Steven Seagal's Double/Stunts
- Thread starter suziwong
- Start date
That's what I'm talking about, R-Dog; it's not right for the fans.
And as for Steven signing up to do more movies... well, hark back to my statement about a sucker born every minute. Of course his fans are going to buy or rent movies he stars in, regardless of their quality or how much he actually does in the film. There's money in it, even if it isn't as much as he used to make. And as long as he gets money to do films, he'll keep doing them, regardless of their quality. And as long as we, the fans, support those films by buying and renting them, however bad they are, however little we see of Steven doing what we like seeing him do best, we are never going to get another really good Steven Seagal film.
There's no way out of this, really; we want more Steven Seagal films, and we convince ourselves that even the bad ones are as good as the best he ever made, and as long we delude ourselves in this fashion, we will continue to get the bad films he churnes out, two or three a year, because it's something we must have.
Sad, but true.
And as for Steven signing up to do more movies... well, hark back to my statement about a sucker born every minute. Of course his fans are going to buy or rent movies he stars in, regardless of their quality or how much he actually does in the film. There's money in it, even if it isn't as much as he used to make. And as long as he gets money to do films, he'll keep doing them, regardless of their quality. And as long as we, the fans, support those films by buying and renting them, however bad they are, however little we see of Steven doing what we like seeing him do best, we are never going to get another really good Steven Seagal film.
There's no way out of this, really; we want more Steven Seagal films, and we convince ourselves that even the bad ones are as good as the best he ever made, and as long we delude ourselves in this fashion, we will continue to get the bad films he churnes out, two or three a year, because it's something we must have.
Sad, but true.
You don't need to watch it again TD to find out which scenes he fought in, I've already listed them in a previous reply to the thread. He did a lot more of the fighting here than most people are letting on, it was only the high-kicking stuff that he wasn't up for and even Jet Li these days, who is perfectly capable of doing them, opts for wires and the like to bring them to the screen. Personally I think well disguised doubles as in Belly look a lot better than wire-work which makes all fights look jerky, disjointed and horrible.
I don't see how suspension of disbelief was hung until dead at all, it was a straight, by-the-numbers action film and flowed like any other. The odd stunt double didn't detract from its entertainment value for me in any way. The only bad thing for me that's come out of Belly of the Beast is some so-called Seagal fans complaining about it as best they can. Even when not compared to the below-par Oblowitz films I still regard it a very decent action film, the action scenes are tremendous and Steven is his usual charismatic self. The photography, music and pace are all spot-on so what is the big deal?
I see it as pretty ironic that the same people who I recall saying in the past that Seagal has never tried to branch out into different things are precisely those who are now complaining about the lack of his traditional Aikido moves in his films. I respect him as an Aikido artist but I think it's up to him if he wants to employ them in his films. Nothing anyone on here can complain about will change Seagal's films in any way, I respect Seagal for making his own decisions and it's up to him as the star to decide what he wants in the film. You'll never please everyone, as this thread well proves.
If you tallied together all the fight scenes in Belly of the Beast I'd say a good 80% was Seagal doing the moves himself, way too much attention is being spent by some on the stunt doubles, they only stand out so much as we're not used to seeing Seagal doing the odd round-house kick, if he wants more spectacular moves in his films that's up to him not those who don't approve.
There aren't too many 50-plus guys out there still as agile and up for action as The Master, give the guy a break.
Regarding the fruit-market scene, of course you never see the stunt double's face, that WOULD be cause to complain, they've done an excellent job of disguising the stand-in so why all the fuss? Of course he's lighter than Seagal as in the seen, as much as I love his films a guy the same as he is wouldn't have been as up for doing all the helicopter kicks now would he. The double is in my opinion a lot better than some I've seen in the past. Stand-ins are rarely as big as the stars, Stallone's doubles in Tango and Cash and The Specialist were about half his size and nowhere near as muscly. Eddie Murphy's stand-in in Beverly Hills Cop looked more like Richard Pryor.
Steven does want to fight still TD, he just doesn't want to do the spectacular kicks and I don't blame him. Just for the sake of a few stunt doubles do you really think he should stop making movies? Give me a break, I'm sure the vast majority of fans would rather he made films with a few doubles than not make films at all.
"I have no objection whatsoever to him taking a different direction in the films he makes." - This might well be the biggest contradiction of all TD, you're saying you want him to try different things but the basic jist of your post is that you don't like him straying from his Hard to Kill and Marked for Death Aikido roots. I don't know about there being a sucker born every minute, maybe a pessimist would be more fitting.
I wish some people would stop taking his films so seriously, they're supposed to be entertaining for God's sake, they're not there to be meticulously analysed like a lab rat.
On the rare off-chance that Steven ever does come across these Boards, don't worry Sensei, there are still some true fans out there that still appreciate your work. As long as you keep making 'em, I'll still be an avid fan.
