Sylvester Stallone Wants Mel Gibson to Direct ‘The Expendables 3’

The franchise creator and star has asked fans to offer their opinion on the decision to bring Mel Gibson in for this sequel.
BY |
Sylvester Stallone Wants Mel Gibson to Direct ‘The Expendables 3’

Sylvester Stallone took to his Twitter page earlier today to ask his fans what they thought of Mel Gibson possibly directing The Expendables 3. Take a look at the action star's tweets, then read on for more about this action sequel.

Mel Gibson may direct The Expendables 3 While Sylvester Stallone's query does seem to come out of left field, this isn't the first time he has given an update regarding the sequel on the social media platform. Last month, the actor revealed that Steven Seagal will not be a part of The Expendables 3, but they may "get lucky" and get Jackie Chan.

Mel Gibson won an Oscar for directing the 1995 Best Picture winner Braveheart. He has also directed The Man Without a Face (1993), The Passion of the Christ (2004), and Apocalypto (2006).

The Expendables 3 was released August 15th, 2014.

Best of the Web

43 comments

Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • Anji-McBride • 2 years ago

    I could not disagree more with the sentiment that talent should be all that matters, in regards to Mel directing Expendables 3. What kind of human you are should come before what kind of business person you are. Saying that the one has nothing to do with the other, that kind of separation is called rationalizing. It was a salient point that was made by Mieko_Siede, when he talked about "A member of the KKK may be talented, a mass murderer may be talented, a rapist or serial killer may be talented at something, but would you still stand in their presence eager to extend the simplest gesture of courtesy with a hand shake or a wrapping embrace?", although weather or not you want to hug him or shake his hand isn't the point. Weather or not you would support their evil, is. Why do some people refuse to buy clothes made by companies that run sweat shops? Why do some people refuse to buy products produced by tobacco companies? Why do some companies refuse to hire members of the KKK? Weather or not they want to shake their hand is the last thing on their list for why they would never hire them, or never purchase their products. The top reason is, because they have said to themselves, "I will not support evil. I will not give evil money to do more evil. I will not minimize evil because it is "talented"." To support evil, financially or in any other way, is to be as evil, yourself. I will not give money to a rapist, a serial killer, a member of the KKK or Mel Gibson. If Mel Gibson directs or is in any way involved with Expendables 3, I WILL NOT WATCH IT. And I will pull every string I have to get others to not watch it either. And then I will go to work on it.

    reply

    • CoreyB • 2 years ago

      @undeadslayer4 Mel is the man

      reply

      • dfella • 2 years ago

        lets get it mel!!!!!!!!!

        reply

        • mieko-siede • 2 years ago

          @Number1Wolverine Thank you.

          That isn't so say he's not a talented man. But his display as a person has tarnished that appeal. Sometimes, unfortunately the two go hand in hand. I see a lot of talk about amazing talent yet in your heart of hearts, unless one shares the same views, imagine this being someone you'd one day be facing. Is this the hand of a man you'd like to shake? Especially when his meaningless yet harmful words though not specifically directed at you has in some way pierced you at the core. You'd want to speak to the admiration of his talents and find yourself bewildered because the MAN quite frankly isn't the character in the movie you last watched in your DVD player. A member of the KKK may be talented, a mass murderer may be talented, a rapist or serial killer may be talented at something, but would you still stand in their presence eager to extend the simplest gesture of courtesy with a hand shake or a wrapping embrace? In many arguments I've seen, I could agree that the talent should be the only thing that matters. But the private personal matters that should be left out of our visual scope are left for the public to see. Especially when many of his displays have been on his own accord for us to see. We often forget that these are real people. And a lot of them keep their lives out of the sight of the public...safeguarded so no mass opinions can be formed or intrusions made on their domain. You have the ones that relish the spot light. And you have those like Mel Gibson that become careless. If he was any other bigot, no one would be making an argument because they aren't Mel. And by bigot he crosses more than the spectrum of race. But because Mel is talented he should have a pass...I say not. He'd squandered his several chances at finding grace. He may have problems, he may need help. I still empathize for him...and still, that's the furthest extent I go with that. When these young children idolize their favorite actors, musicians, and sports figures, they become avatars essentially in the molding of these children who seek to embark on making their successes in the mold of these figures. When they become a spectacle of the public view they have a responsibility not to perpetuate the nonsense that label all the taboos of the industry. When you have fans that look up biographies and know them just as well as family members of their own. When they become so enormous and grandiose that it could be one person's dying wish that all they want is to hug or meet the man/woman they have so coveted for so long and they could go peacefully...it's a betrayal to those fans who have invested so much time in an image when the ugliness finally emerges to the surface to slay the portrait that had once been painted of them. People don't just love Mel's work and talent, people want to love Mel Gibson the person. All those who feel it doesn't matter, it truly does. And for those that have been offended by his behavior, it's justified. His gross conduct has been a tremendous betrayal.

