Interesting UFC Jet Li Story from back in the day...

[Afrikan]

Yes, DMX, but no Aaliyah. That was Romeo Must Die, which only had DMX as a cameo role in a movie about racial mafias trying to get one over on the NFL.

Cradle 2 The Grave was Jet Li and DMX in a starring role, this time, trying to recover small jewels that can be powered up to exponentially stronger than nuclear bombs. Mark Dacascos plays the villain, as decided by a vote on Jet Li's website about who his fans would most like to see him fight against on screen next. Gabrielle Union plays the feminine sex symbol in this one.

Not to be confused with Exit Wounds starring DMX and Steven Segal, about a supposed thug and a squeaky clean cop trying to take down a dirty cop drug smuggling ring. No real feminine sex symbol in this one (Except for 2 short scenes with Eva Mendes where her voice was dubbed because the director said she didn't have a voice for movies). However, Exit Wounds also had Tom Arnold and Anthony Anderson, who got along so well behind the scenes and in their short on-screen time that Cradle 2 the Grave chose to all but pair them up on screen for some hilarity, especially during the closing credits.

You're welcome.

One of the few times I make a mistake... (or I don't edit a mistake in time ).

Yes, thank you for the correction.

 

[Bullitt68]

Yes, DMX, but no Aaliyah. That was Romeo Must Die, which only had DMX as a cameo role in a movie about racial mafias trying to get one over on the NFL.

Cradle 2 The Grave was Jet Li and DMX in a starring role, this time, trying to recover small jewels that can be powered up to exponentially stronger than nuclear bombs. Mark Dacascos plays the villain, as decided by a vote on Jet Li's website about who his fans would most like to see him fight against on screen next. Gabrielle Union plays the feminine sex symbol in this one.

Not to be confused with Exit Wounds starring DMX and Steven Segal, about a supposed thug and a squeaky clean cop trying to take down a dirty cop drug smuggling ring. No real feminine sex symbol in this one (Except for 2 short scenes with Eva Mendes where her voice was dubbed because the director said she didn't have a voice for movies). However, Exit Wounds also had Tom Arnold and Anthony Anderson, who got along so well behind the scenes and in their short on-screen time that Cradle 2 the Grave chose to all but pair them up on screen for some hilarity, especially during the closing credits.

You're welcome.

Two things. First, Seagal was not a "squeaky clean cop" in Exit Wounds. He literally never played that. Morally gray characters was Seagal's specialty, and in Exit Wounds he never listens to his superiors and gets busted down to a shitty Detroit precinct for pissing off the brass. Second, how dare you say "no real feminine sex symbol" with Jill Hennessy in the cast. She's a classic '90s TV babe (from Law & Order as the ADA before Carey Lowell, then she got her own show Crossing Jordan in the 2000s) and I'm still bummed out about her fate in that film (and her fate in Law & Order for that matter).

She's also a celebrity twin, and her and her sister Jacqueline were in David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers together.

And that's today's movie fun facts.

 

[GSP_37]

He does something I think is called scorpion kick where he faces opponent and his leg comes back over the top like rolodex to pat opponent on top of head. That looks like something only effective in TV and movies.

 

[prikoke]

Wushu is about longevity and health as well as some martial skills.
Honestly, who you bet on today Jet Li vs Chuck Liddel free fight?
A stiff slap would KO Chuck. Hell, a gust of wind would probably rock him.

Jet Li lived the dream and is still healthy, not slurring speech and bemused half the time.

Obviously most people would bet on Chuck. He's much bigger, a bit younger, and has been an active fighter until recently, in a sports considered much more effective than wushu. Jet Li stopped competing in wushu over 40 years ago. Just because Tito KOd Chuck doesn't mean 60yr old featherweight Jet Li would, Tito aged pretty well actually.

Of course, Jet Li is much healthier, but in a real fight Chuck by a mile.

 

[prikoke]

Morally gray characters was Seagal's specialty, and in Exit Wounds he never listens to his superiors and gets busted down to a shitty Detroit precinct for pissing off the brass.

