|
Post by Horsie on Jan 19, 2019 1:44:35 GMT
She slept through a ship being taken over by terrorists? Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 19, 2019 2:01:57 GMT
The terrorists cleverly hired a very sleep stripper. She's really hot and has big boobs so she seems like she wouldn't be cheap. They coud have saved money by getting a plainer looking woman....or no woman. Just an empty cake. Because they are going to take over the ship and kill everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 19, 2019 2:16:24 GMT
I've seen other movies where terrorists or robbers brought a prop, like a big cake, to go with their disguises, except they hid their weapons or tools or some dude who'd slip out unnoticed and do something useful, it was about getting shit past security, not bringing a superfluous stripper who they immediately forgot about.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 19, 2019 2:21:59 GMT
Of course the film requires a woman who wants to fuck Segal, and that must have seemed like the best way to have one on a US Navy ship and show her tits.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 19, 2019 2:41:21 GMT
Under Siege is so stupid.
But it's still the best Seagal movie ever.
I don't know why they didn't just find a female terrorist. I mean, that would actually be a pretty bad ass scene if she popped out of the cake topless with a machine gun.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 19, 2019 5:26:38 GMT
But if she was a terrorist with a machine gun... why bother being topless? I think that is why they went with a stripper.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 19, 2019 5:54:48 GMT
It's a Steven Seagal movie, hit doesn't have to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 19, 2019 19:39:06 GMT
But if she was a terrorist with a machine gun... why bother being topless?
Ah, you could always have a throwaway line.
"Um, you know you didn't have to take your shirt off."
"Do you know how hot it is in this cake?"
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 19, 2019 23:38:27 GMT
That would require them to think about things from the woman's perspective for a few seconds though.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 20, 2019 0:39:36 GMT
I've seen other movies where terrorists or robbers brought a prop, like a big cake, to go with their disguises, except they hid their weapons or tools or some dude who'd slip out unnoticed and do something useful, it was about getting shit past security, not bringing a superfluous stripper who they immediately forgot about. That what was amazing. The terrorist did the whole fake props, pretending to be a band and stuff...but then the stripper is real. Wordweaver is right, it is the best Segal film (dear god...) The idea of terrorists deciding they need a stripper is fantastic. "But couldnt we find a woman who wants to help us? Like...for money?" "but then why would she be topless." "Oh yeah, good point." Segal films are so amazingly terrible. He only fights people who are smaller than him! At times it feels like he's breaking the necks of the fucking lollipop guild. He gets hit only twice in the entirety of under siege. Once he's cut iwht hooks on chains they swing into the water (though he's fine again later) and Tommy Lee jones cuts him once during the final battle before Segal turns him into swiss cheese and puts his head through a computer. By Segal film standards, thats a lot of damage! 1 hit on him per movie is normally his maximum. I'm shocked Segal hasn't grabbed the final bad guys hands in any of his films, made him slap himself and chanted "stop hitting yourself!" Segal must have the worlds smallest dick.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 20, 2019 5:08:04 GMT
Under Siege is essentially a thinly veiled rip-off of Die Hard. And when you put it next to Die Hard its failings only become more glaring. John McClane is a talented police officer, but in the movie he's clearly in over his head, but he pulls it off through ingenuity and sacrifice. He pushes himself to the absolute limits in order to win.
In Under Siege the terrorists are clearly in over their heads. Seagul is unstoppable and barely breaks a sweat. He's the fuckin Gary Stu of action heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 20, 2019 15:33:05 GMT
Segals popularity, I think, was the hype. A bit like how Sonic the Hedgehog games often didnt have great game play but the cool edgy character made it appealing.
Segal fougth differently to what we had see in movies before (all that akido arm twisty stuff) so a lot of people at the time were acting like it was more realistic and there were even rumours he used to be in the CIA or some shit.
I always watch Segal films wishing he could fight someone who is as good at fighting as he is. Every opponent is a push over. Does literally no one exist that can oppose him? In Segal's mind, probably not. If this is some fighting style that no one can possible defend against...why cnat anyone do it back at him? Maybe becuase he's fighting the cast of Willow in most of his films. By the end of under siege he literally just walks forward firing two machine guns down a corridor, as the terrors drop dead over adn over infront of him. He gives up even pretending its hard work. It never makes him seem tough, its just seems like hes always fighting loser. They are such idiotic losers and weaklings that barely fight back.
And apparantly hes a perve in real life, creeping on women in his movies, so there's that as well.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 20, 2019 16:43:27 GMT
I'm pretty sure Seagul's ego is why he never appeared in an Expendables film. He's too fragile to let other people spotlight.
Um, yeah, you kinda did the same thing to the original movie, so...
That... sounds... I donno. Are they going to be the grandkids of the original cast? Cuz they're all in their late 60s and it doesn't make sense that it would be their kids. Not to mention none of the cast really seemed to be on a path to have kids, outside of Dana who had Oscar in the second movie.
In retrospect it kinda made sense for Peter to be single based on his character. Ray and Egon also might put science and work before family, but how come Winston wasn't a family man?
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 20, 2019 19:15:01 GMT
Oh wow, Leslie Jones' meltdown was embarrassing. Bringing up Trump? It was like a parody of what I would expect her to say. She tagged other members of the 2016 caste into it, but they all failed to respond, presumably having enough sense to walk away form her tantrum.
It's a shame because she was the best thing in the 2016 movie, but this has made me lose respect for her.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 20, 2019 20:15:52 GMT
Segals popularity, I think, was the hype. A bit like how Sonic the Hedgehog games often didnt have great game play but the cool edgy character made it appealing. Segal fougth differently to what we had see in movies before (all that akido arm twisty stuff) so a lot of people at the time were acting like it was more realistic and there were even rumours he used to be in the CIA or some shit. I always watch Segal films wishing he could fight someone who is as good at fighting as he is. Every opponent is a push over. Does literally no one exist that can oppose him? In Segal's mind, probably not. If this is some fighting style that no one can possible defend against...why cnat anyone do it back at him? Maybe becuase he's fighting the cast of Willow in most of his films. By the end of under siege he literally just walks forward firing two machine guns down a corridor, as the terrors drop dead over adn over infront of him. He gives up even pretending its hard work. It never makes him seem tough, its just seems like hes always fighting loser. They are such idiotic losers and weaklings that barely fight back. And apparantly hes a perve in real life, creeping on women in his movies, so there's that as well. I kinda got a bit of this from Infinity War actually.
|
|