Don't try this at home!

I'm starting this thread to discuss professional stuntmen in Hollywood and how they are sadly kept out of the limelight while they take all the risks!

Every now and again, you have the Hollywood star who makes a big deal about how they do their own stunts. Harrison Ford, for example, made a big deal about how he did so many of his own stunts in the Indiana Jones movies. But one of the greatest Hollywood stunts--the stunt in Raiders of the Lost Ark, in which Indy is pushed out of a truck by a "mean Nazi" (as, I think, the credits described him), after which he crawls under the truck and over the back and then pushes the "mean Nazi" out of the truck and runs over him was, sad to say, actually performed by a capable and experienced stunt double! Also, all manner of precautions were taken to ensure that the stunt was performed with caution to ensure minimal danger to those concerned! But Harrison Ford got all the credit for that death-defying stunt, not the anonymous stunt double!

Nowadays, thanks to CGI, the world of Hollywood stunts is taking on a whole new dimension. For example, in Gladiator, many of the fighting scenes were performed by professionally trained stunt doubles and Russell Crowe's face was "pasted" on thanks to CGI. If Russell Crowe--the Hollywood star--had performed the stunt himself, he would, in all likelihood, have been seriously injured!

Anyway, I'd like to throw this topic open for discussion and welcome your comments!

FYI, according to sources, the new Indiana Jones movie, currently in the works (apparently) promises that they will not use any CGI in their production, so it seems like that with the release of Indy IV, we will see a return to the old-fashioned Hollywood of live stunts (performed, of course, by death-defying Hollywood stunt doubles). Maybe that movie will bring live stunts back into vogue again! Who knows!

I've always thought stunt men and women deserve a lot more recognition then they get…

__________________

Yeah. Sad to say, the only real recognition they seem to get is in theme parks, like Universal Studios Hollywood, when you get to see those "live stunt spectaculars"!

I think they actually have a red carpet awards for stunt men/women every year but it is, for the most part, ignored by the media...

Yeah. That's too bad!

I think Arnold Schwarzegger is one of the few Hollywood bigshots who lends support and visibility to the world of professional stuntmen, though! I think I saw one of those award shows for stunts once on TV and Arnold was the guest of honor, or something like that! I wish more Hollywood stars would give some credit to their stunt doubles for the risks they take!

It is hard for me to feel that stunt men/women should be in the "limelight" During a film I am watching a character doing the stunts, not the actor/actress or a stunt person. If a film is good you are involved in it as an audience should be and you are amazed at what happens in the scope of the plot of the movie. I of course am not unappreciative of what these guy-n-girls do, they are nothing short of amazing, but lets face it they have decided to make a career for themselves where they were fully aware they would get little recognition form the general public. I do think a lot of modern movies have given more recognition to the stunts during the credits than they have in the past. I would not mind seeing major stunt work mentioned in the beginning credits as it would tend to avoid it being ignored by those who do not watch the ending credits. I would love to see some major awards given to these guys also.

__________________

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

I'm not saying that one needs to undermine a movie's "suspension of disbelief" factor--all I'm saying is that, like Caitlyn said, there needs to be more mainstream media recognition (outside of the context of the movie) of the world of professional Hollywood stunt doubles. I guess one of the main reasons that Hollywood tries to keep the world of professional stunts hushed up is that otherwise, the stunt doubles would a) steal the Hollywood star's thunder/limelight and b) the stuntmen would start demanding more pay and better benefits! Anyway, I think keeping stuntmen anonymous is semi-exploitative at best!

Say what you want about the questionable ancient Roman sport of gladiators, but I'll say this much about it--the gladiators of ancient Rome definitely did their own stunts! In fact, the vast majority of them died in the arena, and those who survived achieved tremendous recognition for their death-defying performance! It was inhuman and inhumane, to be sure, but at least it wasn't fake like modern Hollywood is, in many respects!

BTW, an entertaining and thought-provoking movie about the world of Hollywood stunts is The Great Waldo Pepper with Robert Redford playing the part of Waldo Pepper.

Because inhumanity is preferable?

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

My point is: which is worse--overt vs. concealed inhumanity?

BTW, I guess I'm exaggerating to make a point. I'm not saying that Hollywood stuntmen are kept in cages and fed dry loaves once a day. What I'm trying to point out, basically, is that Hollywood is totally shallow and fake! Of course, that probably is a statement of the obvious...

I think the stunt men (and women) are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether or not they are adequately compensated for what they do. And given that many of them continue working in the industry, I'm thinking they're satisfied. And if they're satisfied, I don't see how any of us can be outraged on their behalf without simultaneously patronizing them as unable to make their own choices.

