Sylvester Stallone is pissed about MGM making a Rocky spin-off about the Drago family
Stallone has spent the last few years both embracing the Rocky franchise and pointing out that he doesn't own any of it
Aux News Rocky
Sylvester Stallone spent the first couple years of the pandemic cutting together a new, much more self-serious version of Rocky IV, but since then he’s been very vocal about his frustration with Rocky series producer Irwin Winkler—who has continued to control the rights to the movies and its Creed spin-offs, shutting Stallone out entirely (beyond whatever money he has already made for working on the movies). Earlier this month, Stallone posted a (since deleted) call on Instagram for Irwin to give him “at least a little” of “what’s left” of the Rocky rights so he can “leave something of Rocky” to his children.
Now the Rocky franchise is going to continue without Stallone, both in a third Creed movie and a recently unveiled Drago spin-off focusing on Dolph Lundgren’s Ivan Drago and his son, Florian Munteanu’s Viktor Drago from Creed 2. Neither project will involve Stallone at all, which evidently means he’s not making any money off of them, and he’s unsurprisingly pissed about it: “ONCE AGAIN , PATHETIC 94 year old PRODUCER and HIS SELFISH USELESS CHILDREN are once again picking what is left OFF THE BONES of another wonderful character!!!,” Stallone posted on Instagram (via The Hollywood Reporter), referring to the 91-year-old Winkler and his allegedly selfish and useless children.
Stallone implies that he would never let them make a Drago spin-off if he were in charge, adding that he’s sorry to “the FANS” and he “never wanted ROCKY to be exploited FOR THIS GREED.” He also included “#no shame #sad day #Parasite.” (For the record, this same Stallone who never wanted to see Rocky exploited has appeared in six Rocky movies and two Creed movies, which is more than the number of Star Wars movies that Yoda has physically appeared in.)
As for why Stallone doesn’t own any of Rocky, it must be one of those old Hollywood deals where writers and creators get screwed while producers get to hold onto the rights (just ask any Marvel Comics writer), since he certainly created the character of Rocky Balboa for the first Rocky movie.
112 Comments
There is something funny about the dude who made Rocky V saying how he would never exploit the franchise for greed.Also I think there’s actually really good story to be told with the Dragos so while I get the artistic ownership part, attacking that aspect just feels really petty from Stallone.
Yep. “Stallone implies that he would never let them make a Drago spin-off if he were in charge…” I mean, why not? If it’s a good story, what does it matter whether it’s a Drago spin-off? I don’t understand the logic behind Stallone’s objection. Which characters are worthy of spin-offs: Adrian? Mickey? Paulie?Personally, I think there are some cool Clubber Lang spin-offs that would be fun to watch. But it’s hard to determine the merits of Stallone’s logic when he doesn’t actually articulate the problems with tying into Drago’s character. It seems like he just wants to get paid.
It’s clearly more accurate to report that if he were in charge, “[Stallone] would never let them make a Drago spin-off if he were in charge wasn’t getting a cut of the box office gross…”
Give me the story where the robot from 4 becomes self-aware and then it can have a training montage to make sure it’s the plucky upstart AI that gets to subjugate humanity instead of Siri!
The only good character to spin off into their own series would be the robot butler, Sico.
I for one would love a Thunderlips origin story.
I cant wait for Expendables 7!.
Top Gun 3 from the perspective of the 80s Russian pilots.
F yeah! The world’s greatest heroes.
Way more interesting especially with what’s happening now with Russia. Plus the whole Rocky storyline is played out. What’s next for Rocky does he box other seniors at the old folks home.
Sylvester Stallone in The Verne Gagne Story!
ROBO ROCKY! Fighting in the future!
Creed 2 was a reminder that Russia has been chasing international prestige through sports via shady methods for a long, long time. Drago was juiced to the eyeballs in Rocky IV, entirely with the Soviet objective of beating the top (American) fighter in the world. Drago’s loss was a national embarrassment and he basically spends his life as a pariah. I don’t think that’s terribly different from the fate of a lot of athletes from authoritarian countries.There’s frankly a shitload to be said right now about sportswashing, from China and Russia buying Olympic hosting rights to LIV Golf.
