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.

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
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 and stars Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Wesley Snipes, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture. The film is directed by Patrick Hughes.

Share this story yet?

634 74 4 0 5


Comments (43)

  1. Anji McBride

    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.

    2 years agoby @Anji-McBrideFlag

  2. CoreyB

    @undeadslayer4 Mel is the man

    2 years agoby @CoreyBFlag

  3. Dfella504

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

    2 years agoby @dfellaFlag

  4. Mieko_Siede

    @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'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.

    2 years agoby @mieko-siedeFlag

  5. undeadslayer4

    u better put seagal back in

    @cheetoboy ya i agree

    @pack-rulz1978 he shouldve made the hangover

    @CoreyB he never did

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  6. undeadslayer4

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

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  7. syndicate

    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.

    2 years agoby @syndicateFlag

  8. Cheetoboy

    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.

    2 years agoby @cheetoboyFlag

  9. Chris Ching

    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.

    2 years agoby @Chris-ChingFlag

  10. Clint

    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.

    2 years agoby @pack-rulz1978Flag

  11. CoreyB

    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!

    2 years agoby @CoreyBFlag

  12. skywise

    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.

    2 years agoby @skywiseFlag


    @mieko-siede - I 100% agree.

    2 years agoby @Number1WolverineFlag

  14. Dan

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

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  15. The Cryptkeeper: Resurrected

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

    2 years agoby @cryptFlag

  16. Replicant

    @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.

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  17. the Narrator

    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.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  18. thedude-abides

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

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  19. thedude-abides

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

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  20. Bawnian©-Dexeus

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

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  21. Replicant

    Yeah, like Mel Gibson is gonna taint his so-far immaculate directing career to direct the third failure in your awful new franchise. Nice try Sylvester, wanna try any other talented directors that will never even go near your movies? Tarantino, perhaps? Affleck?

    @thedude-abides@narrator That's the way people are. Not to go too off-topic, but I myself hate how the media demonizes say Scientology when they're really pretty much minding their own business and always donating time & money to big environmental disasters, and stuff like that, while other organized religions have done absolutely nothing but discriminate and try to kill each other for thousands of years while acc*mulating all the wealth and raping all the children they can.

    Sorry for the rant, but I had to get that off my chest :P

    2 years agoby @felipe-11Flag

  22. Mr.K

    @narrator That's Hollywood for ya. Canceling good original potential film projects but instead, forgiving people with weird f*cking issues like car-slaughter o rape. Bullsh*t indeed but hey, what the hell can we do about it?

    2 years agoby @mr-kFlag

  23. Mieko_Siede

    My opinion isn't based on one rant or gross comment, but a series of them. Gibson through the years has been too volatile and explosive it's as if you don't know when to expect the next blow. I wouldn't care about his personal life if it wasn't splayed out for me to see. As a fan, I expect more from those I invest my money into seeing. I expect more of those who know they are in the public eye. That's not to say, don't be human, but that is to say a little practice of restraint can go a long way. I personally cannot tolerate rapists, ie Polanski...and I will not tolerate bigots. Mel has been forgiven more times than we are giving credit. But the things that come out of his mouth in the most inappropriate scenarios is just hard to forgive. Especially as a person of color that supported him once, it tarnishes the image of someone who has stocked my collection of coveted films to know that quite possibly among certain acquaintances the color of my skin or the practice of someone's religion are up for crude discussion. The public image matters just as much as the talent. It is we, the public, that support the careers of the likes of these people. I'm completely put off of Mel Gibson and any ideas of his future in the industry. I can accept imperfection but it has been a slap in the face with every pass he's been given to only come back even more venomous. I'm sorry, but I don't support the idea. Unfortunate though...he is very brilliant as an artist.

    2 years agoby @mieko-siedeFlag

  24. thedude-abides

    @narrator No doubt, man. Well said.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  25. the Narrator

    @thedude-abides Right?! So sick of the way Hollywood and, in truth, the media in general forgives the strangest things but vilifies anything bordering on antisemitic. I'm by no means antisemitic or supporting of Gibsons personal view during said interview and drunken speech (that is, if he even feels that way as thoroughly as we're led to believe), but I'm all about fairness and I just don't see it in the case of Gibson. Even RDJ's epic speech about forgiveness and second chances, using himself as an example, did little to sway the elite of Hollywood. Bullsh*t, I say..

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  26. Mr.K

    Mel Gibson as the director for Expendables 3? No. Being part of the cast? Hell to the yeah? BTW Sylvester Stallone, why don't you hire the director for The Raid to direct an Expendables 3 movie?

    2 years agoby @mr-kFlag

  27. thedude-abides

    @narrator Somehow people are willing to forgive, or at least forget about, Polanski raping a minor, but continue to demonize and vilify Gibson for speaking his mind in an interview almost 10 years ago. Undoubtedly, completely and 100% because his comments were labeled as anti-semitic, and Jews own Hollywood. Period.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  28. Bryan Yentz

    So, they want it to be a good movie this time around?

    2 years agoby @bryanyentzFlag

  29. JasonKat

    good choice i love mel. hes a great actor/director. unlike most people i dont care about his personal life. he as an actor/director, should not get in the way of his past drama. directing expandables 3 would be great. he too could do a cameo in it a well.

    2 years agoby @jasonkatFlag

  30. the Narrator

    I'm tired of Gibson being such a touchy subject. When is the last film he directed? then we look at Roman Polanski and he's still up and kicking... the f*ck, Hollywood?

    The point I'm trying to make is that I agree with @thedude-abides. Gibson is above this type of film, and deserves to make the types of films he wants to make. I'm still waiting for that team-up he was supposed to have with DiCaprio about vikings...

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

From The Web
8 Movies You Need to See: April 2015

8 Movies You Need to See: April 2015

Summer starts early as April brings the debut of the blockbuster sequel ‘Furious 7’, ‘Paul Blart 2’, ‘Ex Machina’ and many more!

102 Shares  | 3 Comments