I don't see how suspension of disbelief was hung until dead at all, it was a straight, by-the-numbers action film and flowed like any other. The odd stunt double didn't detract from its entertainment value for me in any way. The only bad thing for me that's come out of Belly of the Beast is some so-called Seagal fans complaining about it as best they can. Even when not compared to the below-par Oblowitz films I still regard it a very decent action film, the action scenes are tremendous and Steven is his usual charismatic self. The photography, music and pace are all spot-on so what is the big deal?
I see it as pretty ironic that the same people who I recall saying in the past that Seagal has never tried to branch out into different things are precisely those who are now complaining about the lack of his traditional Aikido moves in his films. I respect him as an Aikido artist but I think it's up to him if he wants to employ them in his films. Nothing anyone on here can complain about will change Seagal's films in any way, I respect Seagal for making his own decisions and it's up to him as the star to decide what he wants in the film. You'll never please everyone, as this thread well proves.
If you tallied together all the fight scenes in Belly of the Beast I'd say a good 80% was Seagal doing the moves himself, way too much attention is being spent by some on the stunt doubles, they only stand out so much as we're not used to seeing Seagal doing the odd round-house kick, if he wants more spectacular moves in his films that's up to him not those who don't approve.
There aren't too many 50-plus guys out there still as agile and up for action as The Master, give the guy a break.
Regarding the fruit-market scene, of course you never see the stunt double's face, that WOULD be cause to complain, they've done an excellent job of disguising the stand-in so why all the fuss? Of course he's lighter than Seagal as in the seen, as much as I love his films a guy the same as he is wouldn't have been as up for doing all the helicopter kicks now would he. The double is in my opinion a lot better than some I've seen in the past. Stand-ins are rarely as big as the stars, Stallone's doubles in Tango and Cash and The Specialist were about half his size and nowhere near as muscly. Eddie Murphy's stand-in in Beverly Hills Cop looked more like Richard Pryor.
Steven does want to fight still TD, he just doesn't want to do the spectacular kicks and I don't blame him. Just for the sake of a few stunt doubles do you really think he should stop making movies? Give me a break, I'm sure the vast majority of fans would rather he made films with a few doubles than not make films at all.
"I have no objection whatsoever to him taking a different direction in the films he makes." - This might well be the biggest contradiction of all TD, you're saying you want him to try different things but the basic jist of your post is that you don't like him straying from his Hard to Kill and Marked for Death Aikido roots. I don't know about there being a sucker born every minute, maybe a pessimist would be more fitting.
I wish some people would stop taking his films so seriously, they're supposed to be entertaining for God's sake, they're not there to be meticulously analysed like a lab rat.
On the rare off-chance that Steven ever does come across these Boards, don't worry Sensei, there are still some true fans out there that still appreciate your work. As long as you keep making 'em, I'll still be an avid fan.
yudansha
TheGreatOne
The essence behind movie making ... aimed at BOTB
O.K. Steve I do agree with you on most part. here come that 'but'
However, if you take a look at the movies that ended up being successful at the box office, you'll notice that the work put into them was much greater. Many producers who invest in action movies bring in specialists, wether it be a retired police officer, or an ex-FBI/CIA (whatever other three letter abbreviation you can think of). Why? Because if such people (i.e. cops) go to see a movie, and they see something that would never happen, they would unlikely come again to see a movie by the same production thinking that it's going to be phoney. Everybody wants at least some realism to what they're viewing. People want to see that if such a scenerio were to happen in real life, how would the hero act to it. You might not be a specialist of any kind to note some things and enjoy all the movies that are presented to you. But remember, that there are many people in the world and many of those are employed and have certain professions in which they specialize.
You said photography and music was fine. To that I'd have to say that only background music was good for BOTB, but all of the sound special effects were rather badly assembled and the movie was not edited as well as it could've been. I'm not talking of having a perfect Belly of the Beast, just simply paying attention to a few details. It seems like the director wanted the movie to look fancy by showing off a lot of expensive machinery in the movie that has a low budget. I would've rather liked the movie better if they used cheaper automobiles and well made replica guns (as opposed to the real ones) and paid attention more to compiling all of the scenes together such that all of the action provided very well by Steven Seagal was supported by the background immagery and the off-screen workers. It seems like money was wasted in many fields where it could have been saved for improvement on final adjustments. Seriously, I felt like BOTB was rushed into 'printing' and for quick distribution, so that they could get their money back as quickly as possible. If you notice, the latest DVDs have no special features or anything of that sort but a few commercials of more low budget movies. To me, BOTB gave good action (by that I only mean fight scenes relative to all else) and that's the only thing that entertained me, but there was nothing behind it. No essence ...