          reply

          • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

            u better put seagal back in

            @cheetoboy ya i agree

            @pack-rulz1978 he shouldve made the hangover

            @CoreyB he never did

            reply

            • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

              @syndicate ya i would agree with that mel gibson is awesome

              reply

              • syndicate • 2 years ago

                IF Stallone wants 10,000-20,000 bullets fired in one scence and with like 15-32 dead bodies, then he should bring in John Woo. IF he don't care for that kind of a action scence, and only a basic one like in Eraser, Lethal Weapon, Universal Soldier, Mark For Death and Taken, then Mel Gibson would be fine.

                reply

                • cheetoboy • 2 years ago

                  I think thats a great idea, despite Mel's personal issues, he is still a great director and also he should get a starring role too.

                  reply

                  • Chris-Ching • 2 years ago

                    Best idea yet and hope he stars in it too! With that said, since Steven Seagal won't be in the movie, they should have Liam Neeson replace him.

                    reply

                    • pack-rulz1978 • 2 years ago

                      I think it'd be great. It's simply astounding how a town that actively denigrates & protests against Israel being some imperialistic jerk of a country then turns around and blacklists an accomplished guy like Mel Gibson who says something stupid while drunk. Especially considering that same town's love affair with people like the Kennedys who habitually get stopped for substance abuse & have done FAR worse things under the influence than moronic words. Mel's done his pennance, it's time people remember how good of an actor he is and give him the second chance he deserves. It's nice of Sly to think about doing this. Almost Tarrantino-esque.

                      reply

                      • CoreyB • 2 years ago

                        I'm all for this, tho I dont think Gibson would ever do it. The guy really hasnt directed a bad movie imo. Also when you put everything aside, Mel is just pure f*cking awesome!

                        reply

                        • skywise • 2 years ago

                          I think that is an interesting choice of diorctor. Despite whatever personal issues teh man had it can not be said that he is a bad direstor.

                          reply

                          • Number1Wolverine • 2 years ago

                            @mieko-siede - I 100% agree.

                            reply

                            • dan1 • 2 years ago

                              @narrator I'm with you on the Viking epic. Damn it.

                              reply

                              • crypt • 2 years ago

                                I think it'd have a new feel if it was Gibson directing, but I'm all for it.

                                reply

                                • felipe-11 • 2 years ago

                                  @narrator You're right, I did put them all in the same bag which was uncalled for. The "acc*mulating wealth and rape" bit was a shot specifically at the catholic church, but I certainly believe all organized religions (with the exception of buddism and scientology) have all tried to kill each other at some point in history (almost every single major war has been fought over religion).

                                  And for the record, I am NOT a scientologist nor sympathetic to their plight, nor am I a member of any other organized religion.

                                  I also know it's not a fair comparison to the Mel Gibson situation, but I just wanted to point out more "major" case of hypocrisy that has been pushed on mostly by the media.

                                  reply

                                  • narrator • 2 years ago

                                    Amen, @bawnian-dexeus. Amen...

                                    @felipe-11 I take it you're a scientologist yourself, or are at least sympathetic to their plight? I agree with you that Scientology gets a bad shake in regards to being a young and quiet religion that's rather isolated, simply because of a few loud individuals giving it a bad reputation (looking at you, Cruise), but isn't that the case for anything that either influences or categorizes people? The Middle East gets a bad rep because of skewed journalism and a few highly vocal bad eggs, the Catholic Church is seen as the end-all-be-all of Christendom when there are dozens of denominations, and atheists can only be snobby individuals, right?

                                    I try to approach all religions and ways of life equally, and may have readily agreed with your opinion had it not been for the generalized comparison to other religions trying to "kill each other... acc*mulating wealth... and raping children"? That comment was not only outrageously generalized, however supported individual cases pertaining to said "organized religions" may be, but unnecessary. I compared Gibson to Polanski because both are powerhouse auteurs who have lost face to some extent or another in Hollywood Land due to specific, one-time, publicly known offenses. You compared several religions (or rather, bunched them together), compiling thousands of years of history, and then put it up against a relatively young organization of belief. That doesn't make for the soundest argument, man.

                                    Again, I'm inclined to agree with you, like @thedude-abides, but try to be less generalized and ultimately offensive next time. The devil of an argument is in the details, and compiling what I can only ASSUME is the crusades, the war on terror, etc, together to compare against the seemingly docile scientology movement is anything but detailed.

                                    reply

                                    • thedude-abides • 2 years ago

                                      @felipe-11 Yeah, I definitely think scientology as a whole is viewed unfairly, all things considered.

                                      reply

                                      • thedude-abides • 2 years ago

                                        @bawnian-dexeus Bottoms up to that, my friend. All that matters is the work, anything else taken into account is subjective, and therefore skewed.

                                        reply

                                        • bawnian-dexeus • 2 years ago

                                          To be fair, actors, producers, directors and all the lot don't owe us their private lives, just their work.

                                          reply

                                          Around The Web

                                          Latest Headlines

                                          Popular Movies