Talk:First Blood

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Rabid Rats???????
How does anyone know that the rats were rabid?

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

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)
 * Maybe just say that "The movie spurred sales of "Rambo-style" knives, with compass, thread & needle etc equipment inside the handle as seen in the film. Mostly these knives were more like toys, with dull edge."--RicHard (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one myself. It is a fragile knife, and the blade broke off when I used it to cut some 1/4 inch thick vines growing around a tree. It broke because the tang of the blade is simply a 1/4 inch bolt which attaches by a nut through a hole in the hilt. The hole is slotted to prevent the blade from turning but the nut still loosened even before the blade broke off so I had to keep tightening it or the blade would be lose. I've thought about welding the blade to the hilt but I don't think I could rely on such an unreliable knife. Neat idea but impractically fragile because the blade has to attach to a hollow tube "hilt" with a nut, and bolt rather than with a solid tang bolted to a proper hilt. Another problem with such mean looking "saw tooth" blades is that the saw teeth side gets the blade stuck in anything you stick it in. It's a mean looking "action movie" knife. A more practical design would be to have a proper knife, and the extras in a pouch in the scabbard. Also such blades designed to cause excessive damage have been illegal in combat according to treaties, and rules of war since before World War One. See the movie "All Quiet On The Western Front". A soldier is reprimanded by the sergeant (Ernest Borgnine), and told it's illegal to even have the knife. 98.164.71.229 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)


 * Good questions. I'll take this one and get back to ya. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't find a damn thing. I did find the Ebert article, but that's about it. One would have to go to a film library to research this...I don't think the original reviews are archived online anywhere..but I could be wrong.  Johnny California 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

Plot way too long
The plot should be between 400 and 700 words to meet wikipedia's quality standards (see WP:FilmPlot). I'm going to work on cutting the fat. Johnny California 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long and too loose
There are so many errors of usage and interpretation here that after about half a dozen emendations I finally threw in the towel when I came across this: "He rams the car into an [abandoned] car, which explodes and overturns[it.] Rambo returns to town, crashing [it] into a gas station. He [blocks the highway to anyone in pursuit] by igniting [the] spilled fuel, also [destroying] the stolen truck. Armed with an M60 machine gun, Rambo destroys a sporting goods shop and a few other businesses [in an attempt to confuse Teasle and identify his position] before spotting him on the roof of the police station." The brackets indicate either solecisms or misreadings. This film deserves better than this.

Hope or not Hope
I felt in Plot the info about Filming Locations was not needed there, are mentioned in more detail in Production, so I made the change. --RicHard (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Animal cruelty?
http://web.archive.org/web/20011004065149/www.ahafilm.org/alphabet/f.html This page of my source deems the movie unacceptable in regards to animal wellbeing. Any information on the movie for when this happens, or what exactly is done to animals? --Kishona (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Theres a scene where dogs get killed off screen. Could that be it? 209.40.209.76 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo hunts a wildboar(?) with his knife ( -What's this for? -Hunting -What do you hunt with a knife? -You name it ); Rats are swimming in the depts of the mine when he is looking a way out.--RicHard-59 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Soviet Rambo"?
I do remember there was kind of a Soviet Rambo movie. It was published some time after the release of the first Rambo movies. A "daring Soviet marine" with white and blue stripped shirt was fighting "evil American soldiers" on a tropical island. Has anyone any idea what this movie is called? I just don't remember. It was an obvious reaction to Rambo I or II. The movie was so campy that it might be real good fun to review it after all these years... --Nemissimo (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arent the book and film just a re hash of "The Brave Cowboy/Lonely are the Brave"? Far too many similarities-or did the Rambo film take bits from the later book and earlier film? 82.37.67.90 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Teasle's injuries
Two contributors think Teasle's injuries at the end of the film weren't life threatening. Can someone with medical knowledge verify that? He appeared to be shot in at least 3 places, including the chest or lungs, and also fell through glass on to his back. He probably has spinal injuries and a punctured lung, if not also severe internal bleeding and minor or moderate traumatic brain injury. Sy35 (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam and popular conciousness
I was just talking to someone who mentioned that this movie brought the Vietnam War back to the forefront of American consciousness; that previously it had been almost forgotten. He says many Vietnam vets have told him this. I wonder if there's any independent sources which corroborate this... GrimmC (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point on this topic.... There are no documented reports from the Vietnam era of soldiers being spat upon when they returned from Vietnam. This story began to appear in popular culture shortly after the release of this film, which contains this anecdote. I will look for references that support this and see if there is enough evidence to include it in this article. DFS (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Terence Hill
Terence Hill aka Mario Girotti, an italian actor, says he was contacted to act as Rambo but he refused for the violence he perceived his public does'nt want from his characters.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvSYsqYwqFk  A reference is present in italian wikipedia too.. True or false ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.62.95.177 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number   5  7  21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

