SHP Forums

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:45 am
Yep. 'Cos if you never saw Stallone's face, how would you know it was him? And how would you know what a beautiful job the makeup artists and hairstylists did on him?

Please ... spare us.

To paraphrase a Kelly LeBrock shampoo commercial from the mid-'80s: Don't hate him because he's beautiful...

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:45 am

Tawmis wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:23 pm The... "Judge Dredd" that Stallone did... he RARELY wears his helmet. Sigh. (And it's more... comedic... double sigh...)

Yep. 'Cos if you never saw Stallone's face, how would you know it was him? And how would you know what a beautiful job the makeup artists and hairstylists did on him?

Please ... spare us.

It's more about "we paid for Stallone, we're going to show Stallone." It's why in lots of movies where characters should be wearing helmets or masks they don't because they want to show the actor's face. If they aren't going to show the actor's face, they didn't need to pay for the actor to be there in-person. At most they could've paid for the actor to do voice work, which costs a lot less for the studio.

They got around this issue in the MCU with Iron Man by showing Iron Man's full suit (including the helmet) in many shots, but also an in-helmet view (with HUD) to show Robert Downey, Jr. at times as well. I love the details to the HUD, such as how the text looks backwards to us (the viewers), but that means it'd be facing the correct way for Tony Stark see and read in the movie.

Hmm ... speaking of movies, I'm just wondering: how come bald actors never get to play the hero, but always play either nerds or comic roles? *shrug* Danny DeVito springs to mind. I don't think I've ever seen him playing anything but second banana (e.g. to Ah-nold, in Ah-nold's 'comedy' movies like "Twins"). Yes, he does play dramatic roles (e.g. in "Get Shorty" or "Heist"), but most of the time he plays comic roles ... but I guess he doesn't mind, seeing as he plays so many of them.

But yes, why can't the "hero" role also be funny from time to time? *shrug* If you look at "hero" roles (e.g. Indiana Jones, any of the Stallone/Ah-nold roles), the "hero" hardly ever cracks a joke, or even smiles (except when someone else says something funny). Why?

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:46 pm Hmm ... speaking of movies, I'm just wondering: how come bald actors never get to play the hero, but always play either nerds or comic roles? *shrug* Danny DeVito springs to mind. I don't think I've ever seen him playing anything but second banana (e.g. to Ah-nold, in Ah-nold's 'comedy' movies like "Twins"). Yes, he does play dramatic roles (e.g. in "Get Shorty" or "Heist"), but most of the time he plays comic roles ... but I guess he doesn't mind, seeing as he plays so many of them.

But yes, why can't the "hero" role also be funny from time to time? *shrug* If you look at "hero" roles (e.g. Indiana Jones, any of the Stallone/Ah-nold roles), the "hero" hardly ever cracks a joke, or even smiles (except when someone else says something funny). Why?

Oh. You're right.

Wait.

The guy... the one... in charge of a starship... major TV series.... captain guy... bald... Pick-hard or whatever?

Who also happened to play, Charles Xavier, leader of the X-Men in a number of movies...

Danny DeVito, I think is more in the comedic role, not because he's bald, but because of his weight. "Over" weight people always tend to land comedic roles. Such as Danny DeVito, Jack Black, John Candy, etc.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:46 pm Hmm ... speaking of movies, I'm just wondering: how come bald actors never get to play the hero, but always play either nerds or comic roles? *shrug*

I don't know where you've been, but bald actors have been playing hero roles for decades now. Actors like Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Tom Hardy, Yul Brynner, Michael Clarke Duncan, Michael Ironside, Bruce Willis, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Ben Kingsley, Samuel L. Jackson, John Malkovich, Ving Rhames, and Patrick Stewart.

Admittedly, some of those actors weren't bald at the start of their careers and lost hair over time, but that hasn't stopped them from getting leading roles.

If you want to include TV shows, we've got actors like Bryan Cranston and Dean Norris from Breaking Bad or Mike Colter as the lead character in Luke Cage, and we could even include Millie Bobby Brown during the first season of Stranger Things.

I'm sure I've missed a ton of other actors as well, because having a bald protagonist (or at least other main characters) is quite common today. Maybe if you're limiting your results to the 1980s you won't see many, but that's a relatively narrow window.

Also, I think you're way off the mark because the "nerd" or "comic relief" roles are usually relegated to those who're overweight, wear glasses, or both. Hair isn't a consideration at all.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:46 pm Danny DeVito springs to mind. I don't think I've ever seen him playing anything but second banana (e.g. to Ah-nold, in Ah-nold's 'comedy' movies like "Twins"). Yes, he does play dramatic roles (e.g. in "Get Shorty" or "Heist"), but most of the time he plays comic roles ... but I guess he doesn't mind, seeing as he plays so many of them.

Danny DeVito is a comedy actor first and foremost, so of course he's going to appear in mostly comedic roles! Plus, DeVito is unusually short and quite overweight, so the chances of him getting a serious role (let alone a role where he's an action hero of all things) is slim-to-none.

