From this list,

Donald Lee Wilkey

A Steven Seagal fan
( Wesley Snipes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jet Li, Jean Claude VanDamme, and any other you'd care to mention ) how do their portrayals measure up to the history of roles, scripts, dialogue, and authenticity in Steven Seagal's characters on film to date ?
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
I think it'd be more accurate to compare Seagal to them. In which case you'd identify that Seagal has had the most pidgeonholed career, playing essentially the same role over and over again. He kind fits into two different roles, the (ex)military/law enforcement guy, or the eco warrior, or both. And he always gives pretty much the same performance. Certainly that may not be such a bad thing. He's got his rep, and he sticks to it and delivers.
It's also not a great idea to compare him to guys like Snipes, or Stallone, who have shown in parts of their career, to be fine actors. Seagal has never shown that. Where Seagal will come out favourably in comparison is his "I'm the man" like aura he had when he fought (in his movies up to about Glimmar Man). Seagal in films like OFJ was a total badass, the coolest kicker of ass since Bruce. Most of the other action guys went in for that whole 80's homoerotic thing, with the shirts off and the oiled pecs.

As for scripts, Seagal's only real decent script was Under Siege. It may have been a tried and tested concept, but the script was brilliantly paced and with intelligence. Too many of his other films follow generic action patterns, and are all very much like for like. One's he wrote himself (ODG) are overwrought, unrealistic. However the script isn't the selling point of an action stars film. On a script basis he falls on a par with Jean Claude Van Damme, and Dolph Lundgren who similarly were doing films that followed generic action patterns started by Norris and Bronson. However in Seagal's advantage he had the one superhit, and real quality piece in Under Siege that JC, and DL (and Norris for that matter) didn't have.

Authenticity wise I don't believe that really any of the action guys ever really played authetentic, or believable characters. Occasionally someone like Bruce Willis would come and do an everyman action film. In regard to authentic actions Seagal probably wins the day. The way he holds a gun, the use of his martial arts on film (not like Van Damme building up to his helicopter kick and the end of all his early films) are far more realistic, due to his martial arts expertise and not trying to moviealise it, and also due to his rumoured CIA past, that may have helped.
 

Donald Lee Wilkey

A Steven Seagal fan
supertom said:
I think it'd be more accurate to compare Seagal to them. In which case you'd identify that Seagal has had the most pidgeonholed career, playing essentially the same role over and over again. He kind fits into two different roles, the (ex)military/law enforcement guy, or the eco warrior, or both. And he always gives pretty much the same performance. Certainly that may not be such a bad thing. He's got his rep, and he sticks to it and delivers.
It's also not a great idea to compare him to guys like Snipes, or Stallone, who have shown in parts of their career, to be fine actors. Seagal has never shown that. Where Seagal will come out favourably in comparison is his "I'm the man" like aura he had when he fought (in his movies up to about Glimmar Man). Seagal in films like OFJ was a total badass, the coolest kicker of ass since Bruce. Most of the other action guys went in for that whole 80's homoerotic thing, with the shirts off and the oiled pecs.

As for scripts, Seagal's only real decent script was Under Siege. It may have been a tried and tested concept, but the script was brilliantly paced and with intelligence. Too many of his other films follow generic action patterns, and are all very much like for like. One's he wrote himself (ODG) are overwrought, unrealistic. However the script isn't the selling point of an action stars film. On a script basis he falls on a par with Jean Claude Van Damme, and Dolph Lundgren who similarly were doing films that followed generic action patterns started by Norris and Bronson. However in Seagal's advantage he had the one superhit, and real quality piece in Under Siege that JC, and DL (and Norris for that matter) didn't have.

Authenticity wise I don't believe that really any of the action guys ever really played authetentic, or believable characters. Occasionally someone like Bruce Willis would come and do an everyman action film. In regard to authentic actions Seagal probably wins the day. The way he holds a gun, the use of his martial arts on film (not like Van Damme building up to his helicopter kick and the end of all his early films) are far more realistic, due to his martial arts expertise and not trying to moviealise it, and also due to his rumoured CIA past, that may have helped.
agreed

For example; Schwarzenegger the politician and business degree graduate has had no real life bodyguard experience protecting others and utlizing actual martial arts nor is a martial artist, therefore he doesn't equal the convincing performances of Steven Seagal's acting career portrayals
I think Arny would be believeable if he played a charater in the movie "Pleasantville" as one of the neighborhood leaders which is stressed out and wants to control the neighborhood for himself and doesn't know a thing about harmony
 

Sonya76

New Member
Sincerlly I can t compare him with no one abouve! Everyone is unic! Seagal is just closer to my heart.. and will allways be.Yes each one have there sharm and acting.. but Seagal is UNIC in his way!
 

