Well, some of you do realize that Sly did have this gangster like attitude when he was younger in the 70s through 80s. So I can see why he would be interested in this movie.

This movie is NOT the movie company's decision. This is all Sly's work. His decision. His writing and directing.

You may want someone else to do the project but this movie is all Sly's inspiration.

This is just his way of getting people interested in Rocky VI. Sly needs the public attention again.

You may disagree with everything I say, I could care less. It's just that the disrespect that Sly gets with movie fans is unreal. That is why he is aiming for a younger audience to get respect again as he did with the Rocky and Rambo franchise.

Let's just say I'm all but comfortable with Suge Knight being involved in the movie, since he's one of the main suspects in Broomfield's documentary.

The thing about Stallone is this... he was a huge star at one point. And a lot of people went to Stallone movies, and regardless of what they thought of his acting skills they enjoyed his screen presence. The Rockys (at least the first four), Rambos, etc. But starpower only buys you so many chances. People will take a chance on you when you're on top, but they will also only take so many stinkers before they have no choice but to lose interest. And while uberfans like Rocky Stallone might enjoy just about everything Stallone does, many moviegoers have been disappointed by Stallone for quite a few films.

Its the same trend that's affected Eddie Murphy and John Travolta... they've had enough flops in their careers that audiences still turn out to see them in 'good' stuff, but do not have the faith to see them in every damn movie anymore. Whereas at one point people may have thought "It's got Eddie Murphy, it's got to be good!", now the thought is "Remember Holy Man? Or Vampire in Brooklyn? This Pluto Nash flick looks like the same crap." But when something like Daddy Day Care comes out, those same audiences are saying "Well this one looks more like the stuff I enjoy, like Dr Doliitle and Nutty Professor." That's the problem with Stallone, stuff like Judge Dredd and Stop or MMWS has made audiences hesitant, and he needs another enjoyable movie to convince them to take them back. Unfortunately I don't see Spy Kids 3D as the big comeback, just because a lot of his core audience won't be seeing it, unless they have kids.

As for this film, it may help if it's good, but it'll probably be the Steven Seagal effect... if it's a hit everyone will give the credit to the popularity of rap (just like all the media outlets credited Exit Wounds' success to DMX).

Sylvester Stallone still makes movies?

Spy Kids 3-D is Sly's big comeback to the big screen, this is Sly's first big screen movie since Driven. Spy Kids is a popular franchise and the movie will help Sly get recognized again.

I pretty much agree with everything you said DRG but as I said, people saying that Sly keeps choosing bad roles is entitled to their own opinions. It's not Sly's fault if he keeps choosing movies that bombs.

It's very hard to predict whether a movie will be successful or a flop. People have to realize that.

Sly's not the only legendary actor who's career had gone downhill. Like you said, Eddie Murphy and John Travolta are two to name. There are other legendary actors who's career went to a flop... 1) Al Pacino 2) Robert Deniro 3) Arnold Schwarzenegger and many more to name.

I mean, just because an actor keeps choosing movies that bombs doesn't mean they are a talentless actor, that is entitled to your own opinion. They are all very good actors who keep choosing movies that flops and bombs.

But as for "Rampart Scandal", I think this movie will be a success. I gauruntee that rap music fans will be interested in the movie.

Yes, he keeps making movies becaues he wants to. He loves it just like every actor in Hollywood likes making movies. If you were a movie star, you would find being a celebrity addictive. Being a celebrity is hard to give up.

Absolutely! You can find his latest stuff in the "Straight to Video" section, right behind the latest Van Damme and Seagal Movies.

Stallone has also expressed interest in directing the sequel to "From Justin to Kelly," but they turned him down.

How is it not his fault that he chooses to be involved in films that flop? Is his judgment really that poor? I don't think so. But no one in Hollywood has any interest in him anymore. The days of the Seagal/Van Damme/Stallone flicks are long since past, and when Stallone tried to branch out into other roles, he proved that he just doesn't have any range.

