Martial artist and action star, Scott Adkins, gave an interview via Skype for the resource ManlyMovie. According to the interviewer, Scott, contrary to his expectations, turned out to be a fairly easy person to communicate with, and, despite his busy schedule, he was able to allocate half an hour of time for a conversation. Next, the first part of the interview itself:
"Undisputed 4" is in production. What can you say about this?
I don't want to say too much. Fighting outside of prison is a new chapter of his life, in fact. Obviously, we have to please the fans of the original source material, so we don't want to deviate from the martial arts competition, it's just going to be outside of the prison setting. But I’m happy with the script, it took a long time to create, and everyone was really looking forward to it. Boyka is probably my most famous character.
Obviously, the fights in Undisputed are incredible and must require weeks of extensive rehearsal. Tell us a little about the preparation process. Does a small budget have an impact on this?
The budget has a slight influence on the preparation process. Indeed, it takes a good two weeks to rehearse with all the actors who are going to play the fighters in the film. Sometimes you have to rehearse with all the stuntmen who are not actually fighters, which can be a little more difficult and takes some time. I'm going to work every day on the set of Undisputed 4, so I was actually thinking to myself, "How are we going to find time to rehearse?" It will not be possible to have constant access to all fighters. We don't have the budget for this. So I guess I'll have to set aside my weekends to practice fights like I always do and beat the crap out of myself for five weeks.
This is dedication. I mean it's worthy of respect.
This is what we have to do. If you want to make a good martial arts movie on a small budget, you have to be prepared to go through hell. And I love it. This is the only thing I want to do. But I would like to have a more extensive shooting schedule.
Have you ever suffered in fights?
Guaranteed, every time. Despite the fact that no one wants this to happen. When we were rehearsing for Undisputed 3, Marco [Zaror] roundhouse kicked me as hard as he could. And it was my fault because I forgot the choreography and didn't duck. He hit me right in the face. Almost knocked me out. The tooth became a little loose and my nose began to bleed, even though he hit me in the jaw. So, God knows how strong this blow was.
Have you felt that it's harder to make a profit from direct-to-video films like Undisputed and Ninja these days?
Yes, [piracy] certainly had a big impact. I actually said recently that Australia is one of the biggest places to download movies for free. And I think I understand why, I mean, in Australia you get films a little later.
Yes, absolutely. But I prefer to buy direct-to-video movies to support you. (holds my bundle of Adkins films)
I would like to convey to your readers that everything depends on the distributors. It would be nice to speed up the process of releasing films, but, as far as I understand, in Russia a film is first available for six months online, and only then appears legally. This is somewhat upsetting. But I would say for these types of films... Even if you can't help yourself and download a film just because you want to see it, when it becomes available - it's really nice to get support, it will encourage more films like this to be made. Because I see that you are a fan of this genre. But there are fewer and fewer such films, due to the fact that they do not make money. And with action films, you need more shooting time to do it well. But again and again, lately, only fifteen days are allocated for filming... eighteen days. Moreover, most of the time it is filmed at one location. I have to refuse.
Yes, of course!
Because I don't want to... do shit.
Direct-to-video films are often perceived as cheap and low-quality. But then you look at some films, like Undisputed III, or Ninja, you can tell that a lot of effort was put into them to make them more cinematic, but then the critics just let them down. Do you think this is the right attitude towards this film format?
Yes, I don't think we get enough respect because every film is judged equally. And they always make comparisons to "The Raid". Which I think... I mean Gareth Evans is an amazing director, and he's so much more than an action director, you know - he's a great director! And he creates his own products, I really respect that. But critics always compare my films to The Raid. I just want people to know... The Raid had seventy days of filming, but Undisputed 3 we only filmed for thirty days! So you know what the difference is, but of course all films are judged the same. So, everything is much more complicated, and budgets and schedules are being reduced even more, and it is impossible to find authority for this.
Yes!
