mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/09/86)
["Sir?" "Yes?" "Do we get to win this time?"] Boy, all this Rambo-bashing on the net is somewhat humorous. I feel compelled to defend the defenseless young man :-) >"man on the street" polls to see that. However, don't assume that every >person in the US has been "brainwashed" into the Rambo mindset. > >so that we wouldn't have looked quite so much like trigger-happy Rambo's >(or cowboys, or state terrorists, or whatever you want to call it). > >But until this right-wing, aggressive, John Wayne/Rambo/kick-their-asses >attitude swings back toward a more normal outlook, and we replace Reagan with >>> Just look at the popular movies in the >>> US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >>> etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" >> >> Those are *movies*, buddy. Get real. I don't know about you, but >>most Americans can tell the difference between reality and a movie >>fantasy. > > >I don't know if I agree. I seem to remember Reagan at various >times identifying with Dirty Harry and Rambo. I even remember him >saying once in a previous "crisis" that "I saw "Rambo" last night >and I know just what to do" (yes, this is a paraphrase but I > Many of the same attitudes about Rambo are found throughout American media and in countless private conversations. The surprising thing is that many of these opinions come from people who have seen both movies. The consensus seems to be that Rambo is a "let's go kick some ass just 'cause it feels GOOD" kinda guy. The amusing part is that proponents and opponents of this philosophy both attribute it to Rambo, when in fact John Rambo, the character in the First Blood movies, was a peaceful guy who didn't want to hurt anybody - he just wanted to be left alone and not be messed with. Rambo was actually a very admirable man - he never wanted to hurt anybody, but people kept pushing and pushing until he was compelled to respond. If people would watch the movies (especially the first one, the second was largely a shoot-em-up with lousy acting, weak plot, bad direction and stupid stunts) they should be able to see that Rambo is actually a very worthyideal to emulate - he is a peaceful man who just wants to be free to lead his life in peace - but when he needs strength and violence is the only solution - he's strong. I think this misinterpretation of Rambo speaks more towards the shallow knee-jerking types who decry violence at any cost than it does to America's violence-prone nature. On the other hand, people who *like* violence also have the same attitude towards Rambo. I guess itjust demonstrates people's needs for simple one-word images so they can pigeon-hole people and problems without really understanding them. Sad. --MKR "Murdoch - I'm coming for *you*!!!!!"
alfke@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (J. Peter Alfke) (05/13/86)
In article <818@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > If people would watch the movies (especially the first one, the >second was largely a shoot-em-up with lousy acting, weak plot, bad >direction and stupid stunts) they should be able to see that Rambo is >actually a very worthyideal to emulate - he is a peaceful man who >just wants to be free to lead his life in peace - but when he needs >strength and violence is the only solution - he's strong. That was the FIRST movie. You may have noticed that people didn't start pointing to Rambo as an example of, well, everything people use Rambo as an example of, until the SECOND movie came out. You yourself gave a fair description of that flick. The first film was based upon a (apparently pretty good) novel. The second came solely out of Sylvester Stallone's ugly little brainpan. -- --Peter Alfke "Man, Woman, Child: alfke@csvax.caltech.edu All Is Up Against the Wall of SCIENCE" --Firesign Theatre
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/19/86)
In article <475@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> alfke@cit-vax.UUCP (J. Peter Alfke) writes: >In article <818@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >> If people would watch the movies (especially the first one, the >>second was largely a shoot-em-up with lousy acting, weak plot, bad >>direction and stupid stunts) they should be able to see that Rambo is >>actually a very worthyideal to emulate - he is a peaceful man who >>just wants to be free to lead his life in peace - but when he needs >>strength and violence is the only solution - he's strong. > >That was the FIRST movie. You may have noticed that people didn't start >pointing to Rambo as an example of, well, everything people use Rambo as >an example of, until the SECOND movie came out. You yourself gave a >fair description of that flick. Yes, the second movie was a little more bloodthirsty. But remember, he didn't want to go in the first place - the only reason he did was to get out of busting big rocks into little ones. And it was a "good" cause, with no planned casualties. He was supposed to get pictures of American prisoners and leave without anyone knowing he was there. It was only after being double-crossed by his own side (Murdoch - I'm comin' for YOU) and tortured by the bad guys that he started getting nasty. He did get a little carried away blowing up innocent civilians, but most of the people he killed were enemy soldiers trying to kill him. If I were in his shoes, I would have done the same thing. (except jumping out of the water to commandeer a flying helicopter - that was too silly, and I would have refused. :-)) > >The first film was based upon a (apparently pretty good) novel. The >second came solely out of Sylvester Stallone's ugly little brainpan. > It's not ugly - it's just a little stunted. Yo Adrian! > --Peter Alfke --MKR