Did I miss when Al Pacino and Robert De Niro's careers flopped? Wasn't Pacino in "The Insider," which was nominated for several Oscars? Wasn't he just in "Insomnia" last year, which received rave reviews? Wasn't De Niro in "Meet the Parents," a big money-maker for Universal? How about "Analyze This" and "The Score," both of which did relatively well.

That is a good example of how much disrespect Sly gets from the movie fans. Arnold's been choosing movies that flops and bombs too, yet everyone respects him. I agree that Sly and Arnold can act better in movies but at least they can sure entertain. People who love to bash Sly are so biased.

Is Poole a consultant on the film??

I think Sly is understimated as a writer!.

At this point of his career he has nothing to loose so he should go all out and make it as contreversial and truthful as possible. Really expose the fact the members of the LAPD were on the pay roll for Suge Knight and committing crimes in their off hours...I just hope he's got the guts to tell it like it is and not give us another sugar coated "good cop tries to fight a corrupt establishment type of movie"

How many of Arnold's recent films went straight-to-video?

You saying that no one in Hollywood has no interest in him anymore is entitle to your opinion. It's so biased that Sly haters would think that. If no one wasn't interested in Sly in Hollywood, then Robert Rodiguez wouldn't hire him for Spy Kids 3-D.

In case you haven't noticed, Sly does have a variety wide range. Action films are past his time now and he wants to try new things. That's why he decided to do films for kids and he's trying other genres.

None. But his last several movies weren't very successful in the box office. "Collateral Damage" did terrible and I have a feeling that T-3 won't do well in the Box Office either.

I don't know about Poole being a consultant of the film but hey never know he could be a part of the movie. Maybe Sly will have the real Poole do a small cameo or something.

But that's a very good post of yours, and I'm glad 1 other person besides me, gives mature respect to this movie.

And no, it's not an actors fault if they choose a movie that flops. I'm not just talking about Sly, I'm talking every actor out there. There are some movies that you may think will be very successful but when they come out, they turn out to be a flop, that's how unpredictable it can be. It's never an actors fault when they pick a movie that flops. Actors are payed for what they do, they are payed to do their jobs by acting in movies. None of them don't know if the movie will be succesful or a flop. So don't blame an actor for picking a movie that flops. They have nothing to do with box office bombings. Want to know who's fault it is? The viewers who never went to pay see the movie. So if you're wondering who's fault it is that the movies bombed/flopped, it's the viewers who never went and saw it. Go figure.

Rodriguez cast him for the camp factor, just like Ricardo Montalban in the second one.

Well, it had been said that Rodriguez thought Sly fit perfectly for the Toy Maker. He also thought Montalban will make a great grandfather for the two kids in the movie. Montalban had also been signed for the 3rd Spy Kids. I think the Spy Kids franchise are very entertaining films and a lot of fun. Steve Buscemi and Alan Cumming are great cast for the films too.

If anyone else has something to add to this debate, feel free. Just because you don't like a certain actor doesn't mean his career had gone downhill. People should show respect to these legendary actors.

I'm sure everyone in this board has a certain actor that one other person is going to hate. I'm sure every post in this thread are coming from people who like Tom Green and Kevin Smith movies.

You should respect other people's taste in things. I mean, you never see me bashing your taste in favorite actors on a daily basis do you? No.