O.K. Steve I do agree with you on most part. here come that 'but'
However, if you take a look at the movies that ended up being successful at the box office, you'll notice that the work put into them was much greater. Many producers who invest in action movies bring in specialists, wether it be a retired police officer, or an ex-FBI/CIA (whatever other three letter abbreviation you can think of). Why? Because if such people (i.e. cops) go to see a movie, and they see something that would never happen, they would unlikely come again to see a movie by the same production thinking that it's going to be phoney. Everybody wants at least some realism to what they're viewing. People want to see that if such a scenerio were to happen in real life, how would the hero act to it. You might not be a specialist of any kind to note some things and enjoy all the movies that are presented to you. But remember, that there are many people in the world and many of those are employed and have certain professions in which they specialize.
You said photography and music was fine. To that I'd have to say that only background music was good for BOTB, but all of the sound special effects were rather badly assembled and the movie was not edited as well as it could've been. I'm not talking of having a perfect Belly of the Beast, just simply paying attention to a few details. It seems like the director wanted the movie to look fancy by showing off a lot of expensive machinery in the movie that has a low budget. I would've rather liked the movie better if they used cheaper automobiles and well made replica guns (as opposed to the real ones) and paid attention more to compiling all of the scenes together such that all of the action provided very well by Steven Seagal was supported by the background immagery and the off-screen workers. It seems like money was wasted in many fields where it could have been saved for improvement on final adjustments. Seriously, I felt like BOTB was rushed into 'printing' and for quick distribution, so that they could get their money back as quickly as possible. If you notice, the latest DVDs have no special features or anything of that sort but a few commercials of more low budget movies. To me, BOTB gave good action (by that I only mean fight scenes relative to all else) and that's the only thing that entertained me, but there was nothing behind it. No essence ...
Reservoir Dog
MRKD4DTH
I think "belly of the beast" was supposed to have these fun little quirks. Check out my new thread "BOTB" The new discovery"
Oh, boy - the "true fan" debate has reared its ugly head again.
The bottom line for what I want to seen in a Steven Seagal film is... Steven Seagal! I want *him* to do his own fighting, regardless of style; I want *him* to pay attention to what he's doing instead of, for example, sleepwalking through his role as he did in OFAK. I want him to be involved in what he is doing and, yes, I want him to enjoy himself doing it, which clearly, he hasn't done in a very long time.
Yes, the movies are supposed to be for entertainment. But I will say this yet again, until you hear me saying it - there is a level at which I watch a film and realise that the entertainment value has diminished because all the things that don't fit are too obvious and too noticeable. If I notice the flaws, if I notice the overuse of stunt doubles in fight scenes, if I notice that the gun battles are static and downright boring, the entertainment value evaporates - for ME. I do not dispute that you and many others have found BOTB an excellent film. For ME, it falls very short of even the worst of Steven's earlier films. Yes, it is very pretty. But for an action film, it is very slow paced, dull, lacking any kind of liveliness, and in places, downright boring. For ME - I reiterate.
This is not a question of who's right and who's wrong; it's a question of values. My values are different from yours, that's all. I know Steven can do better; I am left wondering why he doesn't. The dubbing, the stunt doubles, the lack of any investment of his time and effort in the roles he plays, both on and off screen - these are all crushingly disappointing to me. It seems to me he no longer cares about what he is doing; he's just going through the motions, for the money. That's fine; everyone has to make a living. But I can't support him in his lifestyle if I don't get the most entertainment value for my money; and he's not doing it.
As for the issue of who is a "true fan" and who isn't - oh, let's not go there again. I know that I'm a big fan of his films, despite any assertions of anyone's to the contrary; but I'm not stupid, either. I know when I'm being sold a bill of goods. And these sub-par movies he's been churning out is his way of cocking a snook at his fans, for whom he cares nothing at all, anyhow.
The bottom line for what I want to seen in a Steven Seagal film is... Steven Seagal! I want *him* to do his own fighting, regardless of style; I want *him* to pay attention to what he's doing instead of, for example, sleepwalking through his role as he did in OFAK. I want him to be involved in what he is doing and, yes, I want him to enjoy himself doing it, which clearly, he hasn't done in a very long time.
Yes, the movies are supposed to be for entertainment. But I will say this yet again, until you hear me saying it - there is a level at which I watch a film and realise that the entertainment value has diminished because all the things that don't fit are too obvious and too noticeable. If I notice the flaws, if I notice the overuse of stunt doubles in fight scenes, if I notice that the gun battles are static and downright boring, the entertainment value evaporates - for ME. I do not dispute that you and many others have found BOTB an excellent film. For ME, it falls very short of even the worst of Steven's earlier films. Yes, it is very pretty. But for an action film, it is very slow paced, dull, lacking any kind of liveliness, and in places, downright boring. For ME - I reiterate.