Rocky V sucks.It’s also *fucking hilarious* to see someone point to it as an example of “exploiting a franchise for greed.”Stallone’s outline for the movie was, literally, “Rocky has brain damage. Rocky loses all of his money. Rocky damages his legacy by embracing an unfit successor. Rocky dies in a street fight.”Honestly, this comment is so fucking dumb that Barsanti might hire you.
Also, the fact that, even though Stallone played Rocky, he doesn’t own the IP. It’s not your decision, Sly.
Nothing about Rocky V felt like greed to me. I think Stallone felt he had really interesting things to say about the plight of aging boxers, the state of boxing at the time, and (sigh) uppity black folks like Don King.He made a terrible movie, but he did it because there were themes he still wanted to explore. Or that’s how it felt to me.
I’m struck by how he “wants to get back a little of what’s left” to provide for his (adult, already-inherited-wealth-plush) kids, but he then posts that Winkler’s kids are “SELFISH, WORTHLESS CHILDREN”.
“Hey, hey, I may be selfish and useless but I, um… what was the third thing you said?”
Tantrum much?
Congratulations you recognized the obvious reference
more than the number of Star Wars movies that Yoda has physically appeared in
The need for the jarring qualifier “has physically appeared in” tells me maybe reach for some other, more natural comparison to make your point?Besides, I’d kind of expect the character of Rocky to be more central to the… Rocky series of films than Yoda is to Star Wars.
Baby Rocky ?!
Baby Balboa?!
Please…no…!
Yeah, Drago is more of an Expanded Rockyverse character. Along with Sico, the robot from Rocky IV. Who should have his own movies.
Right? Like.. Luke is right there. He’s the “main character”. Or Vader/Anakin.
does cgi count as a “physical appearance”
As opposed to all the movies where Yoda was a topic of discussion but didn’t actually show up. I feel like there’s a Star Wars parallel of the Bechdel test here.
its kinda funny how boxing as a sport has dwindled in popularity over the years but yet boxing movies are still a thing. i woulda thought they’d at least have updated to MMA or something
They’ve tried to work in MMA and BJJ into movies, with varying results. I think Never Back Down is kind of the Karate Kid of MMA, or second-hand by way of Billy Blanks’ Showdown.
The classier entry is meant to be the David Mamet movie Red Belt, with Chiwetel Eijofor and (re-checks notes) Tim Allen.
The best MMA, like just purely mixed martial arts, I’ve seen in movies, was in Lethal Weapon and Blood on the Sun. They’re probably better to me, because the movie isn’t centered around fighting. Only Roadhouse can do that and work for me. Anyway, Lethal Weapon used BJJ way before anyone else, and mixed it with Jailhouse Rock and something else.
Jimmy Cagney is probably the first big movie star/MMA practitioner; he was a legit boxer, and he learned judo in the 30s. The end fight in Blood on the Sun is pretty cool.
Warrior was pretty good.
Warrior was great.
Here Comes the Boom?
No please
How did Warrior not crack your list? Come now.
I guess you haven’t seen this one. Star power + a story with emotional underpinnings = chef’s kiss.
I have not seen this.
Warrior is a *great* movie. Nick Nolte was nominated for best supporting actor for his performance, if I recall correctly. Great cast, and, again, just a genuinely fantastic movie. Highly recommend.
Warrior is one of the most predictable, cliché-ridden sports movies out there, but the writing, acting, and directing are so uniformly stellar that I just don’t care.It’s like Ebert said: it’s not what a movie’s about, but how it’s about.
Oh, it is *remarkably* predictable. Everyone in the world can see exactly how the climax is going to play out, and yet I just don’t care because, as you said, it’s just so well done – especially the acting. Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy as so goddamn good in that film (Nolte’s performance goes without saying).
Pls go out of your way to see this one. I watched it in theaters. Fuckin’ awesome movie.
Warrior or Wait For The Boom?
If it’s the former, I’m on board.The latter, I shan’t.
Whoa, I totally forgot about Wait for the Boom, haha.
i will definitely check it out, thanks
Totes welcome. Enjoy!
I’d also add EMBATTLED (Stephen Dorff), as well at BRUISED (Halle Berry) to your watch list.
Would you be interested in my script for a reimagining of Rooftops?
There’s a layer of romanticism about boxing that’s more cinematic than the Affliction-wearing atmosphere of MMA (Warrior was good though!), as well as being a physical language easy for audiences to follow, with two people simply trading punches rather than trying to shoot the legs or sit in a 69-lock for three minutes while listening to their corner for further instructions.