First Blood → First Blood (film) – It's praxis to link the original work as the main article, as The Lord of the Rings – Eleutheure (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural objection to RMTR speedy move this is by definition not uncontroversial, since it requires swapping of primary topics. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE this is a multimove request, the complementary discussion is located at Talk:First Blood (novel) making this a malformed multimove request due to the conversion from RMTR to regular RM -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Philg88 ♦talk 06:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mild support given that it is a derived work, and several other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does the novel have long-term significance? It is okay for an adaptation of an original work to be the primary topic if it can demonstrate greater long-term usage and/or long-term significance. Examples of this include the film adaptations Fight Club and Road to Perdition. This says, "[Rambo] was created by Professor David Morrell in his novels First Blood (1972) and made famous in the films by Sylvester Stallone," which indicates that the film is more known than the novel. Google Books results based on "first blood" morrell constantly show the film brought up. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary topic is not necessarily the first one with the name. Comparing the respective articles, particularly the reception sections, I think the film is the primary topic. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Rambo 1" has primarity over the novel -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Film is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposal is based on the idea that it's standard for the original work to be the primary topic based on its being the original work, but this is often not the case. For example, see The Godfather, Jurassic Park, The Rescuers, Quantum of Solace. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proquest article
The reference used the most in this article, especially in the production section, is at the address http://search.proquest.com/docview/154252710, which cannot be accessed without a login. Thus, there is no way to check the article to make sure it is being quoted correctly, nor is there any way to properly format the reference. All we have is a URL that most users can't check. This is troubling. Can anyone look at the article in question and find out if it is more widely available? Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  21:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary details

 * "The rain was becoming more intense" when he decided to return - an important detail to delete it from the plot description. Otherwise the reader doesn't follow, was it just of his troublemaking nature to step against the sheriff's order, or there was some practical reason behind this decision. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same is true for the description of HOW did they found out he is an ex-Green Beret. Was it tattoed on his forehead, or maybe there was certain other way to discover his military record. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Next. "Colonel Sam Trautman arrives"... But from WHERE did he arrive is unclear for the further understanding of his mission. Was he travelling asross the country and suddenly decided to visit local law enforcement people, or was it a special assignment. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally. Deleting the information about his ex-team member (being the last surviving wartime buddy of the main protagonist) leads to the reader's misunderstanding one of the key triggering factors for the main protagonist's sudden mood swing and the following burst of outrage. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, these details are not necessary. WP has guidelines about length and details of a plot summary, and your additions far exceed those guidelines.  In addition, the plot does not need references, as the film is regarded as the source.  Please do not readd this information. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, current revision of the article misrepresents the actual order of events as they shown in the movie. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the facts are incorrect, they can be fixes, but that is a separate issue from your plot expansion. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  18:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why then they aren't fixed? 93.73.36.17 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this film Canadian or American?
As above. It was filmed in Canada. The director is also Canadian.PeterMan844 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

British Columbia
"a series of brutal events results in him having to survive a massive manhunt by police and government troops near the small town of Hope, British Columbia."

I'm pretty sure the film is set in the US, not Canada (though it was shot in British Columbia). Dornwald (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)