although they probably pre-sold a lot of the foreign rights anyway.

Millennium Films probably did well out of it... but the foreign distributors... maybe not so much. I know in this country it didn't stand much of a chance, because Odeon (at the time the U.K's largest cinema chain) boycotted the film due to Sony demanding too much of a percentage.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, $113M worldwide ain't great. They just about scraped back the budget although they probably pre-sold a lot of the foreign rights anyway.

Exactly this. Barely recouping your budget + marketing costs is the farthest thing in the industry from a success. Nobody gets into investing with the hope of just breaking even.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Archivy

Likewise, sometimes people fail to see how cinematic artistry can be entertaining. "Artsy" is not mutually exclusive with "entertaining." Rather, artsy might best describe how a film goes about being entertaining to the film's admirers. Crass or kitsch might be other ways.

Citizen Kane - Great Art, but poor entertainment .
Days of Heaven - Good art and great visuals, but not good entertainment.
12 Angry Men, There Will Be Blood or Raging Bull - Great art and great entertainment.

There are other examples of course. But I do agree that movies with more artistic goals can also quality as entertainment. Entertainment just doesn't cover stuff blowing up or blood getting splattered everywhere.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

If you only knew who Agen Kay is and how many socks he has...

Just one account at a time.
I don't need fake back up

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by indisposed

Millennium Films probably did well out of it... but the foreign distributors... maybe not so much. I know in this country it didn't stand much of a chance, because Odeon (at the time the U.K's largest cinema chain) boycotted the film due to Sony demanding too much of a percentage.

I vaguely recall something about that. As you say, Millennium likely made out like bandits with the pre-sales but when those local distributors ended up making peanuts it's enough to put people off putting money into another one for a good long while.

[StrayButler91]

At least Rambo 4 was released at a time when home video was still profitable. It was on the decline due to the rise in piracy, but distributors would have still made bank from DVD and BD sales ($42M in domestic DVD and Blu sales, and who knows when that was last updated).

Wondering what the budget for Last Blood is. It looks slick and expensive in the trailer, so fingers crossed they did spend a buck or two. The last thing we want is a cheapie with the same pedigree as the Escape Plan sequels.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by notops

Exactly this. Barely recouping your budget + marketing costs is the farthest thing in the industry from a success. Nobody gets into investing with the hope of just breaking even.

That's why all those Van Damme, Lundgren, and Seagal movies go straight to DVD. They would make less at the cinemas than they cost to make, but if cheap enough can find a profitable home on video. Rambo may not have been a hit by the standards of today's box office, but by the standards of what it is - a dying breed of film starring a dying breed of actor - it did pretty well.

[Geoff D]

All true, but as I said that's also why there's been such a long wait for another one: it wasn't some amazing breakout hit either and the only money the producers could muster in the interim would've amounted to DTV trash *cough* Escape Plan sequels *cough*. So it's taken a good long while for the finances to come together to make Last Blood.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Markgway

That's why all those Van Damme, Lundgren, and Seagal movies go straight to DVD. They would make less at the cinemas than they cost to make, but if cheap enough can find a profitable home on video. Rambo may not have been a hit by the standards of today's box office, but by the standards of what it is - a dying breed of film starring a dying breed of actor - it did pretty well.

They actually do play in cinemas overseas. The European countries - especially the former USSR holdings - can't get enough of the old action stars from the 80's and 90's and the films are often made in those places, so they get tax rebates and financing and other perks. I can't really say if they make their budget back since the budget figures are usually not publicized, but they keep getting made, so someone somewhere is making money.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

All true, but as I said that's also why there's been such a long wait for another one: it wasn't some amazing breakout hit

I don't think anyone was suggesting that, were they?

It did good for what it was is all.

In 1991 Terminator 2 was the number one box office hit of its year.

In 2019 Dark Fate will be lucky to scrape top ten.

Loyal fans will still go see Stallone and Schwarzenegger... they're just increasingly thin on the ground. Back in the day everyone wanted to see them. They were the mainstream.