Yeah I don’t know shit about MMA and on the occasions I’m watching a fight will hear the announcer yell “Oh no! Fatal mistake!” while two fighters are grappling, and it takes about 30 seconds for whatever that mistake was to turn into a takedown. It’s kind of ironic to me that a sport chided for being human cock fighting also seems to require more knowledge and understanding to fully appreciate.
See also baseball movies, which outnumber movies about other team sports despite baseball slipping in popularity as well.
I think the simplicity of baseball and boxing are what keep them compelling in movies. Even if you don’t like the sports, you can tell what’s going on, what the stakes are, etc. No need to learn plays, understand grappling/wrestling, etc. They’re very straightforward to the average person. (I’m not saying there’s no nuance to them.)
With baseball there’s also a lot of correlation with American mythology and history that will always resonate with audiences. That might also be true for boxing. Also, no helmets.
Think about what are considered good football movies, at least the ones that include meaningful game action – the editing has to be so rapid-fire to capture the five things happening at once that it’s hard to put yourself in the moment. Any Given Sunday will give you a seizure. Meanwhile I caught part of Moneyball on TV yesterday afternoon (great Sunday lay-around movie, BTW) and the final game of their 20-game win streak is elegant simplicity. Especially Hatteberg’s game-winning home run. Pitch comes, and you get the crack of the bat with a view from behind the plate looking out on the ball being launched into the night sky. Anyone knows instinctively what happened and there’s not even a human being in the shot.
Baseball works really well from a story standpoint since it’s a sport of a series of one-against-one conflicts. You don’t have to visually explain all of the team-based moving parts of say, a football play.
…Boxing is huge at the moment? Like seriously the purses and business is at the moment are pretty booming.
thanks for the correction. i’m probably just generalizing from my own experience – whereas in the past i could name some of the top boxers, i couldn’t tell you who the heavyweight champ is right now. So maybe the sport is still huge but doesn’t have as much crossover appeal, or perhaps just not as much msm coverage. or of course it could easily just be me.
I think the only reason they have trouble is the fighting styles are different most likely (not a fan of either). There also could be a rights issue as MMA is a newer sport, which would mean there could be brand-specific rules which means they would need to license stuff and have another controlling voice on the project.
I think it may be due to boxing at least sticking to some of it’s more controlled, less violent weight classes where you barely see blood even in a 12 round match. It can live up to it’s nickname of the sweet science and such.
MMA on the other hand is a regulated dog fight. It’s not pretty at all, it can’t be romanticized when you got bloodshed at less than 30 seconds into the first round. The aesthetics just don’t work in it’s favor to become a hero for all demographics because everyone in it is usually depicted as an underdog.
Rocky vs Rocky, next match Rocky 2 vs Rocky 3…good luck making a movie with no distinguishing parts.
Boxing lends itself better to climactic fights because a typical match takes some time. MMA fights don’t last long by default and often can end in seconds, so you can’t really structure your final act around it without it seeming super ridiculous.It’s also easily understandable even to people who have never seen a boxing match, it’s two people trading blows, dodging and guarding. MMA can be more esoteric with people looking for submission attempts, strikes, hunting a leg or whatever and that’s not always immediately understandable or universally compelling. It’s the same principle why flip phones were still in movies and TV shows long after they went out of use while smartphones were becoming more popular, you immediately know someone’s calling or texting and not speculating that maybe they’re browsing the internet or playing something.
A lot of folks here attributing it to technical details of MMA making it harder to make good cinema from, but that never stopped a boxing movie.The fights in Rocky were always intensely unrealistic — I can tell you being a kid in the 80s meant going from watching Rocky-movie fights with haymaker after haymaker and guys coming back who should probably be literally dead, to trying to watch *real* boxing and being bored as hell. The only time it was exciting was when the question was how quickly Mike Tyson would knock out the next tomato can.There’s no reason someone can’t do that for MMA.I think the real problems are two-fold: 1. MMA just never had the share of public consciousness that boxing did. There were way fewer sports (much less a second popular fighting sport to contend with) and boxing had much more history. MMA hasn’t broken through to something everyone knows about (much harder for anything to do in today’s entertainment landscape); there are no Sugar Ray Leonard’s or Muhammad Ali’s or Jack Dempsey’s.2. There’s never been a Rocky for MMA. The first Rocky was a fantastic movie, great character piece well written and acted, with just enough fighting to thrill the audience. The follow ups were not nearly as good (some terrible, some like II simply unnecessary) but all had some iconic shit and collectively created the fighting sport drama template. That there are still boxing movies, even as the sport has fallen out of the public consciousness, is almost entirely due to the Rocky franchise.