Also, physical fatigue accumulates day after day, and when it comes time to shoot a dramatic scene, you are physically destroyed! Your strength has run out. You see, you're just like a living dead on your feet. With the films I make, at least. It has a depressing effect on you even just by realizing that you are really tired. And if it's an action movie, filming isn't the whole plan for the day - for "Undisputed" in particular, I have to look lean and muscular - that means hitting the gym at the end, or in the morning, and I still must learn all the dialogues the next day. And we'll probably shoot five scenes that will be combined into one big scene. So you know what we're doing in a short period of time, I think that's great, but most people don't know that. That's why I told you about it, and thanks for the good question!
End of the first part of the interview. The second part will be tomorrow...
Source: ManlyMovie
The "Undisputed 4" poster was restored from a photo by Ali Veliyev.
By the way, let's talk about the aforementioned "Ganman". Just watched it - IMHO, boring. Penn is in amazing physical shape, and everything else is secondary. Whatever the budget and no matter how many countries they film.
In general, I apologize for losing my temper. Maybe it's not all about the money. Maybe there are simply no creative ideas, people, or anything else right now. I'll make amends with the words of Robert Rodriguez :) :
*It’s not the wallet that makes the film, no matter what they say about it in film school or in Hollywood. You don't need to be a genius to spend a ton of money - any fool on set will do his best financially. The point is to be creative. Regardless of the budget of the film, problems are bound to arise during filming. The art is to find a way to solve them with small means - that's how original ideas appear.*
Freestyler90,
Right now I’m sitting, and “Kickboxer” is on TV. And I think how they used to be able to shoot... You remember every frame by heart, and they filmed it for pennies. But they made a TOUCHING MOVIE. Yes, naive, but honest, sincere. And now you look, but you have no internal resonance, no response.
Calmly. The budget for "Undisputed" is not worth swearing at. However, there is no point in swearing at all.
We simply express our opinion about something, relying on the facts that we have, or on an opinion supported by something: arguments, analysis, examples, comparison. There is no smell of yellow press here yet.
Freestyler90, well, “Gunman” was filmed in three countries with a budget of 40 lyams, but this does not automatically make it a good film. And the mentioned examples of Statham and Reeves just proved this. "Taken 3", "Night Fugitive" with Neeson, "Jupiter Ascending".. "Tomorrowland".. big budgets - what's the point? It would be possible not to make these films at all.
8 lyams for the second “Undisputed 2”?!
What kind of nonsense did they write? Damn, congratulations!
Now everyone will think that the creators
they squandered the budget, and in general they are ignoramuses...
Barsug, why turn the site into a yellow press?
Well, if you don’t know, don’t write. Or do you like it (and not only you)
in between, piss on the undeniable, Florentine.
Undeniable 2,3 - the best I've seen in this genre
recently. Some of my favorites. Already in another
The news was written by ravenside. What did you get to the bottom of? This is cool
fighting game, I like it.
And in general, judging by the reviews, not a single action movie to the representatives of this site
I do not like! The camera work is bad, or the plot is banal, or
the actors don't pull it off, or everything just looks cheap, etc.
That is, it makes absolutely no difference: or they are budget undeniable ones with raids,
or these are expensive action films with Statham and Keanu Reeves.
Damn, there was no such negativity before with m-arts.info.
I rely on Kinopoisk. There is a budget of 8 million. or is this also the yellow press? Then, let me ask, where did you get other information? And maybe there is something to say about the matter, and not just spitting bile? Give a real number and confirm it.
Firstly, this is the first negative thing I have seen in several months. Moreover, by “this” I mean your comments, because constructive criticism is not teaching for a thinking person. But your comments consist of bile and accusations, and there is no basis for any of them, no arguments, or anything at all - just some screams and that’s it. This is called negativity. And if Ravenside writes that, for example, the camera work is lame, and he argues why - this is called “reasoned criticism.” And in general, this is original material. The person wrote his opinion on the film. Why should he even adapt to someone when expressing his opinion?
Second, the m-arts.info - no longer and never will be. The one who held what you liked died. It won't happen here anymore. At the moment, the resource belongs to people who have shown a desire to extend the life of the project, those who care about it. Everyone had and still has the opportunity to join the site team and put in their efforts, but not everyone can do this. As practice shows, some can be encouraging and score, while some are generally only capable of vines in the comments.