Seagal plays God-like characters with no flaws in about half of his movies, especially the second half of his bowel of a filmography. I also think that he's so delusional that even when his character comes off as morally gray, he doesn't even realize it and thinks he's playing this super awesome guy. Like, he's playing a rude dick not because he's trying to make a noir movie, but because he's actually a dick in real life and thinks that's cool.

 

[Bullitt68]

Seagal plays God-like characters with no flaws in about half of his movies, especially the second half of his bowel of a filmography. I also think that he's so delusional that even when his character comes off as morally gray, he doesn't even realize it and thinks he's playing this super awesome guy. Like, he's playing a rude dick not because he's trying to make a noir movie, but because he's actually a dick in real life and thinks that's cool.

No joke, not only am I a film professor with a PhD, but I wrote my MA thesis on Steven Seagal. I've actually published on the man. And this is completely wrong. He most certainly does not play "God-like characters with no flaws." This is why he struggles with his unlawful actions in Marked for Death - and literally goes to church to confess his many sins - it's why he has a crisis of conscience in On Deadly Ground after being Michael Caine's unprincipled Mr. Fix It and disavows his former shitty self, it's why he feels karmic guilt for his ex-wife's death in The Glimmer Man where he was formerly a shadowy black ops assassin with a past he'd rather forget, and then there are Above the Law and Out for Justice where he has family or friend connections with the mob and has one foot on the cop side and one on the crook side and struggles to reconcile the good and bad within himself. Even in Hard to Kill, his most "wholesome" character, the ending is all about how far he's gone down the revenge rabbit hole and if he's going to actually take the senator to the blood bank or if he'll be able to remember his principles of justice and stay true to the man he was before. As I said, Seagal's characters live in the morally gray. That's what gives his characters complexity and his films resonance. You don't have to like him, or his films, but if you deny this about the types of characters he plays and the types of stories his films tell, then you're just wrong. Don't worry, though: That just gives you an excuse to rewatch all of his awesome films.

 

[prikoke]

and then there are Above the Law and Out for Justice where he has family or friend connections with the mob and has one foot on the cop side and one on the crook side and struggles to reconcile the good and bad within himself.

How does having friends, especially family in the mob make one morally gray? He's not endorsing or responsible for their actions. I would definitely call his character in those movies morally gray, but not because of what his family does. It's because he neglects and arguably cheats on his wife in Above the Law, and abuses his powers in Out For Justice, even harming innocents.

What are his morally gray features in Under Siege, Fire Down Below, or Sniper Special Ops?

 

[Bullitt68]

How does having friends, especially family in the mob make one morally gray? He's not endorsing or responsible for their actions. I would definitely call his character in those movies morally gray, but not because of what his family does. It's because he neglects and arguably cheats on his wife in Above the Law, and abuses his powers in Out For Justice, even harming innocents.

A cop whose uncle is a mafia boss is quite the picture of conflict of interest, no? You think that Seagal knows nothing of his uncle's illegal activities? Yet, he never turns him in or acts against him in his capacity as a cop, despite his duty as an officer of the law to put criminals behind bars. His loyalties are split, to the police on one side and to his family (which is the family) on the other. I might even describe such a situation as...morally gray. And this is to say nothing of his law-bending if not law-breaking actions ("Illegal wire taps, unauthorized surveillance") which get him suspended during the course of the film. This movie is the definition of morally gray (hence the title Above the Law).

As for the "cheats on his wife" bit, I've always considered that a stupid line of interpretation. He's close with Jax the way that Mulder and Scully were close in The X-Files and the way that Stabler and Benson were close in SVU.

What are his morally gray features in Under Siege, Fire Down Below, or Sniper Special Ops?