It’s amusing that a movie that is mostly a convincing character study about desperate people has the most absurd boxing action conceivable. All verisimilitude goes straight out the window. Rocky’s career strategy of letting opponents punch themselves out on his face would have left him brain damaged (at best) after the first Creed fight.
Yeah. But on the other hand if there had been no sequels, Rocky never would’ve won a big fight, peaking at just lasting an absurdly long time in the ring against a much better fighter.The gorgeous character study wouldn’t have felt so disconnected if Stallone had stopped there.Even Rocky II started out with a bit of realism, Rocky in the hospital really, really injured and giving up boxing because he got so hurt it’s now too dangerous. And can’t make it without boxing because he’s too shy and mentally limited to even make a commercial. I think it was II where we see him in bed, sounding out words in a book while trying to improve his reading. There was some theoretically interesting stuff there, but it didn’t hold a candle to the dim leg-breaker in South Philly character study in 1, and then of course they chuck all of that to “fix” the ending of 1 and give Rocky a win in this one.Then by the time we come back for III, it’s basically a new character and entirely different set of the movies — this is the Rocky everyone remembers. Stallone has an entirely new body, all ‘roided out for this and First Blood. Rocky’s still a little dim, but he’s quippy and everything is absurd, over the top and fun, and the physical danger storyline from II (losing his vision if he kept fighting, etc) is just dropped. (And Stallone finally gave his audience the evil black thug opponent it had always wanted for the great white hope narrative.)
Rocky I for sure would have been accepted much sooner as one of the all-time great sports movies if they hadn’t distracted with the silliness of III and beyond. And I agree that II still had plenty of human moments; even if they’d stopped there it would have felt like an entirely different franchise (if 2 counts as a franchise), just with a happy ending. Hell, even III had his team’s admission that they’d protected him from fighters like Lang who didn’t just want the title, they wanted Rocky’s blood.
Yeah, agree completely. II was coherent with I, it was still the same story and same character. (II was largely unnecessary and mostly failed at what it was trying to say, the opposite of I, but I’ll still watch it.)And while I think III and IV largely ruined our collective memories of what Rocky actually was, there’s still enough I like about those movies that I’ll watch and recommend them. IV so perfectly encapsulates the US view of the world in the mid-late Cold War period that I feel like anyone under, say, 35 should’ve been forced to watch it in history class.
I liked what II had to say, at least the first half. At the end of I he’s gone the distance against all odds, you get the triumphant music, he’s proven to himself that he’s not a joke, and he’s hugging Adrian. Then the circus left town and he was still a nearly broke barely-pro fighter, just with a nicer car. I thought that was a fairly meaningful statement about how sports treats athletes.
I think it’s because a boxing film is an established genre, or at least sub-genre. People have a vague, subconscious idea of what a boxing film entails, and it almost always incorporates a characrer’s journey towards becoming- I suppose it’s easier to use boxing than a team sport since the focus is on an individual’s struggles rather than an entire football team or whatever.
Of course, boxing has become a niche sport because of multiple championship bodies, getting off of free television and so forth- and real boxing are never like the fights in Rocky, where the ref would stop them within the first minute probably.
Would you settle for another Step Up movie? 😀
It’s easier for a general audience to root for the down-on-his-luck boxer than a douchebag MMA fighter. It’s also more difficult to orchestrate an emotional, thrilling struggle of humanity around a pair of bros rolling on the mat and nut-punching. At least, IMO.
I feel like I’ve been spending a bit of time in Sylvester Stallone’s head lately. And I’m quite sure I didn’t sign up for it.
Seems like it would be pretty roomy in there, though.
It’s big and scary.
Seems like it would be pretty hazy as well. In all, very disorienting.