I’ll repeat it again: Evildollara is no longer there. And it won't. His articles remained untouched. If anyone doesn't like the new posts, don't read them. If, in general, the resource is no longer a cake, then no one is forcing you to visit it. I'm not going to bury the project just because some users are unable to accept criticism.
Have a nice day everyone.
Yeah, and the third Undisputed (attention Kinopoisk) 3 million. How so? Someone is being taken for a fool)
Again, nothing specific. You know...sorry, but you will remain a ballabol until the moment you begin to answer for your words. And if on Kinopoisk or IMDB it says 1 ruble, then I will be able to assert this, based on this information from authoritative resources.
Let's do it this way. If this is exactly how you are trying to do trolling here, then I’m sorry, it won’t work. And if you have something relevant to say, or to respond, for example, in at least a few words, then it’s better to use the opportunity to leave comments here while you still have the opportunity.
The real budget of Undisputed 2 is only 1 million dollars, 8 million is pure advertising for the viewer (Lettich said that it is common for DTV producers to inflate the budgets they publish)
If it’s not a secret, where did you get such information about the budget?
Dave,
Fight choreographer JJ Loco Pere wrote about this on a Scott fan forum many years ago. I’ll say right away... I won’t provide a link, because... The forum was closed and erased a long time ago.
Why compare, in Undisputed -2-3 parts there is a fight, just a fight, and in the first Raid when 2 brothers vs1 bandit fought, excuse me, not a fight, but some kind of dance.
stalker,
This is your “Undeniable” continuous tricking and fictitious feints, in “Raids” the fights are much more realistic
jack krauser,
hit him in the face with an army combat boot and there will be no knockout, and you won’t break your jaw.
Hit the main character with a bat or a hammer in the ribs, the main character will start hitting him even harder.
I think the comparison is in the spirit that "The Raid" showed a pretty decent result with a small budget. And now investors look at it and think: “Why pay more.” fights are fights, but if you look at “The Raid”, with its $1 million budget, and “Undisputed 2”, for which $8 million was allocated, their ratings are almost identical. For a businessman, the conclusion suggests itself. Unfortunately, not everyone cares about quality first.
barsug, what I’m wondering is, what was it about the second undeniable that costs eight times more than the raid? The scenery is comparable, in one case a prison yard and prison interiors, in the other a high-rise building. There are special effects - there are more of them in the raid - there are explosions and falls from great heights. There also seem to be more people in the raid (those who are not in the crowd, but have at least a minute or two of close-up screen time). So why does the second undeniable have a larger budget?
As far as I know, the budget is determined before filming. And how filmmakers manage it is another question. Yes, 1 million is not enough, but 8 million for a film is not such a big amount. Take the same “Pound of Flesh”. After all, a film of this level could have been made for 10k, but they spent 7 million... these are logical questions, of course, but not everything is so simple. Take that carbon trash “50 Shades of Grey”, what do you spend money on? For strap-ons and vibrators?)) But the budget is $40. That's it.))
By the way, about “Raid”...1 million for Indians, and the same amount for an American - a big difference.
barsug,
Listen, well, money doesn’t just go to locations. A budget is a complex expenditure, from film crew salaries to camera filters.
Another thing is that neither “Raid” nor “Undisputed” look expensive. But I doubt that with a budget of $20.000.000 like, for example, “John Wick” or Statham’s films, “Undisputed” would look much better and more expensive. The problem with films is not just the budget.
So no one argues with this. I just added to Scott's words. By and large, he tries to justify the shortcomings with a low budget and short deadlines. That’s why he makes such comparisons.
barsug,
Isn't that so? So that they don’t say later that it was filmed
so cheap (green screen, dull colors). The opportunity to actually make a film on real location. It's all money. Plus, he himself
he said that there would be more takes, more shooting days - so that there would be an opportunity to reshoot and do it better.
Now there will be an action movie Gunman with Penn in the cinema.
Filmed in three countries, on location. The budget is 40 lyams, that’s it.