I take you're point Terrorvator that Seagal doesn't have complete creative control over the films he makes. However as the main (up until recently) draw of the film he must have some say. That means he could action several of the points in this boycott. Before he signs on he should ask the question 'who is the director, and what have they done before?'. In most cases before he signs on he will have read a script. If he's not happy with it and there are not enough fight scenes then he should pass on it. That only really leaves his weight. To me it's an issue when it's not believable that he's an action star so for me he does need to lose some. I don't expect him to look like he did in 'Above the Law' of course but something approaching 'Exit Wounds' seems reasonable when you consider the physical shape of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis.
This of course all assumes that the faults with many of Seagal's films lie with the film makers and not Seagal. We should of course remember that Seagal himself writes many of the scripts and judging by many of them they all come from a basic core story involving a former CIA/special ops/police agent taking out the trash so to speak. Seagal is also well documented as meddling in the production of several of his films. And if I was a producer and I had a martial arts star like Seagal I would want as many martial arts scenes as possible. It makes financial sense after all. So then the question has to be asked as to why there are so few? On the commentary for the directors cut of Ticker, Albert Pyun explains that Seagal was very unhappy at being asked to do the films only martial arts scene and decided he would make it difficult for the already tight production by insisting on his own very expensive fighters and choreographers.
I know that the issues we see in Seagal's films which form the basis of this boycott can be seen in the DTV releases of other action stars. However Seagal has been doing this now for 11 years. Isn't it about time that the issues stopped? And if Seagal isn't being offered decent films then maybe he should do some quality control on himself and just not make the film? I can't imagine that be is that strapped for cash that he couldn't wait for one decent film to come along rather than making 3 substandard ones?
marky96, good points in turn. However, we still have disagreements.
I think Seagal does take an interest in his directors, at least more than folks seem to believe. He's mentioned openly about how he enjoys working with Keoni Waxman, and Roel Reine's claimed in an interview that he had discussions with Seagal before they began making
Pistol Whipped. This doesn't prove anything for the majority of his movies, sure, but it may be a moot point to begin with since I really don't think that DTV action stars have very much say in who directs their movies. A rule of thumb in movie-making is that you only have such control if you're financing a film entirely by yourself. Seagal is but one of several producers in all of his movies and he's under contract to a company: he probably has *some* influence, but these aren't situation where one person can slam his fist down on the table and demand his will.
I wish the matter of the scripts was more defined in the petition terms. I'm not sure what constitutes a "great and exciting script," but the CIA/special ops/police issue is mentioned. Where this is concerned, remember that Seagal has indeed pursued alternative storylines, but so few of them have seen the light of day. Among the ones we have seen are
Machete and
Against the Dark, but then there are those like
Shadows on the Sun and
Prince of Pistols which were talked about publicly before being lost.
Attack Force would also have been pretty out-of-the-ordinary had it not been altered. In the past, Seagal wanted to play Genghis Khan. Writer Joe Halpin has indicated that most film stories do originate at least partially with Seagal, but I think the aforementioned shows that Seagal does in fact take a balanced interest in alternative storylines. Why don't these get produced? I'd speculate that studios aren't comfortable taking too many chances with Seagal.
The average number of fight scenes is again something I can only speculate on. I haven't heard the
Ticker commentary, and it would be shame if that were the case, but I don't think it's the best example: Seagal wasn't the star of that picture, and the single fight felt very shoehorned in, like a last-minute decision. I'd find it hard to believe that Seagal doesn't want to do fights, period, since he still has an obvious love of the martial arts, but he - like Van Damme - probably isn't content with a "martial arts guy" image and may push for fewer onscreen brawls. I don't know. Again, the decision may not be up to him entirely, and who knows what a producer thinks is good?
"However Seagal has been doing this now for 11 years. Isn't it about time that the issues stopped?" Maybe, but again, this is assuming that Seagal controls his pictures with great discretion, which I think there is reason enough to doubt. Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren have been making DTV pictures for longer than Steven, and their issues haven't stopped, even when the latter began directing his own films. Again, you see 'problems' like these across the board, and it seems to make little difference whether the star has a squeaky-clean record or was ever accused of tampering with scripts.
My advice to the author of this petition is to not only send this Seagal's way, but also to Nicolas Chartier, the head of Voltage Pictures. He's the one who claimed that he's only making DTV action flicks to finance his bigger films. If you can convince him to place more emphasis on his lower-budget output, Seagal will be in a better position to address the points the petition demands.