If you want to get pedantic, I can go there. Starting with his prime run from Above the Law to Exit Wounds - and excluding minor shit like Executive Decision and My Giant as well as his only DTV blemish during this run, the God awful The Patriot - we've got 10 films. In 7 of those films, there's no question that he's a morally gray character. 7 out of 10 is a 70% rate of playing morally gray characters. Already, I'm on solid ground claiming that he predominantly plays morally gray characters. (And, for the sake of the pun, you claiming otherwise would place you on deadly ground.) For the 3 films where it's not clear-cut - Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Fire Down Below - I'd say that Casey Ryback in Under Siege and Under Siege 2 is similar to his character in Exit Wounds where insubordination and contempt for authority is his character flaw (which begs the question of why someone like Casey Ryback would ever join the Navy with its regimental hierarchy, but that's a script issue) even though, as he does in Above the Law, you could say that he's fighting for a "higher" sense of law/justice (hence, again, Above the Law). As for Fire Down Below, he's an undercover operative infiltrating a small, peaceful hick town. Not only does he bring violence into their world - I know, I know, it's not his fault, but still - he lies about who he is and why he's there, and not just in the abstract to random strangers, but to a woman he develops feelings for and who develops feelings for him, and who is hurt by his deception. Sure, it's his job, but what would a Seagal film be without some sort of ethical dilemma? I'll tell you: It wouldn't be a Seagal film. Because Seagal's films at their best always involve difficult choices for his characters.

Now, beyond his prime run from Above the Law to Exit Wounds, I don't really care so much, and in the last 10 years, I haven't seen many of his DTV films. But I check in with him periodically, and I have seen everything up to Maximum Conviction, and I will note that not only would be go on to play out-and-out villains, which was a new wrinkle and which adds extra layers of ethical complexity to his films and his persona, he also continues to play morally gray protagonists, from the undercover agent (who, again, has to lie and who has to be comfortable in the criminal underworld) in Half Past Dead to the reformed professor who once was a high-profile thief who spent time in prison in Out for a Kill, a former CIA agent who quit after a botched mission that resulted in a woman's death in Belly of the Beast, a former CIA agent who gets in the middle of a gang war to avenge his son's death and who is cool with the gangsters because his code dictates personal revenge not general justice in Urban Justice, and the bought-and-paid-for loser drunk cop who becomes a hired killer for a vigilante squad in Pistol Whipped.

Again, if you try to dispute the claim that morally gray characters and stories are the bedrock of Seagal's filmography, then you just haven't been paying attention.

 

[prikoke]

You think that Seagal knows nothing of his uncle's illegal activities? Yet, he never turns him in or acts against him in his capacity as a cop, despite his duty as an officer of the law to put criminals behind bars

Everyone knows about mob bosses, they are famous. To put them behind bars you need evidence, which is tremendously hard to obtain. You think uncle Soprano told his cop nephew anything actually incriminating? Besides, the mob connection in Above The Law is a useless dead end anyway, it does nothing for the story.

His loyalties are split, to the police on one side and to his family (which is the family) on the other.

No, they are not. There is never an instance where he chooses the side the mob over the cops, or any conflict about it.

insubordination and contempt for authority is his character flaw

A character flaw is not the same as morally gray. He got kicked out for hitting an officer who screwed up a mission and cause some death, that's a gross violation of the military code but not exactly a super immoral thing.

Not only does he bring violence into their world

The violence started before he got there, as well as the disease and corruption, and how exactly are you gonna eliminate a bunch of violent criminals without violence? It was always self-defense anyway.

lies about who he is and why he's there

That's his job. Also is anyone who tells a lie "morally gray"?

Sure, it's his job, but what would a Seagal film be without some sort of ethical dilemma?

There really wasn't much of an ethical dilemma, Seagal's character didn't lose any sleep over it.

a former CIA agent who quit after a botched mission that resulted in a woman's death in Belly of the Beast

He wasn't the one who botched the mission and caused the woman's death. How does this make him "morally gray"?

 

[Bullitt68]

Everyone knows about mob bosses, they are famous. To put them behind bars you need evidence, which is tremendously hard to obtain. You think uncle Soprano told his cop nephew anything actually incriminating? Besides, the mob connection in Above The Law is a useless dead end anyway, it does nothing for the story.


No, they are not. There is never an instance where he chooses the side the mob over the cops, or any conflict about it.


A character flaw is not the same as morally gray. He got kicked out for hitting an officer who screwed up a mission and cause some death, that's a gross violation of the military code but not exactly a super immoral thing.