I don't think people are trying to disrespect Sly as much as say that his time has past as being a major draw. The same will probably be said for Arnold Schwarzenegger if T3 doesn't perform well.
You blame the fact that films bomb on the people who don't go to see them, and your argument has relevance. If you take a look at Driven or any other recent Stallone effort (I haven't seen any all the way through myself, save for Driven), or even his moderately successful runs in Demolition Man and The Specialist, you will find that the script and quality level of the movie is pretty much the same level as his 80s action flicks.
Why are they not doing as well as Rambo, Rocky IV, or Cobra? Because in all honesty peoples tastes have changed . What could have been major release material back then is close to straight to video now. Stallone really did represent the tough guy who could beat everyone's arse that people appreciated in the Reagan Era.
I'm not singling Stallone out either. It has happened to many stars and will happen to more. Travolta is now in his second backslide, and Seagal is mostly straight to video now as well. I would also be willing to wager that Reese Witherspoon and Vin Diesel only have a limited amount of time before people look back at their movies and wonder: "what were we thinking?" as they recollect seeing them become hits in their time.
Bottomline: Stallone's time has passed, and while "Rampart Scandal" has me interested, I doubt he has another Rocky type story up his sleeve.

Way to contradict yourself. Why must you think everyone is bashing Stallone? The fact is, he's washed up and has been for years. What makes Stallone any better than Tom Green or Kevin Smith anyways (by the way, I hate both of those guys).

Again, that is entitled to your own opinion. Just because Sly keeps doing movies that keeps bombing, doesn't mean he should end his career. He keeps working because he loves the job. Maybe he has fans that wants him to keep working. Sly still has many fans out there that still love the guy. Actors keep working to keep their fans happy. Acting is a addictive job and it's hard to give up like I said so whether you like it or not, he will keep releasing movies, so just deal with it. He's doing it for his fans.

I didn't contradict myself on anything. You saying that he's washed up and him being a has been, is not a fact, that is an opinion coming from you. Arnold, Al Pacino and Robert Deniro keeps working and you don't diss them for it.

But as far as actors making "straight to video" releases, who cares? Big deal. It's not the end of the world. The actors may feel bummed out that the movie goes "straight to vide" but again, it's not their fault. They just move on, keep working, and act like it never happened.

It's the movie companies fault that the movie went straight to video. It's the movie companies decision whether to release a movie or not. Again, don't blame the actor on this either.

Many Stallone movies has bad scripting, I would have to agree. But hey, they are action movies. Most action movies are meant to have bad scripting and plotting. Action movies are all for in good fun. Sly fans just want to see him kicking the bad guys asses, that's what action movies are all about. Sly fans feel that Sly is a bad ass action hero.

That is why Sly stopped doing action movies and trying different things.

Most actors enjoy all the work they did. If they were in the movie, they obviously loved the script. But yeah, it's true that they could wish they were never in the movie in the future when they look back, but hey, as I said, life goes on and they act like it never happened, they just keep working.

It's not a big deal if a movie flops, they will obviously find another big hit somewhere down the road.

Here's what I want: I want a whole thread that's just Rocky_Stallone and danol discussing Stallone movies.

I think most of us know here know that Arnold's career isn't what it used to be and that T3 could be a desperate attempt to revive something that has been dead for years. I feel the same way about Stallone. The last Stallone movie that I really liked was Cliffhanger. I may give Daylight a try. But nothing else really interested me (although I heard good stuff about Copland). I think this is basically not a good time for action stars.

And we ALL are biased. An opinion which is purely objective is a contradiction in terms.

Rocky: I think I need to re-word my statement regarding people who look back and say "what were we thinking." I was referring to the people that made them hits, not the stars of the movie.

If a movie company makes a decision to release something direct-to-video, it's not because they're being evil...it's because the movie has BOMB written all over it, and they figure they'd lose less money if it simply goes straight-to-video and they don't have to make and distribute prints for something that's just going to get blasted critically and ignored by the masses.

It doesn't always mean that the movie is bad, but usually if a studio's putting it out on direct-to-video that means it can't even compete with the kind of dreck like "They" and "Extreme Ops."

So, if the movie is this bad that the studio wants to save face, then blame has to go on the actor...for the reason the movie has disaster written all over it is because A) the actors have no draw at the box-office (which obviously applies to Stallone), B) the actors did a poor job, or C) something else really stunk, in which case the blame still has to go to the actor for signing on to do some crap film.

