NCMojo

As opposed to everything that you say, to which you always add the disclaimer:

"Warning: the ideas expressed in this posting are the opinions of Rocky_Stallone alone, and in no way reflect the opinions of this thread, the other posters within this thread, the DVDTalk.com extended family, or that of any major Hollywood studio or the viewing public at large."

jaeufraser

The simple fact about Sylvester Stallone is that his popularity as a lead actor has faded. That's not an opinion...that's fact. While he was a major draw in the 80s, now he is a former star who's films do not pull in box office. Numbers don't lie. The quality of those films is, of course, subjective, but there is no denial that as an actor, he has very little box office draw.

With that in mind, you have to understand that when a Stallone movie bombs, it IS his fault. Unlike most actors where the movie is conceived and the roles filled, he is a headliner. He is an actor that studios biuld movies around, where his name is used as the marketing tool. And now, his name means very little since...people don't want to go. If anything, having Stallone star in a movie might be having the adverse affect, causing people to not want to see the movie just because he's in it. It's difficult to say, but quite frankly the straight to video cases make sense to me. You have two movies with 50 mil plus budgets. You have to understand that to release a movie theatrically costs an extra 20-50 million for prints and advertising. If the film isn't expected to make even 20-30 million total (look at Driven, 30 mil total and that was a big movie) than why take the risk? Honestly if he doesn' have a hit soon he won't be headlining mega budget projects. His choice to do Spy Kids is a good choice, as this does put him back in the spotlight. But similar to Demi Moore, who knows if he will be received again.

I love some of the old Stallone movies, but let's be honest here...save for the first couple Rocky movies, they aren't what you would call fine cinema. Rambo II is one of my favorite action movies, but it also is a downright stupid movie. That doesn't change the fact that it is extremely entertaining, but that sort of action movie just doesn't sell these days. Big burly guy shooting everybody. His image just doesn't sell anymore, and whether he'll be able to pull a john Travolta is up in the air.

Dr. DVD

Rocky_Stallone: You are correct. Low grosses do not indicate whether or not a movie is good. Unfortunately, many people and studio execs. think that they do.

That said, I must admire your almost blind devotion to Stallone. While the cases you make are very weak, you still try to make them despite overhwhelming evidence to the contrary. I really do feel that life would be easier for you if you just accept the fact that Stallone's days as big budget headliner are over and stop trying to argue to the contrary all the time.

Tyler_Durden

Rocky_Stallone

I do respect other people's opinions when they say they dislike Sly. When they disrespect a man for no apparent reason, this is what I'm doing. I demand a reason why people dislike him and most peoples opinions I see here are very biased and absurd opinions. People dislike Sly for a ridiculous reason. If they don't like his acting, fine, I could care less, but there's got to be more than a reason than that. I'm trying to get my points across that Sly is not that bad of an actor. As I said before, just because an actor chooses movies that bombs, doesn't mean their acting is bad. Their bad acting has nothing to do with how much money the movie makes.
So if Arnold's movies bomb, are you going to say it's not his fault? I'm not just talking about Sly, I'm talking about every actor.

You CAN NOT BLAME THE ACTOR of a movie that bombs, IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me explain some more, an actor is hired to do a movie because they are payed to do it and they don't know whether or not the movie will bomb or success. It is not the actors work that made it bomb, it's the directors decision, so it could be the directors fault that made the movie bomb. Not the actor. The actor has nothing to do with anything.

But keep this in mind guys, I said this before too and I will repeat again, just because a movie bombs, doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just enjoy the movie for what it is. I'm sure many of you like movies that are box office bombs.

That's true. Maybe that could be the reason that "Eye See You" and "Avenging Angelo" went straight to video. Maybe they couldn't afford to release it. Maybe they had money problems. Maybe it had nothing to do with it being a bad movie. It probably was a great movie but they had money problems to release. I do not know the real reason why those two movies went straight to video.

Now I think I'm going to have to report this thread and have a mod close it. Because this thread has gotten way off topic and this argument isn't going anywhere. People here has no respect and they can't be mature enough to respect other peoples tastes in actors like mine.

badger1997

I don't get this Rocky. It sounds, please excuse the ironic word...hypocritical to me to say you respect other people's opinions, but then you won't take their opinions at face value. You say "if they don't like his acting, find, I could care less, but there's got to be more than a reason than that." You say you respect their opinion, but then you state it as a "fact" that Sly is "not that bad of an actor." Either respect opinions on Stallone's abilities that differ from yours or just don't try to pretend that you do.