This is not a question of who's right and who's wrong; it's a question of values. My values are different from yours, that's all. I know Steven can do better; I am left wondering why he doesn't. The dubbing, the stunt doubles, the lack of any investment of his time and effort in the roles he plays, both on and off screen - these are all crushingly disappointing to me. It seems to me he no longer cares about what he is doing; he's just going through the motions, for the money. That's fine; everyone has to make a living. But I can't support him in his lifestyle if I don't get the most entertainment value for my money; and he's not doing it.
As for the issue of who is a "true fan" and who isn't - oh, let's not go there again. I know that I'm a big fan of his films, despite any assertions of anyone's to the contrary; but I'm not stupid, either. I know when I'm being sold a bill of goods. And these sub-par movies he's been churning out is his way of cocking a snook at his fans, for whom he cares nothing at all, anyhow.
Reservoir Dog
MRKD4DTH
You can be a fan of his without liking every single one of his films, or disagreeing with way they were produced. i just finished watching belly of the beast, and there is absolutely no time where you are supposed to believe it is actually seagal doing the crazy martial arts roundhouse kicks and flying through the air. The fish market scene showed slowmotion sequences where seagal would kick the thai guys from mid-air. No one in their right mind would believe its him, but obviously he doesnt seem to care. However, there are many scenes with him actually fighting. It was him in the taxi cab, it was him at the begining, and it was him in about 40% of the fish market scene. I dont have a problem with this, but I would prefer they edit out the slow-mo crap and added some aikido instead. Of course, thats just an opinion, it doesnt mean im not a seagal fan, it simply means i think they should go in a different direction in future films.
Lotussan
I Belong To Steven
No essence? Oh, please...This film had a lot to offer that way, imo...As for the doubles, they were quite good...Yes, we are hardcore fans who know him and his style of fighting very well, but I can bet that the average movie watcher will not even notice that's it's not him, at least in most cases...
Plus, the things that he did do, like the very eloquent parts in the fish market scene were so awesomely Seagal...He has such a dignified grace, and the way he moves is just so cool, especially when you consider his size...Not to mention his wit, which is so unique...And the deadly menace combined with the gentle compassion, he just gives it all, and I for one end up very satisfied, and end up really smiling...Oh I just think that all and all it really came out very, very well...
Plus, the things that he did do, like the very eloquent parts in the fish market scene were so awesomely Seagal...He has such a dignified grace, and the way he moves is just so cool, especially when you consider his size...Not to mention his wit, which is so unique...And the deadly menace combined with the gentle compassion, he just gives it all, and I for one end up very satisfied, and end up really smiling...Oh I just think that all and all it really came out very, very well...
Belly of the Beast
Thanks Lotussan, it's nice to have someone who just appreciates the film for what it is and enjoys it!
As much as I hate going into analysing the detail of a film so simple and entertaining I find myself coming back to defend it as people are just taking his latest films far too seriously. The ones that are successful at the box office Yudansha will always be the ones will the biggest budgets and the ones more work has gone into for the simple fact they have a bigger crew behind them. More work means a bigger crew, a bigger crew is the result of a bigger budget, a bigger budget usually means more publicity and more publicity makes larger revenue. I honestly don't believe the amount of research that has gone into a specialist role of Seagal's has any bearing on how much money the film makes in the end. None of his roles have been as heavily researched as you would believe, even his biggest role of Casey Ryback is said to wear the wrong uniform and stripes in many scenes. But so what? It's just fiction and isn't meant to be an acuurate reworking of any kind of true story. Film-makers don't usually have real-life Navy SEALS or cops in mind in case they spot mistakes, they're only wanting to please the crowds.
The photography was good for Belly of the Beast, above par for an action movie I'm sure you agree. The mistakes or little quibbles mentioned were all down to the editing though I don't feel there were enough of them to cause such a stir. When post-production have dates to work to, it's understandable if and when they cut the occasional corner. I personally would rather have the occasional off-kilter sound effect Yudansha than the possibility of phoney fire-arms as you mention. It probably was rushed into print as you say and there's nothing we can do about it. His DVD's have never really been littered with extras, it's not really the fault of the film-makers or editors, that's down to the DVD distributors to get their act together and make decent releases.
I thought the action scenes in Belly was superb, the fight scenes were all thrilling and the gun-fights were amongst the best that's ever been in a Seagal film. The train-yard and the climax were excellent, it's been a while thanks to Mr. Oblowitz that we've had a Seagal ending we can actually look forward to.
With regard to there being no essence, I think Belly had plenty for the taking. Even in the quieter scenes Seagal, his side-kick and his love interest were all very watchable and entertaining and the supporting characters were adept and very decent. For relative beginners, the guy who played Leon and the villain were especially good.
