What Movie Should Seagal Have Done After Under Siege?

[TommyDeVito]

After Under Siege came out and was a big hit in 92, Seagal could have done just about any kind of movie he wanted. "On Deadly Ground" was a vanity piece, and while it was better than most critics said it was, I can see why it sank fast at the box office. Seagal should have done the mafia movie he was in talks for at Fox, "Man of Honor". It had all the elements that Seagal used in his earlier, far more successful films. He was also still in shape, so there probably would have been alot of fight scenes. I find it funny how Seagal really needs Siege 3, but it simply isn't coming together.

WB prob. doesn't want to pay him big bucks, plus spring for a big budget. I think in that case, all the studio would need to do is get another well known actor to share the top billing, (Vin Diesel) keep the budget around $35 million, and demand that Seagal lose as much weight as possible. No wires, no fancy camera tricks... Plus, get a good bad guy who's also a known actor. Good supporting casts tend to lend action movies more credibility.

 

[mandypuss]

All that reads true for me Tommy. He did kind of indulge himself with his roles after Under Siege 2 but that was because he had all the power back then.

 

[TommyDeVito]

Originally posted by mandypuss
All that reads true for me Tommy. He did kind of indulge himself with his roles after Under Siege 2 but that was because he had all the power back then.

Indulge is the right word.... It's funny. When most stars get the fame, money and power, they abuse it by making less than inspired choices. They probably think they won't be on top for long so they take the money and run. I don't blame Seagal, but it would have been more interesting to see what kind of films he could have made if he would have not cared so much about the $15 million paydays, and looked to expand his range.

 

[Jaxx]

I must admit, the reviews i've read of the latest films are not inspiring me to watch them.... i think if he tried to release another "under siege" it would be total media suicide really..... i don't know how right i am, we'll just see.... as for another big budget Seagal movie... i'm seeing those days coming to an end, much to my disapointment i might add.
once a fan, always a fan though, no matter what

Jaxx

 

[TommyDeVito]

Originally posted by Jaxx
I must admit, the reviews i've read of the latest films are not inspiring me to watch them.... i think if he tried to release another "under siege" it would be total media suicide really..... i don't know how right i am, we'll just see.... as for another big budget Seagal movie... i'm seeing those days coming to an end, much to my disapointment i might add.
once a fan, always a fan though, no matter what

Jaxx

I agree with all your points. His big budget days are def. over. Under Siege 3 has been in development hell for several years now, and the only way it can get made is if Seagal has a big name star sharing the billing. Get DMX... He helped Exit turn a profit.

 

[Nassau Mike]

It would have been good if he had done a movie like "The Yakuza" or "Man of Honor" back then, right after Under Siege. I really dont know the reason why Twentieth Century Fox pulled the funding for "Man of Honor" that was in the middle of pre prodution after Under Siege and Seagal had to actually pay for some of the work that had been started out of his own pockets when it was scrapped..I always wanted to see this movie made-actually, now might be a better time to make it considering whats going on in his life now..It is a mafia flick, for those who dont know...

 

[TommyDeVito]

Originally posted by Nassau Mike
It would have been good if he had done a movie like "The Yakuza" or "Man of Honor" back then, right after Under Siege. I really dont know the reason why Twentieth Century Fox pulled the funding for "Man of Honor" that was in the middle of pre prodution after Under Siege and Seagal had to actually pay for some of the work that had been started out of his own pockets when it was scrapped..I always wanted to see this movie made-actually, now might be a better time to make it considering whats going on in his life now..It is a mafia flick, for those who dont know...

Fox didn't want to pay him $20 million for it, and maybe the budget was too high. I agree that this should have been made. It had all the elements for success, especially since Seagal was popular back then, and had a string of hits which made him bankable.

 

[GlimmerMan]

Is that you Memphis? Hahaha! How's it going man? I will e-mail you back soon.

 

[TommyDeVito]

Originally posted by GlimmerMan
Is that you Memphis? Hahaha! How's it going man? I will e-mail you back soon.

Yeah it's me buddy. I'm doing okay. Peace

 

[MMCK2]

Yeah Seagal I think had the Hollywood action film world at his feet after "Under Siege" was released but he suffered from tall poppy syndrome which has affected a lot of similar stars. Basically what this means is a film is made by these stars (usually vanity projects) which are hyped up but fail spectacularly at the box office bringing the stars down a peg or two. John Travolta had "Battlefield Earth", Kevin Costner had "Waterworld" & "The Postman", Eddie Murphy had "Harlem Nights", Schwarzenegger had "Last Action Hero" (which I actually thought was good and unfairly treated) Stallone had well pretty much anything he's released since "Cliffhanger" and Seagal similarly had "On Deadly Ground"

The film itself is good action wise (espiecally the region 1 version) but story/script wise it is too uneven and preachy and as Tommy Devito said, easy to see why it flopped at the box office. The whole middle section involving the Inuit tribes I thought was spaced out and belonged in a different film entirly. It was as if Seagal saw the whole project as an Art movie and wanted to be taken seriously as a film maker among critics but also cater for his core action audience as well, but in the process ended up pleasing neither parties. In fact I could hardly name you a memorable piece of dialogue from the film.

What I think Seagal could and should have done was surround himself with decent action directors. I personally think he would have been good in a John Woo film especially something like "Hard Target" or "Broken Arrow". Other directors I would have liked to have seen him work with are John McTiernen, Walter Hill, Peter Hyams, Renny Harlin and Richard Donner. There would be no point getting him involved with Martin Scorsese or Brian De Palma as contrary to what some of his biggest fans think he is a limited actor. Another move he could have done to gain credability would have been to have made a documentary film on the disipline of aikido which he probably could have directed and introduced/narrated. I actually think this would have been a very good move after Under Siege and then he could have returned to more popular fare like his action thrillers etc.

The only way I can see him making a come back is if he starts working out again and gets himself down to his "Out For Justice" build (medium and muscular) and makes "The Yakuza" with a bigger studio and moderate budget. Since it is set in Japan and involves a fair deal of martial arts and swordplay I think Seagal is the only Hollywood star with authentic background to take on such a role. Although he could do with getting away from Franchise Pictures if "Half Past Dead" is anything to go buy.

It has come to the stage now that I think "Under Siege 3" won't and probably should'nt be made unless they come up with a script which breathes new life into the increasingly stale siege type film.

Peace.

 

[mandypuss]

wow,mmck2, youve definately hit the nail on the head. Everything youve said makes sense to me. Steven should only really make another Under Siege if he can get some passion back. I believe he only makes films now for the hell of it. Hes become blase and bored and it shows. He knows these latest movies arent anywhere near the calibre of his earlier work and I get the feeling he doesnt care much. He needs a top director, an enthusiastic crew and a great cast. When I say a top director I mean one who wont be intimidated by him and has the guts to kick him up the bum when neccessary. I feel he needs the motivation that a good director, good cast and great script can give him. Only then will we see the great Steven Seagal that we love.
luv & peace
Mandy