I do hate Stallone. I hate him with a vengence these days. And you know the reason? His acting ability sucks. That is my opinion. You are perfectly entitled to believe he is a good actor, but to tell me my dislike for Stallone goes beyond just what I said is ludicrous. I am disrespecting Stallone for a very apparent reason, one that you simply don't want people to have as an opinion. Mainly that many of us seem to feel Stallone couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.


C'mon. You say this every single thread in which someone rips on Stallone. It's their opinion and you're just going to have to deal with it.

NCMojo

Rocky -- so if a Sly Stallone movie does well, it is because he did such an exception job that it brought people into the theater? And if the movie bombs, well, it's not his fault because it's the failing of the writer, the director, the cinematographer, etc.?

This is sort of like an NFL quarterback. When he's winning, it's because of his brains, his arm, his leadership. When he's losing, it's because the team can't surround him with enough talent.

But if the QB throws more interceptions than touchdowns... well, after a while, you can't always blame the wide receiver who didn't finish his route, the coach who drew up a poor game plan, or the fans in the seats. Eventually, you have to point fingers at the quarterback himself.

If Sly Stallone stars in a movie that makes a lot of money, OK. I'll re-evaluate his talent. But as of right now, I cannot think of a single movie where his acting was anything more than pedestrian. This is not a criticism of the man, who I frankly could not care less about; this is an honest and open reflection on his performances over many, many films.

[EDIT] I agree whole-heartedly with Badger's comments. A mod typically closes a thread when it starts getting too personal, or too offensive -- not just because a bunch of people jump in and start attacking your favorite actor.

Rocky_Stallone

I give up on you guys. No matter how hard I try to get my points across, no one is never going to agree with me. Go ahead and disrespect a human being like Sly all you want. This thread is done and over.

Everything you people are saying about is entitled to your opinions, stop treating things as if they were a fact. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Trying to get people to realize that others have taste in things. So much disrespect and too much negativity when it comes to Sly.

From this point on, I'm going to start disrespecting and throwing my negativity toward Kevin Smith or George Lucas or any of those guys that you like on a daily basis.

"Hate" is such a strong word and it shouldn't be used. There are actors I don't like but I never throw my negative and harsh opinions at them, that is wrong.

badger1997

You haven't been paying much attention around here huh? You might want to pick somebody different because the two people you mentioned are among the people (other than Stallone) most bashed around here.

That being said, my advice to you Rocky, is to simply stop caring what others believe. I happen to like Kevin Costner and a lot of people around here can't stand him. He routinely gets bashed around here, but I simply don't get worked up about it and just let it go. You're going to be a much happier person if you just stick to what you like and don't let others affect your opinion. I never said you had to hate Stallone (in fact in a strange kind of way I respect you for keeping to your guns on this issue) but why does other people not liking him affect you so much?

Rocky_Stallone

I agree with everything you said badger, but I like to join discussions of Sly, I can't help it since he's my favorite actor. People can hate him all they want, I don't care. Just simply joining a discussion and getting my points across things.
People disliking Sly doesn't affect me.

And like you said, Badger, everyone has at least 1 actor they like that everyone else hates.

This thread has gotten way off topic and I'm a bit dissapointed in that. This was originally supposed to be about "Rampart Scandal", not about Sly's career.

monkey

You make zero sense. You are a bundle of contradictions. Stallone SUCKS. That's my opinion. Why can you get so frustrated at people who won't agree with your opinion of the man, yet no one else here could give a damn if you don't agree with them? It's about OPINION. And if you're trying to tell me that my opinion of Sly as a horrid actor is not enough to justify me not liking him as an actor...that really makes NO sense.

Rocky_Stallone

That's fine if you think he sucks, that is your opinion. Most people treat it as if it was a fact. That is what I don't like. It's very wrong to treat people's opinions as facts. What doesn't make sense if people think he so bad of an actor, they admit to liking some of his movies. Nothing wrong with that but still.

Now can this thread be closed already? People can't get over this argument and give it a rest. Now this thread is starting to get personal.

monkey

You can hate someone's acting and still enjoy some of their movies.

MurraySiskind

Just to get back on topic...Suge Knight and Sylvester Stallone starring in a movie about Tupac and Biggie, yeah, that sounds like a winner. I don't know if i've ever heard of a more absurd movie than this one. But i hope it gets made, it could be Sly's Battlefield Earth. Well, no, Battlefield Earth at least made it into theatres. So something as succesful as Battlefield Earth would be a step up for him.

"Where have you gone Clubber Lang? Our Rocky turns his lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo."

