Don't try this at home!

Ya know I fell into this trap of thinking this was going to be an educated discussion and not an attention grabbing "pro choice vs abortion" debate. I really love debates, but not for the sake of being a firestarter..am I making sense? Stunt people do their job and they know fully damn well what the job entails and what to expect from it before they ever jump from a plane or get set afire. I made the mistake of not thinking about the thread starter...drama is their dope and they are addicted.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Chill out, dude! I had no intention of provoking a controversy simply for the sake of it. I wanted to address an issue that I perceived as being thought-provoking, and I welcome educated discussion. Your point is well taken. Performing stunts is, in many ways, an art, requiring training and experience and stuntmen are fully qualified and knowledgeable about their job requirements before they get into it. I don't deny any of that. My point is simply this: stuntmen take life-threatening risks on a regular basis, but are invariably not adequately credited or compensated (compared, for example, to the actors they double for) for the kind of work that they do. This is simply my personal opinion. I don't buy the argument that they are basically thrill-seeking adrenaline-junkies, though that may be partly the case. Maybe that's what attracts them to Hollywood--the promise of an exciting career. But then they get trapped in the system and are exploited by the industry into risking their lives to basically glorify the actors they double for, who end up getting their name in lights and acquiring a baseless reputation for superhuman abilities! That's kind of warped, IMO!

Acting isn't all about fun. To assert such is pretty simplistic. To begin your education on the climate of Hollywood, may I suggest you watch Swimming With The Sharks. I think you'll find it enlightening.

Sorry, I guess I got "movie stars are attention whores" from when you said this:
I'd love to hear how else that could be interpreted. Enlighten me?

Complete and utter fabrication. Stage combat courses aren't cheap. People don't get into that profession because falling out of windows is all they can get work doing. Where do you even get this notion?

They don't do close to the work that the actors do. End of story.


Yes. They have a union, man. Unions exist to make sure people get fair wages.

Yes. I know this because I did a brief stint selling insurance and I talked to a lot of people in IATSE, and I was married to an actor who was a member of SAG and AFTRA (as are all professional stunt people). Their bennies are some of the best out there.

It's not exploitation. They know the risks going in, they train for the job of their own volition, they seek out the work for the sake of the work, they're not promised anything they don't get and they're fairly compensated for their training and time and the risks they take.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Okay, I'll check it out! But if the acting profession is tough for highly paid bigshot Hollywood actors, how much worse must it be for the underpaid, anonymous stooge or stuntman? Your point makes my case precisely!

What you're saying is taking my words to an extreme. I said movie stars are in the business for the sake of attention and publicity--they thrive on it, that's what makes them successful. I didn't use the word "whore"--that's you putting words in my mouth.

I guess I got this notion from watching the movie The Great Waldo Pepper, but I have to admit that that's probably a highly romanticized version of the truth. So you have a firsthand experience of Hollywood that suggests something different? But if you closely examine your words, you will see that they are contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying that Hollywood is a cutthroat, sleazy industry. On the other hand, you're suggesting that the highly paid actors have a rougher time than the underpaid stuntmen! That doesn't make sense to me! Logic suggests that the opposite is true--that the highly paid Hollywood megastars have a cushy time while the underpaid stooges are the ones who suffer in Hollywood's cutthroat, sleazy culture!

They do a completely different kind of job. Apples and oranges--there's no comparison. My point is that they are severerly undercredited and underappreciated for their work. And, it stands to reason, that as a result, they don't have anywhere near the clout that the acting community has in Hollywood, which means that they obviously get paid far less than they probably deserve, at least when compared to the actors.

Then that's a good thing. However, while unions ensure a basic minimum wage, they don't ensure a reward for excellence, for example. Unions are important, because they provide a degree of job security for their members. But, on the other hand, unions also strengthen the power of mediocrity and make it harder for excellence to succeed. So it's kind of a double-edged sword, in some ways. On the other hand, professional recognition brings with it a certain economic clout that is empowering in its own way.