The violence started before he got there, as well as the disease and corruption, and how exactly are you gonna eliminate a bunch of violent criminals without violence? It was always self-defense anyway.

That's his job. Also is anyone who tells a lie "morally gray"?


There really wasn't much of an ethical dilemma, Seagal's character didn't lose any sleep over it.


He wasn't the one who botched the mission and caused the woman's death. How does this make him "morally gray"?

Not only did you say in this post a lot of the things that I myself said in my previous post, but you deleted me saying it and then said it yourself as if it was new information. This conversation is clearly going nowhere and you're not conversing in good faith. I feel like I'm talking to the Family Guy donkey.



Besides which, I'm starting to think that you don't know what it means for a character to be "morally grey." So, to help, here are some definitions:

"So, what makes a morally grey character, well, grey? They are the villains with a point, the heroes who will cross the line, the ones who will make the difficult decisions."

"It’s no secret that morally grey characters are flawed – it’s why we love them! But the way these flaws manifest in your character will make or break them. It can be tricky to get the balance right – you don’t want to go so far that they’re no longer redeemable, but you don’t want to tread too lightly either. For these reasons, it is important to acknowledge their flaws within the story. Have other characters react with horror to their actions, have them feel regret or remorse, just make sure these problematic actions aren’t just shrugged off or ignored."

"Morally grey characters operate beyond the dichotomy of good versus evil. They’re not motivated by that age-old battle. Instead, these characters will usually make the choice to pursue their own ambitions over those of the greater good or evil. Because their goals are removed from these qualities, they could be inherently good or bad, so long as they serve the character's ultimate purposes. However, that’s not to say that morally grey characters don’t aim to make the world better (or worse) in some way."

"They may have a larger goal that they’re striving to achieve, such as immortality for all or taking down a corrupt government. But this doesn’t necessarily mean morally grey characters won’t see others suffer, regardless of intent. Our morally dubious friends will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. Whether they do it knowingly or not, they may go about achieving their goals while leaving a trail of tragedy and destruction in their wake."

"The reason morally grey characters even exist is because we have certain established moral codes that determine what is “good” or “bad” in our real world. For example, we understand that taking someone’s life is generally bad, and saving someone’s life is generally good. In the case of morally grey characters, this scale of good and bad can become hyper-isolated, weighed exclusively by them. And it often gets skewed by circumstance."

If none of the above makes you think of Seagal's characters across his films, then you either don't understand what a morally grey character is or you don't understand what's happening in Seagal's films. Either way, we've spent enough time in an MMA thread arguing about Seagal movies. Hopefully this makes sense. If not, maybe we'll cross paths on Seagal again in a Mayberry movie thread.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

Chuck and Tito were in that movie too. Chuck said Jet Li was cool but nothing to write home about. Chuck said he was more impressed with Chriss Angel who happened to be on set for a lot of the filming as he was friends with the director. Tito who was also much more impressed with Chriss Angel liked Jet Li but had him confused with Jackie Chan and it wasn't until the premier of the film that it was explained to him that they are two different people.

Well Chris Angel probably had the better coke

 

[prikoke]

Not only did you say in this post a lot of the things that I myself said in my previous post, but you deleted me saying it and then said it yourself as if it was new information. This conversation is clearly going nowhere and you're not conversing in good faith.

Example?

So, what makes a morally grey character, well, grey? They are the villains with a point, the heroes who will cross the line, the ones who will make the difficult decisions."

Ok, now read your own definition and explain to me how a CIA agent who quits because of a mission botched *by his partner* is a villain, or how being undercover makes one villainous by definition.

Morally gray is not as little as "has flaws"; everyone has flaws. Morally gray is someone who has done something actually bad, and also something good, to the point where the audience questions whether the character if a good person or an evil person. A guy who loses his temper and slaps his commanding officer for sending his team to die is not a "morally gray" person with "questionable morals", he's a good person who lost his temper. A cop who is on speaking terms with his mobbed up relative isn't a person of questionable morals; to get into morally gray territory he would actually have to take money from him, or help him out in some small way.