Sure, some actors and actresses can transition from one genre to another, but most of them have a lot of difficulty getting roles in genres they aren't known for because studios are hesitant to take a risk. Most of the time, the studios are right because often audiences won't accept it.

That goes both ways, as some serious or action-oriented actors have tried their hand at comedy (and some have done pretty well overall), but audiences generally didn't like it, so they stuck with their original genres.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:46 pm But yes, why can't the "hero" role also be funny from time to time? *shrug* If you look at "hero" roles (e.g. Indiana Jones, any of the Stallone/Ah-nold roles), the "hero" hardly ever cracks a joke, or even smiles (except when someone else says something funny). Why?

Have you ever actually watched an Indiana Jones movie?

The Indiana Jones films may not be comedies, but there's definitely humor in there, some of which comes from Indiana Jones himself. It really depends on the movie. Raiders of the Lost Ark was the most serious (although there was some comedy) whereas The Last Crusade was far more comedic. Temple of Doom was... well, it's the black sheep of that family, even more so than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which itself was more comedic than RotLA, and probably on par for comedy with TLC).

Beyond that, Schwarzenegger has clearly done action-comedy (The Last Action Hero and True Lies, the former being a parody of action films and the latter being a parody of spy films) and even some pure comedy, such as Twins or Kindergarten Cop. Stallone has also done action-comedy (Demolition Man or Cobra, the latter of which is a satire than many people took seriously) and pure comedy, such as Oscar!, a film that I think you'd actually like quite a bit.

Sometimes I wonder if posts like these are just attempts to get conversation going, because the alternative is that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Hmm. All right, then. Going to the movies hasn't really grabbed me for a long, long time (especially action films). I think the last film I saw was "The Hobbit".

I tried watching Stallone's and Schwarzenegger's comedy films, but didn't particularly like them.

And yes, I've watched all three Indiana Jones movies. (Haven't seen Crystal Skull, not sure if I missed anything). I can't remember many (if any?) humour moments in between the attention-grabbing action sequences, the fights, the flights, and Harrison Ford driving a tank (or being carried by a tank?). I'm sure they're there, but I can't remember them -- aside from John Rhys-Davies, who still makes me laugh. ("A British Tar is a Soaring Soul" etc.)

Temple of Doom ....... sheesh. I saw that one in the cinemas in the 80s, and then again several years ago. I don't remember any humour there.

The Last Crusade? All I can remember that made me smile is Ford and Connery both saying "Yes?" when addressed as Dr Jones, Indiana getting Hitler's signature (more tense than funny), parts of the zeppelin ride, and Connery revealing where Indiana's name comes from.

I tried watching "True Lies", "Twins" and "Kindergarten Cop", but to me they just weren't funny. *shrug* Sorry. Haven't seen "Last Action Hero". I haven't seen any of Stallone's action-comedies, either, because sometimes I can't understand a word he says. *shrug*

On the other hand ...

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:40 pm ...Oscar!, a film that I think you'd actually like quite a bit.

... I just watched a short extract from this film, and it looks quite good. I'll see if I can find the DVD. (Yes, fat chance of that, I know) :-\

I quite liked Don Adams as Maxwell Smart, though. He acted it straight (no hamming or mugging),and relied on the great scripts and good sight gags. Very funny.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:06 am I tried watching Stallone's and Schwarzenegger's comedy films, but didn't particularly like them.

TANGO & CASH is excellent!

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:06 am And yes, I've watched all three Indiana Jones movies. (Haven't seen Crystal Skull, not sure if I missed anything). I can't remember many (if any?) humour moments in between the attention-grabbing action sequences, the fights, the flights, and Harrison Ford driving a tank (or being carried by a tank?). I'm sure they're there, but I can't remember them -- aside from John Rhys-Davies, who still makes me laugh. ("A British Tar is a Soaring Soul" etc.)

Indiana Jones has timing comedy....! Like a lot of sequences that happen to him.

And ... I just watched "Oscar!" (apparently it's on YouTube? Everything is available on YouTube these days), and I quite liked it. Reminded me quite a lot of Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" (complete with little black bags taken up to 11). With Harry Shearer, Tim Curry, Don Ameche, and a host of other fine actors and actresses ... and I even understood everything Sylvester Stallone said.

Thank you, DPX.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:15 am And ... I just watched "Oscar!" (apparently it's on YouTube? Everything is available on YouTube these days), and I quite liked it. Reminded me quite a lot of Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" (complete with little black bags taken up to 11). With Harry Shearer, Tim Curry, Don Ameche, and a host of other fine actors and actresses ... and I even understood everything Sylvester Stallone said.

Thank you, DPX.

Cool! That movie is generally pretty difficult to find, so I'm surprised it was on YouTube, but at least you got to see it.

Maia and I have it on DVD (good luck trying to acquire a legitimate Blu-Ray copy) and it's honestly one of our favorite films.

