I've already read here that Seagal was not happy with / protested the way his death was depicted. But, seems like I've also read somewhere that he actually had a larger role, but the guys on the project (director? actors?) - essentially decided to "vote him off the island" - so to speak. Anyone know? references? thanks
shareAlmost certainly. Seagal is supposedly very hard to work with. I doubt they intended to pay the money for a popular action star like Seagal just to kill him off early in the movie. And I doubt Seagal would've taken the part in the first place if his character was always intended to die early on. Plus, the story established a conflict between Seagal and Russell's character that was never resolved.
I don't know any specific references, but John Leguizamo wrote some memoirs about his experiences in Hollywood a few years ago that probably addresses the subject one way or another.
I never was a Seagal fan growing up, so his death was actually a pleasant surprise for me.
___________
See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you're on?
"... I doubt they intended to pay the money for a popular action star like Seagal just to kill him off early in the movie. And I doubt Seagal would've taken the part in the first place if his character was always intended to die early on."
Good points; inline with my own suspicion.
"... his death was actually a pleasant surprise for me."
I guess, it was not a "pleasant" surprise for me, because I was really curious to see what the chemistry would be like, but I guess the answer is - the chemistry was disastrous.
Seagal, like so many of us, is probably his own worst enemy (Bruce Lee might be another example).
I've followed his career with a little interest since Above the Law (about 24 years ago) checking in every few years to see what he's up to - because of my studies in aikido. I've been pretty disappointed in Seagal over all.
Thanks for your input.
Executive Decision would never have been as successful if this had ended up as just another "Seagal (or Ryback) saves the world" flick. I have always liked Kurt Russell. He doesn't have the big head and really comes across as credible and believable. The other team of actors were all top notch so with Seagal out of the movie worked fine for me.
He might not have liked his character being killed off but this was more than a "one-man" operation in saving the day. It required everyone, including Halle Berry, to help save Washington.
I wasn't there and I'm aware of the conflicting reports ... BUT ...
I have a hard time believing the original screenplay didn't kill off Seagal's character early on.
The whole point of the movie was to put a CIA analyst with no field experience front-and-center.
Rat may have been in charge of the mission, but Travis's death put Grant into a much more central role, both in the mission and in the movie.
It'd be like arguing that Alec Guiness got written out of Star Wars late in the game - Kenobi's "death" was central to Luke's character arc, just as Travis's death was critical to Grant's importance.
I'd guess it's far more likely Seagal took the role, knowing Travis would die, but hoping to convince the producers to let his character live only after shooting had begun.
Hollywood isn't averse to killing off one of the seemingly-main star early on to surprise the audience.
Psycho, Alien, Young Guns, Deep Blue Sea...plenty of movies have well-known and surprisingly-early deaths.
======================
Space Shuttle Atlantis: the music video http://youtu.be/ZZ67FMfC1Gg
This makes more sense. I'm pretty sure if Seagal was having issues, he would have never agreed to film his death scene. I'm certain that if Seagal was unhappy with his role and all that, he would have probably backed out, regardless of the consequences.
The grave is no bar to my call.
"I'm pretty sure if Seagal was having issues, he would have never agreed to film his death scene."
Good point.
"The whole point of the movie was to put a CIA analyst with no field experience front-and-center."
Coming back and taking yet another look - "trans.." your suggestion makes perfect sense.
Seagal's character would have been more of a hard-charging - kick-butt persona; as you say, not what the storyline called for.
thanks
The whole point of the movie was to put a CIA analyst with no field experience front-and-center.
i think it was done as a suprise to shock the audience as well as of convenience. i read somehwere that kurt russell was not the first choice for the role, but when he came on board the chemistry with the other actors seemed good, killing seagal would add shock value, plus i think segal was kind of on his way out as an action star at this point and i think everyone had simply had enough of his behaviour and off screen antics. so the dominos all fell in to place and they changed the script and wrote him out. otherwise might as well have just called it "under siege 3 : up in the air" and we all would have panned the jolly thing. i mean really, the guy is a clown and his box office appeal has never been huge that i can see.
shareCertainly was shocking. I remember my parents remarking about it when we first watched it. I'm glad. I'm not really a fan of Seagal and I like John Leguizamo way more. I don't remember a ton about the movie but I do remember liking it and liking him.
share/\/\ This... I went to see this in the theaters on opening day and people were shocked when Segal who had some big action films at the time got knocked off: people gasped audibly, children cried and a woman miscarried; it was that shocking.
OK two of the above didn't really happen, but back then before the internet, spoilers like Segals death were rare!
Now if Segal was killed senselessly he probably wouldn't have done the role, but it was a heroic sacrificial death so he probably didn't mind.
Talk at the time was that Seagal was brought in for the small part to boost ticket sales as they feared Russell lacked a big enough following.
shareInteresting angle MRS.
Seagal may have needed the work and, although I'm a big fan of Russell's, the cast probably did need a little more "punch".
thanks
Seagal's range as an actor is very limited. If you've seen one of Seagal's movie you've seen them all. He comes off as being invincible. He's not. And he's never worked opposite any actors who have similar martial arts skills. I'm guessing when working w/Seagal there needs to be some extra room for his huge ego. At least when watching a Seagal movie you know what your getting (except for this movie).
share[deleted]
I heard Segal was difficult to work with in many films, Leguizamo was interviewed and said Segal assaulted him, the interview is on yt btw.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
Seagal does indeed die a heroic death, and I have the feeling he was cast simply to establish Col. Austin Travis as the badass' badass. The cameo is one of Seagal's better performances.
share