Yes, Seagal plays plenty of actually morally gray people. He also plays a lot of god-like characters who can do no wrong, except for minor character flaws like being speaking to people in a condescending way (I assume because Seagal himself doesn't realize that's a bad thing), or disobeying a dumbass cop/superior offices who is giving a bad order, and so on. (This kind of "rightful disobedience" makes one a maverick, not a morally gray character).

Again, there is nothing morally gray about his characters in Under Siege, Fire Down Below, Sniper Special Ops, Belly of the Beast, and more of them from later movies. Later movies are especially guilty of this because Seagal has too much power and sometimes he tries to make himself appear too cool, without realizing, like better directors do, that his main appeal is to be a dickhead bullying Dirty Harry clone, not a wannabe demigod. Seagal was *meant* to be play morally gray characters or even villains, but too often he can't get out of his own way and makes his own movies worse. His early movies were the best because he actually followed the guidelines set by people who knew what they were doing.

 

[MyNameisMyName]

Jet Li was awesome in The One.
Yulaw!!!
He would have been champ based in that.

 

[rear naked ankle pick]

Joe Riggs is Jet Li of UFC

 

[SCTwins]

This is probably my favorite martial arts fight scene. The overhead shot where he kicks 6 dudes in about 3 seconds is amazing.

 

[Bullitt68]

Example?

Sure. I said this:

Not only does he bring violence into their world - I know, I know, it's not his fault, but still

You responded with this:

Not only does he bring violence into their world

The violence started before he got there, as well as the disease and corruption, and how exactly are you gonna eliminate a bunch of violent criminals without violence? It was always self-defense anyway.

You deleted the part where I acknowledged that it wasn't his fault and then told me, as if I not only didn't know it but didn't myself say it, that it wasn't his fault. That's bad faith argumentation, and all the worse for being so transparent.

Side note, a contributing factor to your weird inability to countenance the "morally grey" descriptor seems to be that because you agree with Seagal's actions, you for some reason are incapable of seeing any of his actions as in any way problematic, or as having negative effects on anyone around him. In short, you can't see things from any other perspective. But that's at the core of a morally grey character/story: There are more ways than one to interpret what's happening. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, in Fire Down Below, he's doing what's right. But what he's doing is hurting the local citizens, it's potentially putting people in danger - and, in the case of Harry Dean Stanton, it not only puts him in harm's way, it nearly costs him his life, while, in the case of Levon Helm, it does cost him his life - and he's hurting the woman he's courting. It's for the greater good, yes, but in the now, it's painful, it has life-and-death consequences, and there are moments where a lot of the townsfolk would prefer Seagal just go away and leave them alone. That's conflict, that's the essence of drama. It's not as cookie-cutter, black-and-white as you're reducing it to---hence grey. You're denuding Fire Down Below of its ethical complexity and making it a much more boring movie than it actually is. And you seem to be doing it solely because you don't want for whatever strange reason to just say that I'm right. You ever hear the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"? If you want to talk about the exceptions, fair enough, but you have to at least acknowledge the rule that they're exceptions to.

Ok, now read your own definition and explain to me how a CIA agent who quits because of a mission botched *by his partner* is a villain, or how being undercover makes one villainous by definition.

You need to reread what I posted and note that "morally grey" and "villain" are not synonyms. You don't have to be a villain or villainous to be morally grey. You are weirdly locked into this idiosyncratic binary of "God-like characters who can do no wrong" and "villains," but those are the poles on opposite ends of a very wide spectrum in which the majority of Seagal's characters are to be located.

Yes, Seagal plays plenty of actually morally gray people.

And here we are. This is so difficult for you to acknowledge why? You act like I'm coming out of left field but you yourself agree. Are you even aware of what's going on between your ears?

He also plays a lot of god-like characters who can do no wrong

What are some examples in your head of characters Seagal's played who meet this criterion? We can leave aside the fact that immediately after you describe his characters as "God-like characters who can do no wrong" you undercut the notion by acknowledging that his characters always have some sort of flaw, which contradicts the notion of him being God-like and incapable of doing wrong. But I'm just curious as to how your idiosyncratic definitions work. I've not only explained my definitions, I've cited supporting quotations. Granted, you seem to have failed to understand them, but still. For my sake, you now give me some examples of what it is that you're talking about. What are all the "God-like characters who can do no wrong" in the Seagal canon?