I am extremely interested to know exactly how crass this depiction of a Russian raised in Ukraine and his former Soviet father will be considering the current conflict. Last we checked, they were both desperate to help Ivan get back into the good graces of the Russian government while being exiled to Ukraine.Not interested enough to actually see the movie, of course, repetitive as these latter day films typically have been. But I do want to know how this series with a typically lunkheaded depiction of international politics is going to place the Dragos, and how it’s going to treat this particular subject.
Does he have a brother canonically? Maybe they can have one brother side with the Eastern Russian-backed separatists and have him side with Kiev.
Viktor could easily oppose Ivan, considering their age gaps and where they were each raised.
Again, I’m more waiting to see how bluntly and blindly the film stumbles into the current climate in Eastern Europe, regardless. There’s a difference between “I CAN CHANGE, AND YOU CAN CHANGE, AND WE ALL CAN CHANGE, ADRIEEEEENNNNE” when there’s a real war going instead of just a Cold one.
And the part of Victor’s father will be played by, you guessed it, Frank Stallone.
Some producer thought “we have a spin-off with a Black protagonist. We better find a White guy to point the camera at.”I’ll pass.-An Anonymous Nerd
Not sure if this is accurate but I think I read somewhere that Stallone has made something like $100 million off the Rocky movies (not to mention it basically made his leading man career). I am not sure this is really a case of a creator getting screwed by producers. And it is far from something like the Joe Shuster living in poverty when he was old after creating Superman.Plus I am curious what makes Irwin Winkler’s kids useless but Stallone’s kids not useless. I don’t see any of his kids listed as co-writers on any of the movies.
Sly is mad that he’s no longer one of the biggest box office stars. This man has such a monstrous ego that he went to the writer of the book on which “Cobra” was [loosely] based, asking to replace her name with his.He could easily be thankful for his long, successful career and the wealth that means his children and theirs have every possible life option. Instead, he’s whining like a baby about somebody else’s movie idea/plan. It’s actually pretty sad.
Should the creator of the character get credit/money when that character is used in films?
Comix fans say yay, Rocky fans accuse him of being a has-been and overly greedy.
Yes, I think they should be entitled to royalties in perpetuity – well, for the length of the copyright term(s) (which are too long but that’s another issue) – for the characters writers create. His desire for an appropriate piece of the pie isn’t my issue here. His need to shit on the ideas of others is my issue, especially when the idea in question, if successful, actually will make him money from new sales and rentals of the movies he did do.I would love for the Writers’ Guild(s) to get involved in this issue, perhaps by, for example, getting comic book writers into the unions. Jonathan Hickman alone is likely to have multiple billion-dollar movies based on his works. It’s a crime that he probably won’t even make a million dollars from the lot of them.
He will definitely get a “characters created by” credit and a small fee as a result.
Nah. Rocky fans get it.The Barsantis of the world would have thrown a shitfit if Moore said something publicly against “Before Watchmen” or “Doomsday Clock,” because they have no real principles.“Never trust a man who sucks the devil’s dick for money” – Jim Brockmire.
Yes. He’ll get at least a small fee due to creating the characters on which the movie is based, per WGA rules.
Yeah. Weird.
Same novel that the Cindy Crawford vehicle Fair Game was based on.
So…less than 7% of the Rocky movies’ revenue went to the man who created the character and wrote, directed, and starred in those films.That WOULD be Stallone’s point, sweetie.Anyway, your daddy giving you a writing credit on a film he produced is roughly as impressive as his giving you an honorary role at *his* daddy’s real estate conglomerate.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable considering even legit Hollywood accounting. Consider how much of the revenue would go to the theatres and then all the other people involved. What would be a good percentage for him to get? Also consider the well known story that he took a pay cut when he sold the script in exchange for the studio letting him play Rocky. And that basically made it so his acting career wasn’t a bunch “Enforcer #2″ roles in Mafia movies or competing with Tony Danza for parts.
Exactly. Carlos is playing it quite cutesy and glib, which is easy, but showing us that he don’t know much about the playing field at all.
He basically couldn’t get cast as a leading man and so wrote Rocky as his own starring vehicle. I’m not surprised he got a shitty deal for the first movie, he was a nobody in the industry, but it sounds like maybe he got some bad contract advice when it came time to start making sequels. Sequels were not big business in the late 70s, so it probably never occurred to him it was a big deal to sign across the rights to his creation in order to get Rocky made. But at SOME point along the way you’d thing there would be a renegotiation if he was going to keep appearing.
