Originally Posted by darkhorse
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!
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.
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'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.
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!
You: Injustice! Exploitation! Dickens!!
Me: Nah, it's cool. They get fair pay and good treatment, in both cases.
You: !!riafnU !noitatoilpxE !ecitsujnI
Me:
They do a completely different kind of job. Apples and oranges--there's no comparison.
What? You're the one who compared them.
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.
But they're not comparable. You
just said that.
Are you ok?
Then that's a good thing. However, while unions ensure a basic minimum wage, they don't ensure a reward for excellence, for example.
1. That's not the point of a union.
2. There are, indeed, awards for stunt work:
World Stunt Awards
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.
Agreed. Not sure what this has to do with your imaginary plight of stuntmen, but that's ok.
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!
I think you should.