Dr. DVD

For what it's worth, I still think Stallone has acting ability and thought Copland was a vastly underrated movie. Furthermore, I think he might be able to boost his career with his run in Spy Kids 3. Problem with that is, the Spy Kids craze might be over and the lack of performance on this one, while by no means his fault, will most likely get pinned on Stallone.
He needs to find a really low budget "Big Fat Greek Wedding" type film and play someone like the main character's silly drunken brother who serves as comic relief. I probably stand alone when I say that I think Sly does have comic talent, and I laughed out loud in the theater when I saw Rhinestone as a kid.

My problem is this: you take people's opinion of Stallone and acting ability too personally. We are not telling you to accept our opinions as fact, just that you chill out a bit when we present those to counter yours. I used to spend a lot of time hanging out at a Star Wars discussion board (still go there occasionally, but don't go to the film discussion forums), and let me say that is one place where people don't know how to keep opinions and fact seperated. It got so out of hand that I had to quit discussing any of the films' shortcomings as I would be instantly flamed.
My point: don't get tensed up because some people hate Stallone with avengeance. It's their right to do so, and it's your right to defend him if you see fit, just don't expect them to change their opinions based on heated arguments. It seldom happens.

That said, I doubt "Rampart Whatever-it-is" will have much integrity if Suge Knight is a producer. Nothing to do with Sly whatsoever. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to place a link to this thread in the Mature Forum as an excuse as to why another user should let us see his GF's new fake boobies.

Rocky_Stallone

What will this thread have to do with his GF"s new fake boobies? Now that logic doesn't make any sense.

But seriously though, it also don't make sense when people bash Sly's acting ability when they haven't even seen "Spy Kids" or "Rampart Scandal" (when it hasn't even come out yet). Maybe Sly will improve his acting ability, never know unless you actually try watching it.

johnglass

Hypocrite!!! Hypocrite!!!

JNielsen

He's been acting for 30+ freakin years. If he hasn't improved by now, I doubt he will in the future.

jaeufraser

This is where you are wrong. While it is true most actors are hired to play the part, do you really think the headliner actors are hired for their acting ability? NOWAY. They are hired for their marketibility, and when they have that power they have the choice to choose their projects. Sly had that power, and only in the last recent years is it starting to be taken away, note the Universal 60 million dollar deal which died once Daylight bombed. When a studio is financing a movie based on a certain actor's marketibility, the success or failure of that film financially rides very much on the actor. Seriously, when a Julia Roberts movie does well at the box office, making 100 million dollars plus, do you really think it has anything to do with the director? No, stick a different actress in that role and the movie might make half as much. But Julia gets paid the big bucks because she can sell a movie. Same with Sly.

When an actor headlines a movie, the success and failure has EVERYTHING to do with the actor. It's marketed, created, everything with the intent of being a Sly Stallone movie. The Spy Kids thing is not a Sly Stallone movie, so honestly the success and failure of that movie does not have anything to do with him. But most of his movies...yes...his popularity, his decisions about what movie to make, mean everything towards their success. This applies to every actor. TO think that actors have no responsibility towards a movie's success is silly. They don't get paid all the mega bucks for their talent...

DVDho78DTS

Yeah, that is pretty obvious based on your responses in this thread.

Blake

Let's try and keep this thread on topic...

badger1997

But you do the opposite Rocky. You say how these movies will show he's a great actor before you have even seen them. You said in another thread that once people see "Shade" they will see he's a good actor, yet you admit that you haven't seen it, only read stuff about it. How about some consistency?

That being said, I don't know how this movie will be, but I know I personally have no interest in seeing it. I love rap music and especially Tupac, but it just doesn't sound like something that interesting. As others have said, what's wrong with the documentary. It was well-done and covered it pretty well. I just don't see a need for this movie, but if Stallone wants to do it, more power to him. I just don't think anybody should get their hopes up over this one doing anything. With Sly's track record lately, wouldn't surprise me at all if it goes direct to video.

Mittman

Rocky, just give it up man. You'll never convince the Sly haters that he is a good actor, that is just their opinion. At least you have stuck to your guns and have proven that you are indeed a loyal fan. While I am not a Stallone fan myself, I think it's cool that some people, like yourself, actually like his films. I too know what it feels like to like an actor that the majority of people on this board hate, cough*Affleck*cough.

sundog

I'm not going to harp on Stallone for the movies he makes. I won't see anything he does unless the word of mouth is absolutely incredible. It's been my experience that every one of his films that I've intially liked (not that great a number to begin with) has gotten worse with repeated viewings. But he's never going to be the reason I spend my money for a movie in any format. So more power to him. Sometimes persistence pays off.

But that's not the reason I'm posting in this thread. I just have to thank Tyler_Durden for his eloquent response to this statement (as it sums up my reaction to a "t"):

Just check summer (fall, winter, spring) movie listings from any year to disprove this theory.

isamu