MovieChat Forums > Vinnie Jones Discussion > Seagal??

Seagal??

posted 16 years ago by von_karolinas
8 replies | jump to latest

So, I just read he is replacing Seagal in a "action blockbuster" and that made me think. Really? Who in Hollywood thought it was a good idea in the first place to dust off Seagal? That man hasn't been in a "blockbuster" since the 90's. He's not even star material anymore. Jones is a good pick I guess. Then I saw that it would be alongside Van Damme. What? When was the last time this guy was in anything that didn't go straight to video shelves? I'm thinking their use of "blockbuster" may just mean this movie will go straight to dvd and rented at Blockbuster.

[–] Henriksen89 16 years ago

When was the last time Van Damme did something that diddnt go straight to dvd? Just last year. JCVD... Idiot.

[–] von_karolinas 16 years ago

Hey numbnuts, JCVD was a VERY LIMITED release, while technically it was in theaters, it was only in about 30 screens, so still nothing more than straight to video as hardly anybody even knew it existed at the time. Try some fact checking and remain on topic. Not a national theatrical release and not even close to a blockbuster.

As for foreign theatrical release, doesn't really matter because this is all in reference to Hollywood.

[–] Henriksen89 16 years ago

You asked when the last time Van Damme did something that diddnt go staight to dvd and a told you. No need to get upset just becaus i proved you wrong.

[–] von_karolinas 16 years ago

And I repeat. Less than 30 screens barely rates as theatrical release. Still straight to dvd. Learn to read things in context which they were written and maybe take a class on reading comprehension so that when you read something you can comprehend what the actual point is.

[–] Henriksen89 16 years ago

It is not straight to dvd if it has a theatrical run. Nomather how maney theters it is. Are you so narrow minded that you cant accept that you where wrong? How old are you, 13?

[–] von_karolinas 16 years ago

No, in the point I was making, I was not wrong. Like I said take a reading comprehension class. It's obvious you missed the sarcasm with which the post was made. The overall point of the post was that he is no longer a box office draw. And if you read the rest of my posts you see that I did acknowledge that technically yes, it was released in theaters, but I don't feel like repeating myself with someone who will fail to understand concepts like sarcasm and reading between the lines. Makes me wonder about your own age. Trying to explain the point of the thread to you is like talking to a brick wall. Thank the gods for Ignore.

[–] Henriksen89 16 years ago

It dosent change the fact that it was in theaters just becaus you feel like it wasnt in theaters. That is just an idiotic thing to say. Are you really so pathetic that you have to make up excuses like that just becaus you cant accept the fact that you where wrong? And then the only way you feel you can win this is by hitting the ignore buttton? Face it, you lost.

[–] nicotos 15 years ago

Since Seagal dropped out of this movie(Weapon) the chances of it being made anymore is nill. Vinnie Jones is not a big enough name to keep this film going.