Then that's good news. Thanks for the info!

That's good news too, but given the cutthroat climate of Hollywood, it sounds kind of like an idealized picture of the truth! I'll reserve my judgment till I know more!

You have, again, lost track of what was said, and in response to what. My point proved your point wrong. And my mom can beat up your mom.

I'm not putting anything in your mouth. Your many words are the definition of my slang term. You said what you said. And it was simplistic.

You: Injustice! Exploitation! Dickens!!
Me: Nah, it's cool. They get fair pay and good treatment, in both cases.
You: !!riafnU !noitatoilpxE !ecitsujnI
Me:


What? You're the one who compared them.

But they're not comparable. You just said that.

Are you ok?


1. That's not the point of a union.
2. There are, indeed, awards for stunt work: World Stunt Awards

Agreed. Not sure what this has to do with your imaginary plight of stuntmen, but that's ok.


I think you should.

They REALLY don't have to, you know? There's many other careers they choose.

Seriously, you made like this huge debate over stuntmen...a word I use every decade.

__________________
We're soldiers. Soldiers don't go to hell. It's war. Soldiers, they kill other soldiers. We're in a situation where everybody involved knows the stakes. And if you're gonna accept those stakes... You gotta do certain things. It's business, we're soldiers. We follow codes... Orders.

Okay, okay! Let's not get carried away!

I just resaw the movie The Great Waldo Pepper, which is a romanticized account of the lives of stuntmen in Hollywood in the '20s, the age of Valentino. It's a pretty hilarious and, at the same time, gruesome account of their lifestyle. I recommend that you watch it. It's entertaining, if nothing else.

I'm sorry my message is getting garbled. In short, my point is this: Hollywood is an unscrupulous, cutthroat culture and, it seems to me that stuntmen are liable to get exploited in such a culture in various ways such as in terms of getting credited for their work, financially, benefits, etc. It's a good thing that they have unions because unions ensure a basic minimum in terms of an acceptable living wage, benefits, etc. Still, the fact is that stuntmen, like actors, are performers in show business, and whereas actors get their name in lights and huge paychecks, stuntment tend to be largely ignored and not get the same financial and other benefits as actors. There's only so much unions can do. My point is that stuntmen need more professional recognition in the mainstream media so that their work can be appreciated more and they can have greater professional and economic clout in show business! I hope that point makes sense. It's true that they can choose another line of work, but they chose stunting. All I'm saying is that like in any other occupation, especially in show business, stuntmen should also get certain priveleges like the actors they often double for.

Such as?

Such as public recognition, better pay, etc. My point is that it seems to me that what they get right now is not enough. Unless you're someone like Super Dave Osborne or Evil Knievel! But, probably, not even then!

I also wish we gave more attention to the grips, they are like unsung heroes...Also gaffers seriosly can make or break a good set. Here is to these guys whom without movies would be so much more mundane.

Funny, funny! There's a difference, though. Stuntmen are performers, unlike grips, gaffers, etc. Their performance makes it to the screen. However, it invariably goes uncredited and the actor gets the credit for the stuntman's performance. All I'm saying is that give the performer credit where credit is due.

Good point. Also, those people who do the clapboard thingies. NOTHING is getting shot til speed is reached and the clapboard snaps. Yet, who are these people? How many of them will lose a finger before someone says, "ENOUGH!"??? It's criminal, the neglect. Truly. Hollywood is vicious.

Greatest stunt man of all?


BTW if stuntmen wanted more recognition they would have become actors and although it is a dangerous job there are far more dangerous jobs out there that don't get any recognition at all. Fishermen and structural metal workers have the most dangerous jobs of all and what recognition do they get?

__________________
"You smell that? Do you smell that?... Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end..."

Me quoting myself:
BTW, if there is a seeming contradiction in the above 2 quotes, it's because they address different issues. I.e. the first one deals with professional recognition while the second one deals with pay, benefits and exploitation.