GlimmerMan

Huge Member
Seagal is harder than all of them. In fact - Seagal might just be the hardest man ever to walk on God's good earth.

GMan (had some strong coffee this morrow...)
 

Donald Lee Wilkey

A Steven Seagal fan
huh?

GlimmerMan said:
Seagal is harder than all of them. In fact - Seagal might just be the hardest man ever to walk on God's good earth.

GMan (had some strong coffee this morrow...)
i don't comprehend your reply?
 

starmaiden

Member
nice one GilmmerMan.
but honestly,we can not compare Steven with the "up" list, every one has his personality,and presence, but still our Steven is the "best".....
have a nice day every one
 

anoli

Wierna Fanka Stevena
starmaiden said:
nice one GilmmerMan.
but honestly,we can not compare Steven with the "up" list, every one has his personality,and presence, but still our Steven is the "best".....
have a nice day every one



.....Yess Steven is the Best......
 

Attachments

  • seagal and guitar.JPG
    seagal and guitar.JPG
    27.7 KB · Views: 249

reno77

Member
As far as screen presence is concerned, from the list given at the beginning of the topic, I would say Seagal had better all around presence.

I don't know about the statement regarding acting ability based on real life experience as a complete evaluation of an actor's believability on screen: for ex. one poster's comparison of Arnold and Steven. Most roles far exceed one's real life experiences, especially if playing an historical figure, action hero, gunfighter,...

If there is a genuine toughness and charasmatic presence in a person, it will come through on screen. Action stars like Bronson, Mcqueen, Lee Marvin,Jim Brown, Clint Walker, James Cagney, Sean Connery, definitely Audie Murphy had a genuine hardness, toughness about them without exactly having real life experiences in being, for example, a bodyguard/CIA agent like Seagal - other than the few like Murphy and Marvin who were decorated in WWII.

BTW, I don't know necessarily believe the CIA accolade bestowed upon Seagal. Sounded good to promote his career in the beginning, however.
 

Donald Lee Wilkey

A Steven Seagal fan
You've got to admit though, by using CIA as a stepping stone

reno77 said:
As far as screen presence is concerned, from the list given at the beginning of the topic, I would say Seagal had better all around presence.

I don't know about the statement regarding acting ability based on real life experience as a complete evaluation of an actor's believability on screen: for ex. one poster's comparison of Arnold and Steven. Most roles far exceed one's real life experiences, especially if playing an historical figure, action hero, gunfighter,...

If there is a genuine toughness and charasmatic presence in a person, it will come through on screen. Action stars like Bronson, Mcqueen, Lee Marvin,Jim Brown, Clint Walker, James Cagney, Sean Connery, definitely Audie Murphy had a genuine hardness, toughness about them without exactly having real life experiences in being, for example, a bodyguard/CIA agent like Seagal - other than the few like Murphy and Marvin who were decorated in WWII.

BTW, I don't know necessarily believe the CIA accolade bestowed upon Seagal. Sounded good to promote his career in the beginning, however.

it's proven a great subject and theme to use for advancing his career in film
Plus, Steven Seagal's life-long studies with aikido and extensive knowledge with other martial arts has helped him create movies which add to the flavor of the advancement of cinema's evolution around the globe
 

steeven

Banned
don wilkey;167000 said:
it's proven a great subject and theme to use for advancing his career in film
Plus, Steven Seagal's life-long studies with aikido and extensive knowledge with other martial arts has helped him create movies which add to the flavor of the advancement of cinema's evolution around the globe

Quite right. Steven Seagal does give the 'tough guy image' alot of UMPH in today's movies. Seagal pretty much owns the tough guy role in films today and it sure has helped to establish him as a bonifiable performer and also ranks Steven Seagal right up there with the iconic film figures.
 

tigerfeet

Tigerfeet
Presence is what makes Steven. It is why we watch him, why we love him.
Why do you want to compare him with other actors anyway?
He is who he is, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I love his eco warrior persona, I love the way he kicks the bad guys butts, and I will always love to watch his movies.
He still melts my heart...
 

ORANGATUANG

Wildfire
Yes they broke the mould when he was born...and from an girls point of veiw thats an good thing ..think about it girls?..
 

tigerfeet

Tigerfeet
ORANGATUANG;185995 said:
Yes they broke the mould when he was born...and from an girls point of veiw thats an good thing ..think about it girls?..

Ummm... my reply to that would take us waaaay off topic...my mind is a-wandering.... what was this thread about???

Oh yes, let's not compare The Man to those boys.
 
Top