I fear we may have finally found a point we agree on Yudansha - that neither of us is right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. I think Seagal is doing very well for a post-50 year old action hero in the movies and he think he will continue to do so for many years to come. I'm willing to accept the occasional blip in the editing as it's all just part of the ongoing process. Look at Commando, one of the best and most entertianing action films of the 80's and it has so many mistakes and slip-ups it's almost a comedy. There are spring-boards when people are blown up with grenades, the filming crew are refelected in a car door, people land on blue safety mats when they fall off of buildings, wires are visible from character's legs when they dangle off cliffs, a car is demolished on one side and then repairs itself and the same bad guy keeps getting shot at the end, returning with fake moustaches and sideburns. I know all the things people here are questioning aren't goofs of the same nature but they're still the same kind of short-falls. I don't mind them at all, they're all part of a film's charm for me and I love his films regardless. They're just as entertaining for me with or without.
Seagal does care for his fans, he cares for everyone and he's a very caring guy on and off camera, he's not out to get you TD. He doesn't have a say in everything from stunt doubles to continuity and so isn't to blame for every single little mistake. He's said it in the past and he still believes in it - he makes movies to entertain people and bring them joy. For me his films still do that in spades.
In all honesty guys my fingers are starting to ache from these War and Peace-length responses so how about we all agree to disagree? We'll never convince each other of how we feel because we both believe differently. How about we unite in a truce as Seagal fans who look at his films in different ways?
"It's like you see this big dam with a leak in it. Pretty soon you keep seeing more holes, bigger ones. You plug 'em with your fingers, you plug 'em with your toes, you plug 'em with your tongue, but the water keeps on gushing out. That's the way it is.".
Thanks Lotussan, it's nice to have someone who just appreciates the film for what it is and enjoys it!
As much as I hate going into analysing the detail of a film so simple and entertaining I find myself coming back to defend it as people are just taking his latest films far too seriously. The ones that are successful at the box office Yudansha will always be the ones will the biggest budgets and the ones more work has gone into for the simple fact they have a bigger crew behind them. More work means a bigger crew, a bigger crew is the result of a bigger budget, a bigger budget usually means more publicity and more publicity makes larger revenue. I honestly don't believe the amount of research that has gone into a specialist role of Seagal's has any bearing on how much money the film makes in the end. None of his roles have been as heavily researched as you would believe, even his biggest role of Casey Ryback is said to wear the wrong uniform and stripes in many scenes. But so what? It's just fiction and isn't meant to be an acuurate reworking of any kind of true story. Film-makers don't usually have real-life Navy SEALS or cops in mind in case they spot mistakes, they're only wanting to please the crowds.
The photography was good for Belly of the Beast, above par for an action movie I'm sure you agree. The mistakes or little quibbles mentioned were all down to the editing though I don't feel there were enough of them to cause such a stir. When post-production have dates to work to, it's understandable if and when they cut the occasional corner. I personally would rather have the occasional off-kilter sound effect Yudansha than the possibility of phoney fire-arms as you mention. It probably was rushed into print as you say and there's nothing we can do about it. His DVD's have never really been littered with extras, it's not really the fault of the film-makers or editors, that's down to the DVD distributors to get their act together and make decent releases.
I thought the action scenes in Belly was superb, the fight scenes were all thrilling and the gun-fights were amongst the best that's ever been in a Seagal film. The train-yard and the climax were excellent, it's been a while thanks to Mr. Oblowitz that we've had a Seagal ending we can actually look forward to.
With regard to there being no essence, I think Belly had plenty for the taking. Even in the quieter scenes Seagal, his side-kick and his love interest were all very watchable and entertaining and the supporting characters were adept and very decent. For relative beginners, the guy who played Leon and the villain were especially good.
I fear we may have finally found a point we agree on Yudansha - that neither of us is right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. I think Seagal is doing very well for a post-50 year old action hero in the movies and he think he will continue to do so for many years to come. I'm willing to accept the occasional blip in the editing as it's all just part of the ongoing process. Look at Commando, one of the best and most entertianing action films of the 80's and it has so many mistakes and slip-ups it's almost a comedy. There are spring-boards when people are blown up with grenades, the filming crew are refelected in a car door, people land on blue safety mats when they fall off of buildings, wires are visible from character's legs when they dangle off cliffs, a car is demolished on one side and then repairs itself and the same bad guy keeps getting shot at the end, returning with fake moustaches and sideburns. I know all the things people here are questioning aren't goofs of the same nature but they're still the same kind of short-falls. I don't mind them at all, they're all part of a film's charm for me and I love his films regardless. They're just as entertaining for me with or without.
Seagal does care for his fans, he cares for everyone and he's a very caring guy on and off camera, he's not out to get you TD. He doesn't have a say in everything from stunt doubles to continuity and so isn't to blame for every single little mistake. He's said it in the past and he still believes in it - he makes movies to entertain people and bring them joy. For me his films still do that in spades.
