For starters, don't you know you need spaces between sentences? It makes your post more difficult to read and thus more irritating.
Those were just rumours that went around.
Oh, yea, because there aren't reviews on the internet written by professional film critics, casual movie viewers, credible news sources like the BBC, AllMovie Guide etc. that agree that
MIA was a ripoff. (Note: sarcasm) And there are plenty reviews advocating the opposing side (Oh, wait, there aren't any).
Bottom line is if one of these movie stole from another, someone benefits from a big lawsuit.
Right, because this isn't an overly generalized platitude that can be easily debunked:
John Carpenter didn't sue the producers of
Friday the 13th for ripping off
Halloween.
George Romero didn't sue the producers of the Italian
Zombie series for ripping off
Dawn of the Dead.
Spielberg didn't sue the producers of
Mac and Me for ripping off
E.T. or
Critters for
Gremlins.
Spielberg and Bob Zemeckis didn't sue the producers of another Chuck Norris ripoff
Firewalker for plagiarizing
Indiana Jones and
Romancing the Stone.
Taylor Hackford didn't sue the producers of
Annapolis for ripping off
An Officer and a Gentleman.
Tony Scott didn't sue the producers of
Iron Eagle for ripping off
Top Gun.
John Avildesen and John Hughes didn't sue the producers of
3 Ninjas for ripping off
The Karate Kid and
Home Alone.
Spielberg didn't sue the producers of
Carnosaur for ripping off
Jurassic Park. Jesus Christ! How many "filmmakers" ripped off Spielberg??
The producers of
Battle: Los Angeles (albeit a really bad film) didn't sue the SyFy channel for producing and airing
Battle of Los Angeles only ONE day after the theatrical release of
Battle: Los Angeles.
This list could on and on and on...
There is no way you can steal from someone's script and use it without permission. Especially if James Cameron was involved.
One, James Cameron wasn't even A name yet in Hollywood when he wrote the story treatment, let alone a big name. He hadn't even begun filming
Terminator at this point. Two, Cameron wasn't involved in the production of
Rambo 2. He only wrote the first draft of the script and Sylvester Stallone made changes to it. When the film was released, the "political" content of the movie was considered controversial. Many felt the Vietnam conflict was "altered" to look and sound heroic. Cameron commented that he only wrote the "action" and that Stallone wrote the "politics".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089880/triviaThey just switched them around because the original sequel was way better than the prequel.
Switching the release dates just illustrates the lack of faith the producers had in these films, and how badly they wanted to cash in before the release of
Rambo. This indeed helped distance the
MIA series from the better franchise.
The first one came out in November of 1984 and the 2nd one was in March of 1985. Rambo 2 was a May 1985 release.
I'm aware of that.
So techincally the Missing In Action films had to be filmed in early 1984 or even late 1983. Until there is proof just go by the release.
Sorry, I don't go by "would've, could've, should've" speculation. I go by sources that are available:
Rambo filming dates:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089880/businessMIA 1, 2 filming dates:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087727/business. Remember,
MIA 1 was filmed second and wrapped up in October. When
Rambo was finished by August.
The release dates are irrelevant when you have the production dates. This is the difference between people who support
Rambo and those for
MIA. One side can provide sources for their argument, where the other side can't.
Personally I think Missing In Action 1 was better than Rambo 2. It just felt more real.
Are you kidding me?
MIA like
Rambo was escapist entertainment. Neither film series felt "real". The differences were:
-
Rambo had much better production values.
- It starred an actor who actually had charisma and screen presence.
- And despite its cheesy facade,
Rambo's actually interestng and fun to watch... "A camp classic" - Vincent Canby,
The NY Times (
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E00E5D9133BF931A15756C0A96 3948260)
Whereas,
MIA was "so bad it defies belief, and was dull, amateurish and boring". - Derek Adams,
Time Out, New York (
http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/73277/missing-in-action.ht ml).
MIA also has not ONE positive review written for the film:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1014008-missing_in_action/Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David
reply
share
ShadowAngelx
12 years ago
You guys do know that neither Missing in Action, nor Rambo 2 was the first "Rescue POW" movie? In 1983 there was a movie called Uncommon Valor, starring Gene Hackman as Marine Colonel doing exactly that: Going back to Vietnam to rescue his brother and other POWs.
And that movie ripped of quite a lot of "The Wild Geese" from 1978. There were other basically similar moves in a WW2 setting like Inglorious Bastards (the original, not that Tarantino *beep*
reply
share
edlitz36
12 years ago
The genre is not "rescue POW" movie. It's the "one-man army" genre, indicating that the one-man army takes on a whole force of mercenaries, terrorists, guerilla warriors etc. and the hero isn't necessarily rescuing POWs. Uncommon Valor isn't the first of the genre, as it's not even a part of it. Rambo III was not about rescuing POWs, but it's still the same genre as Rambo 2 and MIA.
Rambo 2 is the first official "one-man army" flick, it was filmed before MIA 1 & 2, but MIA 1 & 2 was rushed into the theaters first because Golan/Globus ripped off Cameron's script. Oh, I'm sorry, they were "inspired" after reading the Rambo script, and filmed the first 2 no-budget MIA movies and rushed them into theaters only months before the big-budget, star-studded summer blockbuster Rambo premiered. And, of course, that had NOTHING to do with plagiarism, as Cannon Films has NEVER plagiarized any successful movie. That was a production studio with class.
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David
reply
share
Prismark10
11 years ago
MIA rips off the premise of Rambo 2 but this really is a poor and dull rip off attempt.
Its that man again!!
reply
share
utahman1971
8 years ago
What pisses me off is there are so many people making the biggest *beep* deal whether it is ripped off or not. Who the F cares? If I enjoy the movie, then I enjoy the movie, no matter if it is a rip off or not and I am not going to spend stupid research over something stupid as finding out if it is a rip off or not. Some people just thrive trying to tell others they are wrong.
This is one of the worst threads of fighting over rip offs. I love all of them no matter how bad they are. Action movies are my favorites of the 80s. Most of the time that people complain that it is a rip off, they wasted a lot of their life over this stupid arguments crap. Life is not all about debates, unless you are in court.
So many people like to argue over things for the lamest and dumbest reasons. I can care less if you or others think this is a rip off. I heard these claims on movies before and most of the time the movies and if you watch them back to back, they are not even the same story, just similar. Similar does not mean "rip off."
So a website says this or that. Do you believe everything you read online? If you do, then you are not too bright.
You're Next was claim to be a rip off of another movie. Can't remember if it is Korean or somewhere over seas movie but I watched both, both movies were similar but had not the same story or not all about home invasion. You're Next is home evasion and the other was just about a student that was bullied and took revenge on the teacher and students at a home. Not the same thing.
That is an example of people saying stupid things and claiming movies are rip offs of another.
No more IMDB boards for me!
reply
share