 

[prikoke]

You deleted the part where I acknowledged that it wasn't his fault and then told me, as if I not only didn't know it but didn't myself say it, that it wasn't his fault.

You missed my point. I didn't say it wasn't his fault, I said he didn't bring the violence into the town. The violence was already there before he came.

But what he's doing is hurting the local citizens

No, it's helping the local citizens by getting them rid of the gang running the town and pollution.

in the case of Levon Helm, it does cost him his life

The pastor got killed for helping Seagal, something he offered himself to do. I assume he knew the risks of what he was signing up for. He was a casualty in the fight against the gang that he himself decided to join, Seagal didn't conscript him by force.

and he's hurting the woman he's courting

Not really, he's treating her very well. It's not his fault she has a crazy brother that he didn't know was crazy and corrupt. And he freed her from her brother's malignant control.

and there are moments where a lot of the townsfolk would prefer Seagal just go away and leave them alone

Because they are afraid, they don't realize Seagal is a superhero that can take down an entire small army by himself.

You're denuding Fire Down Below of its ethical complexity

There really isn't any ethical complexity. It's a heroic agent fighting against a powerful gang of criminals terrorizing a town. Yes, the criminals lash out and there is some collateral damage because it's impossible for there not to be. That doesn't make it ethically complex. Collateral damage really is minimal, and it's not like Seagal is shielding himself with innocent people. This is a much lesser movie that you think it to be.

You don't have to be a villain or villainous to be morally grey.

You have to be a villain AND a hero to be morally gray. Or rather, you have to have done both bad things and good things. Seagal's hero doesn't do anything bad, it's the thugs who do all the crimes. You blame him for all the collateral damage (which is not that large, actually), but he's actually been quite responsible and protective of the locals, he just can't completely shield everyone.

This is so difficult for you to acknowledge why

I literally said in my very first post that he plays morally gray characters in half of his movies. Now you pretend like I don't acknowledge it?

What are all the "God-like characters who can do no wrong" in the Seagal canon?

These are characters who only have minor, negligible flaws, but in more substantial matters have impeccable morals, as well as near superhuman abilities. For example, minor flaws would be being impatient and disobedient with incompetent or corrupt figures of authority ("getting fired/discharged for being too good/too honest" is a typical cliche of this), or being a loner and not willing to socialize with people. You don't seem to like my example from Fire Down Below. Casey Ryback is another such character, so is the character from Belly of The Beast, or Sniper Special Ops and a few other recent movies that are way worse than the early ones.

 

[Bullitt68]

You missed my point.

I don't care what your point was. You're obfuscating. You deleted what I said and then said it yourself as if I didn't know it and didn't say it myself. That's bad faith argumentation. Can you even admit that you did that? Can you admit that you deleted my words to create a cherry-picked point to refute?

No, it's helping the local citizens by getting them rid of the gang running the town and pollution.

It's not either/or, it's not black-and-white; it's both/and, it's grey. Jesus, man, how dense are you? How are you not seeing this?

The pastor got killed for helping Seagal, something he offered himself to do. I assume he knew the risks of what he was signing up for. He was a casualty in the fight against the gang that he himself decided to join, Seagal didn't conscript him by force.

Seagal didn't have to conscript him by force. The fact remains: Seagal showed up, the pastor tried to help him, he died for it. Had Seagal not shown up, the pastor wouldn't have died. Was it worth it? That's not for us to say. But the fact that it's a complex situation is the point. Again, how dense are you that you're not seeing this?

Not really

Yes, really, that's why she dresses him down and leaves betrayed and hurt. Again, how dense are you that you're not seeing this?

It's not his fault she has a crazy brother that he didn't know was crazy and corrupt.

I never said it was, and it doesn't have to be. Again, how dense are you that you're not seeing this?