In all honesty guys my fingers are starting to ache from these War and Peace-length responses so how about we all agree to disagree? We'll never convince each other of how we feel because we both believe differently. How about we unite in a truce as Seagal fans who look at his films in different ways?
"It's like you see this big dam with a leak in it. Pretty soon you keep seeing more holes, bigger ones. You plug 'em with your fingers, you plug 'em with your toes, you plug 'em with your tongue, but the water keeps on gushing out. That's the way it is.".
yudansha
TheGreatOne
Disagree ... fine ... just don't compare Seagal to Schwarzenegger :=))
It's not really about agreeing on disagreeing though, because if such things continue and the film production companies ignore such 'little' things (which they are not so when there are quite many of them) then it's very unlikely that you'll see any successful (as in recognized by many, bringing in that revenue) project coming out. You are comparing BOTB to Commando? I think you really were tired ... When was Commando made? Look at how quickly the technology progressed since then. It is not that expensive to hire a good crew to do the adjustments for the final cut, but as you said, with low budget productions usually things are taken for granted and nobody has the intelligence to make the cash that's there and put it to good use. Steven Seagal was invited to work on the project, and that's it. If it wasn't for him, you probably would never have gone out and spent your hard earned money to purchase such a film. I think that SS has a hard time saying 'NO' to the opportunities that come his way with regards to movie making.
About those 'fake' guns. I wasn't talking about having them used for sound. I meant that such would be used for imagery while those working in the acoustics department would come up with appropriate sounds and provide that further onto editing for the final cut. I don't know if that team had an accountant, but if they did, he really screwed up on this one (just like in OFAK, although not as badly).
As far as Under Siege, that was a commercial movie that was planned to provide with the 'bang' for your 'bling' and that's it. It was not a serious movie that was based on telling you a story on covert-ops. It was just a flick that was made, did great, and after the second 'flop,' (relative to first ... as usually the case is for sequels of any sort) the third was out of the picture ... and guess what, it still is.
BOTB was fun for me to watch just because I wanted to see what Steven Seagal had 'under his sleeve' this time; but don't be naive by thinking that BOTB was so great that if Steven Seagal sticks to such productions that he will come out as the reincarnated Lama of Hollywood.
It's not really about agreeing on disagreeing though, because if such things continue and the film production companies ignore such 'little' things (which they are not so when there are quite many of them) then it's very unlikely that you'll see any successful (as in recognized by many, bringing in that revenue) project coming out. You are comparing BOTB to Commando? I think you really were tired ... When was Commando made? Look at how quickly the technology progressed since then. It is not that expensive to hire a good crew to do the adjustments for the final cut, but as you said, with low budget productions usually things are taken for granted and nobody has the intelligence to make the cash that's there and put it to good use. Steven Seagal was invited to work on the project, and that's it. If it wasn't for him, you probably would never have gone out and spent your hard earned money to purchase such a film. I think that SS has a hard time saying 'NO' to the opportunities that come his way with regards to movie making.
About those 'fake' guns. I wasn't talking about having them used for sound. I meant that such would be used for imagery while those working in the acoustics department would come up with appropriate sounds and provide that further onto editing for the final cut. I don't know if that team had an accountant, but if they did, he really screwed up on this one (just like in OFAK, although not as badly).
As far as Under Siege, that was a commercial movie that was planned to provide with the 'bang' for your 'bling' and that's it. It was not a serious movie that was based on telling you a story on covert-ops. It was just a flick that was made, did great, and after the second 'flop,' (relative to first ... as usually the case is for sequels of any sort) the third was out of the picture ... and guess what, it still is.
BOTB was fun for me to watch just because I wanted to see what Steven Seagal had 'under his sleeve' this time; but don't be naive by thinking that BOTB was so great that if Steven Seagal sticks to such productions that he will come out as the reincarnated Lama of Hollywood.
Belly of the Beast
Thanks Lotussan, I do my best!
Regarding successful projects Yudansha how many action films with post-50 year old guys as the star can you name which have been a success lately? I think it's naive to just assume that with the right crew and talent his films will automatically strike gold as they used to. I think he's doing a very good job, no guys his age I can think of are enjoying as much success as he is as an action star at the moment. Arnie is gone, Stallone is gone (from action anyway) and Dolph's films have nose-dived. Aside from maybe Van Damme, Seagal is the only hope us old-school action junkies have left.
He can't work miracles Yudansha, he's only human. As much as I hate to say it I fear he may never hit his Under Siege heights again, no matter how good the crew the budget or anything else you have in mind. But I and many other fans don't mind, we appreciate him for Seagal and his films and we're willing to accept him and his films as is. Granted Ticker and Oblowitz films were the low-point but hopefully after their bad response he won't go near either ever again.