I don't know why it was so hated at the box office and why critics blasted it. Sure, it's not your normal movie format (it honestly reminds me more of a play or theatre production) and it's certainly not Stallone's normal fare, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Oh well. A lot of people seem to despise anything that isn't immediately familiar to them, so maybe that was the problem.

DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:26 pm

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:15 am And ... I just watched "Oscar!" (apparently it's on YouTube? Everything is available on YouTube these days), and I quite liked it. Reminded me quite a lot of Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" (complete with little black bags taken up to 11). With Harry Shearer, Tim Curry, Don Ameche, and a host of other fine actors and actresses ... and I even understood everything Sylvester Stallone said.

Thank you, DPX.

Cool! That movie is generally pretty difficult to find, so I'm surprised it was on YouTube, but at least you got to see it.

Maia and I have it on DVD (good luck trying to acquire a legitimate Blu-Ray copy) and it's honestly one of our favorite films.

I don't know why it was so hated at the box office and why critics blasted it. Sure, it's not your normal movie format (it honestly reminds me more of a play or theatre production) and it's certainly not Stallone's normal fare, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Oh well. A lot of people seem to despise anything that isn't immediately familiar to them, so maybe that was the problem.

You're right, it does remind me of a theatrical production. (The puppet singing "Largo al factotum", aka Figaro's song, at the start even gives you a clue - he's singing it at a theatre.)

The constantly swapping bags, the cases of mistaken identity and the reveals - e.g. Theresa really is his daughter, and Oscar arriving at the end - remind me of theatre too. They especially remind me of Oscar Wilde, and "The Importance of Being Earnest" (one of my favourite plays). If you haven't seen it, I recommend it highly.

As for why the critics blasted it and the audiences hated it ... as you said, maybe they were expecting Stallone to shoot somebody (like he did in the various Rambo films). But who cares what a bunch of critics think? It's a good story and a funny film. That's all that matters. I give it bonus points for all the attention to detail: the costumes (especially Sly's spats - very 30s). And the language! All the little idioms, like "Mush!" Again, very 30s. (But then, no-one would believe it was the 30s if Stallone was using early 90s slang, right?)

On a different note, if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend watching First Blood. It's the first Rambo movie, but the title confuses a lot of people because it doesn't mention Rambo. It's actually based on a novel of the same name by David Morrell, a Canadian-American author, who was inspired to write the novel by hearing about the experiences of his students who had fought in Vietnam.

First Blood is VERY different in feel, theme, and tone than the following Rambo movies. A good part of that is it's not really an action film. Sure, it has action in it, but it's really more about a Vietnam vet (John Rambo) dealing with PTSD, mourning the loss of fellow soldiers he fought alongside, and feeling like there's no place for him in the world, which is made worse by small town police harassing him and initially attempting to kick him out of town for simply walking through and looking for a bite to eat.

You actually feel bad for Rambo, but at the same time, recognize that some of the conflict was in fact brought on or exacerbated by his own actions as well. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" (beyond intolerance of others and police abuse) like in the following films which turn into "good vs evil action flicks."

It's not a happy film, but unlike other Rambo movies, it doesn't glorify war or violence and in some ways actually fits today's socio-political landscape just as well as it did back in 1982.

Also... it's easy to understand Stallone in this movie, although that might be because I'm American. The only time I've found Stallone really difficult to understand is in Rocky, but that was because the character spoke like that, not Stallone.

Yes,I saw "First Blood" a few years ago when one of the channels here was running a Rambo marathon. (I hadn't seen any Rambo films in the movie theatres, because I was too young for them at the time).

I agree with your assessment: the second and third films are a blow-'em-up, shoot-'em-down, good-vs-evil slugfest. But the first film isn't. (Bonus: the sadistic sheriff is portrayed by the late Brian Dennehy, a very good actor).

I did feel bad for Rambo in the first film. It's easy to recognise that he's dealing with PTSD and feeling out-of-place. Then the brutality and abuse he faces eventually drives him over the edge. I can't help feeling that was the experience of thousands of Vietnam vets, and maybe WW2 and WW1 returned soldiers as well.

No, it's not a happy film and it doesn't glorify war or violence. Having said that, well ... I don't know if it's a realistic depiction of PTSD, but it feels realistic. The images flashing on the screen that depict Rambo's thoughts are -- I don't know -- it's hard to explain, but even if it's not realistic, it feels like it should be. I hope that makes sense, I can't think of any other way to say it.

I also agree with you that it's easy to understand Stallone in this movie. I can't remember him saying much, and I don't remember his tirade at the end (not word for word), but I can easily picture it and I remember the gist of the movie: that returned soldiers with PTSD were victimised and treated like dirt. *sigh* It's very sad, but also realistic.

Too bad the other two movies reduced it to an action-fest, but that's the way things go.

Found a small B&W of one of my all time favorite covers.
Quality made it difficult to color, but was fun to do today, regardless.

Found some old ones I'd colored that I feel like I wanna go back and redo...

I did this Longshot coloring like a few weeks ago. I like how it turned out.