Because they are afraid

No shit, that's what makes it a complex situation. Again, how dense are you that you're not seeing this?

There really isn't any ethical complexity.

Yes, there is. You're just so dense that you don't see it.

I literally said in my very first post that he plays morally gray characters in half of his movies. Now you pretend like I don't acknowledge it?

My post, which I made in response to someone else before you even showed up in here, was to say this:

Morally gray characters was Seagal's specialty

That is a simple, straightforward, statistically accurate, inarguable point. Your "very first post" was to say this:

Seagal plays God-like characters with no flaws in about half of his movies, especially the second half of his bowel of a filmography. I also think that he's so delusional that even when his character comes off as morally gray, he doesn't even realize it and thinks he's playing this super awesome guy. Like, he's playing a rude dick not because he's trying to make a noir movie, but because he's actually a dick in real life and thinks that's cool.

In point of fact, you did not agree with me and corroborate that Seagal predominantly plays morally grey characters. You trotted out the silly "God-like characters" bit and then made fun of Seagal the man apart from his characters. Tell me again which one of us is pretending here?

These are characters who only have minor, negligible flaws, but in more substantial matters have impeccable morals, as well as near superhuman abilities.

Since when does God have any flaws? Why bring God and superhuman into it? Seagal is always exceedingly mortal and human. That's the whole point. He nearly dies in Above the Law, Hard to Kill, and On Deadly Ground, he's wounded in Marked for Death, Out for Justice, and The Glimmer Man, he's older and physically weaker in Exit Wounds. You're projecting a ton of nonsense that isn't there onto Seagal's films and characters.

You don't seem to like my example from Fire Down Below. Casey Ryback is another such character

What are you seeing that's even remotely God-like about either of those characters? Oh, and by the way, in your own little list, you listed a whopping four characters who you think qualify as God-like. Do you really want to stand by your statement that he plays God-like characters in "about half of his movies"?

Or, you could just admit that you spoke hastily, that you're pedantically quibbling over exceptions to the rule, and that you agree in large part if not entirely with what I've said, and you can stop lying and twisting yourself up in nonsense to avoid admitting error.

 

[prikoke]

Can you even admit that you did that? Can you admit that you deleted my words to create a cherry-picked point to refute?

Why would I admit what didn't happen? I deleted stuff that was irrelevant to the point i was refuting (that he brought violence to the town), that's it.

fact remains: Seagal showed up, the pastor tried to help him, he died for it. Had Seagal not shown up, the pastor wouldn't have died.

That doesn't make it Seagal's fault or flaw. More people died for Jesus, will you argue Jesus was a "morally gray character"? Was rescuing the victims of the Thai cave collapse "morally gray" because some people died during it?

Since when does God have any flaws?

God-like, not God. You should also know that some Gods do have flaws, they can be vulnerable or even mortal.

Seagal is always exceedingly mortal and human.

No, the well-known running joke about Seagal is that he's always superhuman, in most movies his opponents don't even touch him. Unlike Van Damme, Stallone or even Arnold, he wins every fight without a scratch or much effort, which makes his movies quite boring because there's never a challenge to him.

What are you seeing that's even remotely God-like about either of those characters?

Uhmm, impeccable morals (in the parts that matter; again they could have minor, insignificant flaws here and there) and amazing skills that allow them to take down an entire little army of armed trained bad guys pretty much by himself? It's like Die Hard but without Bruce Willis' humanity and vulnerability because nobody can even lay a hand on Seagal.

Oh, and by the way, in your own little list, you listed a whopping four characters who you think qualify as God-like

I wrote 4 because I thought that would be enough to convey the point; you want a comprehensive list covering the entire filmography in a Sherdog post? Besides, as I mentioned, there are more God-like characters in his later movies which you said you didn't watch so I tried not to mention them. If I remember correctly, Out of Reach, Into the Sun, Attack Force, Today You Die, Shadow Man, Against the Dark, Born to Raise Hell, Contract to Kill are such movies having characters without any serious flaws (and there are a few more I'm not recalling right now).

 

[Goodfella86]

He made a great first impression on me.