Rocky, good to have you back. Even though I have said on many, many occasions that I think you're opinions are way, way out there... and even though I have on occasion taken the lead in the "I Hate Sly Stallone" brigade... nevertheless, the very fact that you have consistently and determinedly defended your favorite movie star, even in the face of overwhelming criticism, is something I have to commend you for. If Sly Stallone had a couple of million more fans just like you, he would no doubt again be the number one A-list celebrity that he once was, and forums like this would be rendered moot.

Having said that... I do think it is way, way premature to herald "Rampart Scandal" as the film that lands Sylvester Stallone back on the map. Let's face it -- the man quite simply does not have the acting chops to play dramatic leading-man roles, and at his age, he can no longer keep up with the high-flying kung-fu fighters that are prevalent today. He does not have the natural grace or charisma of, say, Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford. As many people in this thread have noted, the time of ALL of the big-time action heroes has passed. Arnie is looking at politics; Steven Segall is pretty much resigned to direct-to-video.

Van Damme? Isn't he reduced to doing gay porn now? I could be mistaken on that point...

PS - Suge Knight as a co-producer? (shudder) Any chance we can get OJ to star in the "OJ Simpson Story"? Shame that Dahmer and Gacy both died before they could be featured in their respective movies...

People can NOT blame the actor if the movie goes straight to video or bombs, period. It isn't their fault, period, period, period. People have to think about that.

No, that is incorrect. Movies don't go straight to video because they think it's going to bomb. Movie studios only release movies if it has good acting and a good script. "Avenging Angelo" and "Eye See You" didn't qualify. I agree that "Avenging Angelo" was a bad movie and it's something I could never watch again but "Eye See You" was very entertaining though. I thought "Eye See You" could have a chance but it didn't.

Would you people please accept that the fact that when you say "Sly has bad acting chops" is ENTITLED to your own opinion? Please, for once. A lot of you like to treat it as a fact which is really an opinion.

That is true that OLD action heroes are past their times now, that is why a lot of them has settled down to do more drama films. But really though, age does not make a difference when doing action movies.

It really doesn't matter if a movie bombs or flops, it's all about entertainment. Just enjoy a film for what it is. Who cares if it bombs or flops. Just because a movie is a bomb, doesn't mean it's bad.

It's been said here that many of the 80's generation A list actors
are not what they used to be (Arnold, Sly, Van Damne, ect).
This is true for just about every actor. I can't think of any actor
that has been able to maintain the box office superiority over a
sustained period of time. Sly and Arnold ruled the box office in
the 80's and early 90's as did a few others like Ford, Murphey,
Gibson, Cruise ect. This isn't to say that they still can't sell a
movie today, but audiences are much more skeptical and
judgemental (look at most posters at dvdtalk) so there's few
garauntees any more. Now the actors have to rely much more on
the strength of script and the filmakers behind the scenes.

There will always be stars at the peak of their game making
money for the studios shelling out the dough. I would say that
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Will Smith and Russell Crowe are
currently in that catagory.

But are those older Hollywood draws has beens? By no means
as long as they pick good material, surround themselves with
good filmakers and give a good performance then their
movie should sell.

Actors that are usually consistantly good (maybe 80% success)
would be Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, DeNiro, Pacino, Washington,
Bruce Willis. They usually do good movies, not all of them are
blockbusters however.

Sly is going through a Travolta phase right now, will he pull out of
it like Travolta did in Pulp Fiction? Will he maintain if he does pull
out of it like Travolta hasn't? I don't know, I'm rooting for him as
I like all of those guys from the 80's they were cool then.

Jason

You could not be more wrong. You think movie studios only release things with good acting and a good script?

It's a BUSINESS. Money is the bottom line. If some stupid crappy Scooby Doo movie is going to make $150 million, it will be released no matter if studio executives acknowledge it's crap.

Ideally, studios are only going to be greenlighting good films, but then there's been so many crappy movies which make a lot of money that go against the theory that the public spends money on good films.