Someone famous is mad again about something! That’s the theme of about 99% of blog posts here for a while now.Not sure about “implied.” He’s ‘screaming’ his dissatisfaction, using some fairly ugly language. We’re finding out that the brain gets a nice dopamine hit when people repeatedly respond with anger. Apparently we’re addicted to it.
Yeah we are. I think that’s a big reason we are where we are right now as a society.
The hate-group mentality. It’s like a drug. It feels great to hate with impunity, to feel like your ugliest impulses are justified.
Anyone can get sucked in. It’s so easy.
“it must be one of those old Hollywood deals where writers and creators get screwed while producers get to hold onto the rights”As opposed to now, where the writers hold on to the rights to their characters? Unless you’re one of a handful of very powerful people, when a studio makes your movie, they own everything, and all they owe you for sequels are nominal royalties and credit.
I think someone needs to read up on the old studio system of Hollywood. The idea of even getting “royalties and credit” beyond getting a paycheck for a days worth of work would get you laughed out of the room.
You’re very right. It’s the AV Club: LA though, expecting things to be well researched and reasoned is setting yourself up for disappointment. I’ve noticed that the ends of posts feel especially hastily written and are usually just some weird generic statement that is supposed to sound vaguely conclusionary. Like I’m surprised this one doesn’t end with, “Let’s hope they all figure this out and we can enjoy more Rocky movies with Stallone!”
(For the record, this same Stallone who never wanted to see Rocky exploited has appeared in six Rocky movies and two Creed movies, which is more than the number of Star Wars movies that Yoda has physically appeared in.)WTF is this nonsensical statement supposed to mean?
This is just taking precious funding from the Paulie’s Robot spinoff we’re all hanging out for.
5 spin-offs down the road, they will have one about the migrant worker who crossed the deadly Mexican border to end up as janitorial staff in the company which did the engineering for Paulie’s robot. The migrant worker’s grandson will now be coached by Rocky’s grand-nephew in a tour de force of a final grand audition for the incoming Juilliard ballet program.
Everybody loves DragoDrago Meets WorldThat 80s Show: RussiaDrago knows bestDrago Family Flip FlopsReal housewives of St. PetersburgBreaking DragoBetter call Pauli
Can’t Sylvester just start a GoFundMe page to buy back the Rocky rights? Or borrow the money from his brother, you guessed it, Frank Stallone?
Dolph Lundgren responded claiming that he has now contacted Stallone, and he has advised that the spinoff film was falsely represented to him as having Stallone’s involvement. Just for the record.That doesn’t mean he’s backed out of said spin-off, mind.
MGM seems like a giant snarl of lawyers, self-circular legal documents, and stomach acid. Best to steer clear of it entirely.
And then they got purchased by Amazon…
So Stallone’s been ghostwriting Trump’s tweets this whole time??
John Cena could play Ivan Drago’s son, Tour de Pharmacy-style.
Stallone can still leave The Expendables to his kids, right? Or Cobra… or any number of films he has producer credits for.
Drago and Little Drago Jr. were great in Creed, with incredible acting by both (I had no idea Dolph had that range in him) but I am worried that they mined the entire story in Creed II
Wild to see some of these commenters twisting in pretzels to make Stallone sound like the bad guy. It really doesn’t matter if greed or ego are his motivators, the principle of it is he. created. rocky. It should be his. Full stop. Not complicated. Doesn’t matter what the legal technicalities are. He is Rocky. It’s his creation.
As for why Stallone doesn’t own any of Rocky, it must be one of those old Hollywood deals where writers and creators get screwed while producers get to hold onto the rights.Irwin put the money up and took a chance on Stallone. Stallone is worth $400 million and Irwin is worth $100 million… this is a strange hill for Stallone to die on.And most people in Hollywood have better things to say about working with the Winklers than they have with Stallone.
Rich people crying that they don’t get to be even more rich so they can hoard more money isn’t really very endearing.
If I’m not terribly mistaken, Stallone as the credited sole writer of Rocky IV is guaranteed to get some money as the creator of characters, per the WGA. Granted, it’s not first dollar gross, but it’s a pretty sweet payday for not having to lift a finger to participate.
Do I have it wrong?