This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Luc: Seagal deserves an article. I'm not certain if this is the article that it should be, though, given that it's more about the man himself, rather than his rather annoying screen personality. Keep it if it's cleaned up.
Insanity Prelude: Seconded- enough other actors have pages that the existence of this article has merit, but not when it's just a soapbox for someone to bitch about how they don't like his movies.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Yes, Steven Seagal deserves an article. No, this is not it. I'd like to think this is more Needs A Better Description than Cutlist material, though - that it can be fixed.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I gave this page a fresh start. Wiki Magic, anyone?
Satanic Hamster: About the "action stars with potbellys", countries like India and The Philippines tends to view those kind of a guys as real badasses. Those kind of action stars can be less of a joke in the states but Segal isn't really helping the cause that much.
Mac Phisto: Just to clarify — Seagal's first film premiered in '88. Under Siege came out in '92. He wasn't exactly an "Eighties Action Star" like Arnold & Stallone. He does deserve some credit — he's average a film a year from the very beginning (the first five being undoubtedly his "best"). And just to play the Devil's Advocate, I think the reason he was never on the losing end of a fight (with the exception of Marked for Death) was because as a certified martial arts master, it would've been an insult to his training to deliberately look weak in front of a lesser fighter — also probably why he has never played a villain, because then he would have to lose.
Galahad: Is it just me, or is this article really bitchy and back-handed?