Has anyone here seen the Wesley Snipes film "The Fan"? In it his fans love him when he's playing and hate him when he's not hitting right. I think that's eerily similar to what many people are saying here. The true fan sticks by their idol through thick and thin and doesn't hurl insults and nastiness at all the bad points, especially when the majority of them aren't even his fault. It's often hard to see what might go wrong during a production, you can only see it when it's finished. Seagal will only be seeing the scripts at the start and little else, it's almost impossible to visualise how a film will turn out from a script alone and once he's committed to it there's no turning back.
Yes I would definitely compare Belly to Commando, they after all have a lot in common. Aside from the obvious daughter-being-kidnapped plot and the final assault to rescue her, they're both good-spirited, high-action movies which don't take themselves seriously. Similarly I think any mistakes in them are just part of their charm. Commando was a big budget film for its day and even with a massive crew and lots of talent the odd mistake and error slipped through. With so many people working together it's just unavoidable. Editors are usually more concerned with helping things flow and make sense than covering up errors and little inconsistencies which some eagle-eyed viewers are hell-bent on pointing out.
Regarding the guns I didn't honestly mean that play guns would be used for the audio too, having them at all would be an awful idea and I'm sure all the 'experts' watching that were mentioned in a previous post would be able to spot a phoney from a real gun immediately. Do you honestly think having fake guns as opposed to real guns would have any real effect on the budget? Having fake guns wouldn't magically turn every editor into Stuart Baird because a few corners had been cut here and there. Regarding the accountant thing, there's no way it could have been handled any worse than with Out For a Kill, where I've heard on several occasions they totally ran out of cash, hence the resorting to horrid blue-screen in several scenes (not just the airport).
I'm not in any way being naive by thinking Belly of the Beast is a good film, I've seen thousands of action films and compared to a good deal of the garbage which I've seen of late Belly of the Beast is right up with the best recent action films I've seen.
Well sorry guys but I genuinely can't take any more of this thread. I'm going to enjoy and revel in watching Belly of the Beast whenever I can as I think it's a great film. I'll love every minute of the fights, I'll rejoice in all the one-liners and I'll crank up the bass for that truly terrific score! Over and out.
"Why don't you go back to your own genetic puddle, and go for a swim. Boy."
Thanks Lotussan, I do my best!
Regarding successful projects Yudansha how many action films with post-50 year old guys as the star can you name which have been a success lately? I think it's naive to just assume that with the right crew and talent his films will automatically strike gold as they used to. I think he's doing a very good job, no guys his age I can think of are enjoying as much success as he is as an action star at the moment. Arnie is gone, Stallone is gone (from action anyway) and Dolph's films have nose-dived. Aside from maybe Van Damme, Seagal is the only hope us old-school action junkies have left.
He can't work miracles Yudansha, he's only human. As much as I hate to say it I fear he may never hit his Under Siege heights again, no matter how good the crew the budget or anything else you have in mind. But I and many other fans don't mind, we appreciate him for Seagal and his films and we're willing to accept him and his films as is. Granted Ticker and Oblowitz films were the low-point but hopefully after their bad response he won't go near either ever again.
Has anyone here seen the Wesley Snipes film "The Fan"? In it his fans love him when he's playing and hate him when he's not hitting right. I think that's eerily similar to what many people are saying here. The true fan sticks by their idol through thick and thin and doesn't hurl insults and nastiness at all the bad points, especially when the majority of them aren't even his fault. It's often hard to see what might go wrong during a production, you can only see it when it's finished. Seagal will only be seeing the scripts at the start and little else, it's almost impossible to visualise how a film will turn out from a script alone and once he's committed to it there's no turning back.
Yes I would definitely compare Belly to Commando, they after all have a lot in common. Aside from the obvious daughter-being-kidnapped plot and the final assault to rescue her, they're both good-spirited, high-action movies which don't take themselves seriously. Similarly I think any mistakes in them are just part of their charm. Commando was a big budget film for its day and even with a massive crew and lots of talent the odd mistake and error slipped through. With so many people working together it's just unavoidable. Editors are usually more concerned with helping things flow and make sense than covering up errors and little inconsistencies which some eagle-eyed viewers are hell-bent on pointing out.
Regarding the guns I didn't honestly mean that play guns would be used for the audio too, having them at all would be an awful idea and I'm sure all the 'experts' watching that were mentioned in a previous post would be able to spot a phoney from a real gun immediately. Do you honestly think having fake guns as opposed to real guns would have any real effect on the budget? Having fake guns wouldn't magically turn every editor into Stuart Baird because a few corners had been cut here and there. Regarding the accountant thing, there's no way it could have been handled any worse than with Out For a Kill, where I've heard on several occasions they totally ran out of cash, hence the resorting to horrid blue-screen in several scenes (not just the airport).
