NEW SEAGAL FILM-A GOOD MAN

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Screenshot of Victor Webster in A Good Man:

BZW8SnKIUAAryYp.jpg:large
 

Kotegashi

Master Of Disaster
Staff member
Give it a rest Boyd, we get it already you have absolutely no faith and hope for Seagals movies and his undertakings. But face it, it's only crap when you've seen it and it turns out to be really crap. Nothing is 'official' yet and you know it.

Untill that time we just don't know if it will be crap or not. Sure I agree the movie doesn't have much going for it with only a 3 week shooting period and a return to Eastern Europe, but you just cann't be sure untill you have seen the final product.

So let's be patient, wait and keep things constructive here instead of destructive ;)

Peace
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
Romania bothers me more than the shoot TBH...not a fan of STV films shot in Romania/Bulgaria

its possible to shoot a decent move in that time PW,UJ,MC and ADM were quick shoots and i liked those films

As for Boyd(who i remember is a Van Damme fan) just ignore him
 

Mason

Well-Known Member
It might not be a big movie, but it might do better than we think :) I'm excited to see what they bring to the table with A Good Man :) If they can film the movie in 3 weeks, maybe they can make the trailer in 5 days he he :D
 

ORANGATUANG

Wildfire
I dont get it just because this movie was done in 3 weeks its being judged already it could have taken 3 months and i guess fans will still say the same thing ...any ways guess there will always be fans that aint happy no matter what he does and isnt name calling getting abit old now? really cant say som ething nice dont say anything at all
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
These sort of films will almost always be shot in about 3 weeks. It doesn't always result in bad quality. Granted more often than not it does, but we'll see. I actually miss Romania as a location. It's been more fashionable of late to film in Vancouver as opposed to Eastern Europe. If they recycle too many locations from previous Seagal Romania set films it'll be frustrating for sure, but find some new places, and if the film is actually set in Eastern Europe, then it could look good. There's some great architecture in Romania. Parts of it look wonderful on film.

People should also remember that because these don't shoot on 35mm film anymore, but in HD, that films can be shot far quicker and more efficiently. You don't have to keep re-setting, and you can check your footage immediately as you go. You can shoot sometimes up to 3 times more in a day on HD than you can on old school film stock. So naturally, shooting schedules on these movies have dropped from an average of 4 weeks, to about 3 weeks in recent year.

Personally I prefer film because it looks better, where-as HD, unless lit very well, looks too much like TV. Again though, you don't have to spend as long setting up lighting rigs on HD, because the cameras pick up low light levels far better than film.
 

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
These sort of films will almost always be shot in about 3 weeks. It doesn't always result in bad quality. Granted more often than not it does, but we'll see. I actually miss Romania as a location. It's been more fashionable of late to film in Vancouver as opposed to Eastern Europe. If they recycle too many locations from previous Seagal Romania set films it'll be frustrating for sure, but find some new places, and if the film is actually set in Eastern Europe, then it could look good. There's some great architecture in Romania. Parts of it look wonderful on film.

People should also remember that because these don't shoot on 35mm film anymore, but in HD, that films can be shot far quicker and more efficiently. You don't have to keep re-setting, and you can check your footage immediately as you go. You can shoot sometimes up to 3 times more in a day on HD than you can on old school film stock. So naturally, shooting schedules on these movies have dropped from an average of 4 weeks, to about 3 weeks in recent year.

Personally I prefer film because it looks better, where-as HD, unless lit very well, looks too much like TV. Again though, you don't have to spend as long setting up lighting rigs on HD, because the cameras pick up low light levels far better than film.

Exactly, good post!
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
These sort of films will almost always be shot in about 3 weeks. It doesn't always result in bad quality. Granted more often than not it does, but we'll see. I actually miss Romania as a location. It's been more fashionable of late to film in Vancouver as opposed to Eastern Europe. If they recycle too many locations from previous Seagal Romania set films it'll be frustrating for sure, but find some new places, and if the film is actually set in Eastern Europe, then it could look good. There's some great architecture in Romania. Parts of it look wonderful on film.

People should also remember that because these don't shoot on 35mm film anymore, but in HD, that films can be shot far quicker and more efficiently. You don't have to keep re-setting, and you can check your footage immediately as you go. You can shoot sometimes up to 3 times more in a day on HD than you can on old school film stock. So naturally, shooting schedules on these movies have dropped from an average of 4 weeks, to about 3 weeks in recent year.

Personally I prefer film because it looks better, where-as HD, unless lit very well, looks too much like TV. Again though, you don't have to spend as long setting up lighting rigs on HD, because the cameras pick up low light levels far better than film.


Agree good post

I think the one major worry when shooting 3 instead of 4-5 weeks is the fights scenes....they can take up to 3-4 hours to film according to Waxman and if you have 4-5 fights in a film and considering Seagal is not on set as much anymore then you have to end up using doubles for fights has time ends up running out

look at the first fight from FOE that was online...you can see where they have filmed Seagal and where they have added extra stuff later...that film was shot in 18 days i think and no doubt they had enough tme for great fight scenes so that added filler into the fight after post production to make the fight longer
 

rastafari

Well-Known Member
Castel Films? That is not Voltage Pictures? Castel Films has released the film "Attack Force". Campaign film "A Good man" would not be very good.


Castel Films is a filming studio and i dont think they produce films themselves

The main producers of this are Goldfine-Sacks-Seagal like normal

I also dont think Voltage Pictures produce Seagal movies themselves either they just sell them on to whoever(Anchor Bay etc)
 

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Castel Films is a filming studio and i dont think they produce films themselves

The main producers of this are Goldfine-Sacks-Seagal like normal

I also dont think Voltage Pictures produce Seagal movies themselves either they just sell them on to whoever(Anchor Bay etc)

Indeed
 

DiDa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Keoni Waxman already mentioned that there will be some sword fights! Awesome!
 
Top