Talk:First Blood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rabid Rats??????? 2 Now that's a knife 3 Fair use rationale for Image:Rambo-1.jpg 4 Hasford's Criticism Might Refer to Sequel? 5 Critical reception

[edit] Rabid Rats???????

How does anyone know that the rats were rabid?

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian cinema task force

Would you say First Blood is Anti-authoritarian enough for this to be linked to in the see also section? After all, Rambo is a victim of police brutality and a victim of military service. This came across to a much greater extent than in the sequels.--Darrelljon 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It does have some elements of that, yeah, but I don't think Rambo himself is anti-authoritarian, though. And the message I got from the movie was not "police are bad", just that 'these' cops were bad. BTW, I've added a link to the detailed synopsis on moviecheat.com. This is my site, it's totally legit and content-based, I'm a real person and it's a real site, and I think truly worth linking from here. I've checked the rules and it shouldn't be a problem as long as it's relevant and informative, but if anyone truly has a problem, feel free to revert.Rasi2290

[edit] Now that's a knife

As I recall, the movie spurred sales of "Rambo-style" hunting knives. Would it be appropriate to mention something to this effect? I guess it'd be better if I had some kind of sales numbers, but I do recall seeing this movie (and my younger brother getting a Rambo knife.) -HiFiGuy 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rambo-1.jpg

Image:Rambo-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hasford's Criticism Might Refer to Sequel?

The "Critics' Views" section includes the following:

The writer and journalist Gustav Hasford, author of the novel The Short-Timers and Vietnam War vet, accused the film of being a dishonest portrait of the war and its veterans, calling the movie the “Triumph of the Will for American Nazis.”[5]

I read the cited newspaper interview, and it seems quite possible that Hasford is actually talking about the sequel, "Rambo: First Blood Part II," rather than the original film. The interview is from 1987, so the 2nd film had already been released; in addition, there are comments about the depiction of the country of Vietnam, which wasn't shown in the original "First Blood."

Without further evidence, it's ambiguous which film(s) Hasford's criticism refers to. Perhaps it should be moved to the article about the entire "Rambo" series, rather than this particular movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.238.208 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reception

The section on the film's critical reception begins by stating that "the film received mostly positive reviews"; it then goes on to cite a group of modern reviews of DVD releases of the film. How was the film received in 1982? I've replaced one of the reviews with Roger Ebert's take, but what about Pauline Kael, Leonard Maltin etc? What did they think about the film in 1982? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)