I'm not in any way being naive by thinking Belly of the Beast is a good film, I've seen thousands of action films and compared to a good deal of the garbage which I've seen of late Belly of the Beast is right up with the best recent action films I've seen.
Well sorry guys but I genuinely can't take any more of this thread. I'm going to enjoy and revel in watching Belly of the Beast whenever I can as I think it's a great film. I'll love every minute of the fights, I'll rejoice in all the one-liners and I'll crank up the bass for that truly terrific score! Over and out.
"Why don't you go back to your own genetic puddle, and go for a swim. Boy."
yudansha
TheGreatOne
It's insanity ... such accusations ...
Are you dense in the head or something? I never said that I hate Steven Seagal nor do I say that all of these things mentioned are completely his fault (he has to however take some responsibility as he gets heavily involved in such by being a co-producer and co-writer in some cases). Love one minute ... hate the next? You must be insane, because I was talking about the project that just happened to include Steven Seagal. If it wasn't for Steven Seagal, I feel it would have been even worse concerning the action sequences and I would have a field day of discussions if I ever got my hands on such.
Jet Li - over 40 already
Jackie Chan - turned 50 last month
and how about Donald Sutherland's career ...
Robert Deniro - over 60
you just read somewhere that Chuck Norris is thinking of a comeback (but nevertheless, he's very successful)
John Travolta ...
Need I go on?
Listen I really don't have time for this bantering. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any.
"Why don't you go back to your own genetic puddle, and go for a swim. Boy."
Boy? ... LOL as they say ... "I'll whoop your ass" LOL Just kidding around man.
It's been fun ...
Are you dense in the head or something? I never said that I hate Steven Seagal nor do I say that all of these things mentioned are completely his fault (he has to however take some responsibility as he gets heavily involved in such by being a co-producer and co-writer in some cases). Love one minute ... hate the next? You must be insane, because I was talking about the project that just happened to include Steven Seagal. If it wasn't for Steven Seagal, I feel it would have been even worse concerning the action sequences and I would have a field day of discussions if I ever got my hands on such.
Jet Li - over 40 already
Jackie Chan - turned 50 last month
and how about Donald Sutherland's career ...
Robert Deniro - over 60
you just read somewhere that Chuck Norris is thinking of a comeback (but nevertheless, he's very successful)
John Travolta ...
Need I go on?
Listen I really don't have time for this bantering. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any.
"Why don't you go back to your own genetic puddle, and go for a swim. Boy."
Boy? ... LOL as they say ... "I'll whoop your ass" LOL Just kidding around man.
It's been fun ...
It has indeed been a lot of laughs, though I was talking about post-50 ACTION stars not just random post-50 year old guys. The only guy on your list that is over 50 (just) and an action star is Jackie Chan and I've never seen the appeal of his films anyway (plus he isn't as successful). My point is still true, there aren't many, if any, action stars out there over 50 doing as well in action films as he is, none of the guys on your list fit the bill. Thanks for the debate anyway matey, I must be something of a masochist deep down as I've quite enjoyed it. We must do it again sometime.
"Who's hotdog is that huh, is that yours?"
"Who's hotdog is that huh, is that yours?"
tora
Funmaker
Lol...I had fun reading your posts guys.And I do appreciate your opinions.It's just some of you seem to have fallen off the roof recently(I won't be calling names).And I would disagree on something said about Seagal films to be entertaining.The man is here not to entertain.And you better keep that in mind.
yudansha
TheGreatOne
Why necessarily from the roof?
LOL Steve anytime.
Jackie not as successful? (Excellent point TD!!! ... although Jackie has a few recent films that are DTV too, but they are also pretty damn good too if I say so myself) You must be kidding me though. Jackie Chan has a net worth much greater than that of Steven Seagal. You should look at the list of celebrities that comes out every year ...
John Travolta not action? ... look again buddy ... Robert DeNiro is all action! (plus he's all everything else) ... and talking about success, I am only judging by financial stability right now, and if you want to go by something else, I'll go, but make sure that you're ready to catch that hot dog LOL.
LOL Tora you funny devil: "some of you seem to have fallen off the roof recently" ... LOL me? ... no, not recently :=))
LOL Steve anytime.
Jackie not as successful? (Excellent point TD!!! ... although Jackie has a few recent films that are DTV too, but they are also pretty damn good too if I say so myself) You must be kidding me though. Jackie Chan has a net worth much greater than that of Steven Seagal. You should look at the list of celebrities that comes out every year ...
John Travolta not action? ... look again buddy ... Robert DeNiro is all action! (plus he's all everything else) ... and talking about success, I am only judging by financial stability right now, and if you want to go by something else, I'll go, but make sure that you're ready to catch that hot dog LOL.
LOL Tora you funny devil: "some of you seem to have fallen off the roof recently" ... LOL me? ... no, not recently :=))