That said, they're surely among the unsung heroes of the industry. Maybe some of them like it that way, though.

That's somewhat of a simplification, I think. Many of them are, possibly, drawn by the glamor of Hollywood and then forced, by necessity, into a profession that exploits them to a degree, IMO. I'm not qualified to make an entirely accurate assessment of their economic plight, I must admit, but it seems to me that the industry does exploit them.

Maybe some do, maybe some don't! I mean, think of all the fans who idolize their favorite movie stars. How much of that movie star really is the movie star in question? What percentage of the performance that enthralls you onscreen is really some anonymous, underpaid stooge who has to take the fall and suffer the bruises so that some big shot with his name in lights can get all the credit and the hefty paycheck? Something to mull over...

It is surely possible for people to allow themselves to be exploited, but we're not talking about prostitution here. Do we have any reason to believe that these people have been unfairly dragged into an industry that they subconciously wish to leave? We don't even know how much they make. It might be a great deal more than the rest of us.

I just don't see a basis for outrage here. We don't know how much they make, and as far as I know they're not any less well-adjusted or independently minded than ay other group of people. So if they have decided to continue seeking that kind of work in the movie industry, it's reasonable to conclude that they're probably treated and paid fairly well. And if they're not, we need some evidence of that before ranting against any assumed exploitation.

Actually, I think the acting and presence of most major starts makes up a much greater percentage of the movie's entetainment value than a 5-second shot of some body falling.

I also don't see how it can be said that the stars "get the credit." I don't think most people are under the impression that they're always the ones falling off cliffs and diving behind crates.

Making someone famous should NEVER be considered "humane".
Also, I've known a few stuntmen and they tend to be pretty shy. I'd venture that they go into a business where they know they're not going to get public acclaim because they like being able to eat at Taco Bell without having to sign autographs.

Also, they train to do stunts without getting hurt. That's why they call them "stunts" and not "the part that really hurts".

Economic necessity is a powerful force. I admit that I am speculating, but it seems to me that the way Hollywood treats the stunt doubles of movie stars, and stuntmen in general, is pretty shabby and exploitative.

You misread my tone. I am not ranting, nor am I outraged. I am voicing an opinion. Feel free to disagree--that's your prerogative. Based on what limited exposure I have of the profession of Hollywood stuntmen and based on what limited knowledge I have of Hollywood and the way they do business in tinseltown, I'm making a speculative assessment and seeking to initiate a meaningful discussion. You have no reason to assume a defensive posture as I am, in no way, attacking you, nor am I alleging anything about you.

It's true--movie stars are basically paid for their personality and onscreen presence. But I find it somewhat disturbing how they "pretend" to be super-athletes capable of superhuman feats when, in actual fact, the person really performing the feats they are given credit for is, in all probability, an anonymous stuntman who is never credited for his work and, it stands to reason, is very probably underpaid and exploited. Stunts do make up a pretty significant proportion of a performer's onscreen mystique--perhaps more than you or I can imagine!

Well, when you see Raiders of the Lost Ark, for example, even if you are aware that the stunts are largely performed by stunt doubles, you can't help thinking, while you are munching on your popcorn and watching the movie, that it's really Harrison Ford doing all that amazing stuff like crawling under a truck or charging at tank on a horse, etc. The same applies to any other action movie--be it Sly Stallone, Russell Crowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger or whomever. And, for that matter, a lot of other genres also use stunt doubles to perform the controversial scenes or do the "dirty work", so to speak. I am attempting, here, to draw attention to certain controversial aspects of Hollywood--an industry whose basic commodity is image... and whose methods have always been questionable.

Oh, please! You're trying to tell me that I should feel sorry for the Hollywood megastars who make millions and basically thrive on all the publicity they can get? They're in the profession because they love the attention! Heck, I can't blame 'em! I would too, if I were in their shoes! But let's face it... the nature of the industry is that image is everything--image is what sells. The bottom line is that stuntmen habitually risk their lives to beef up the image of the movie star they double for--and the movie star is the one who gets all the credit, the glory and the hefty paycheck! Those are the simple facts, mon ami!

Well, they don't hurt too much if you do them right, but there's always the risk that you might get injured or die in the process if you make a small mistake! That's why they call them "stunts" and that's why they are left to paid professionals!

If they get paid, they really don't give a crap. The last thing I want to see on some awards show is "Best Stunt Man!"

When was the last time any of you googled a stunt man?

They do their job, and the actors do theirs.

__________________
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.

The difference, of course, is that the stuntman habitually risks his/her life and gets paid peanuts, while the actor comes off smelling like roses, gets all the credit, recognition, awards and, of course, an enormous paycheck!

Your notion of the fun of fame is as overinflated as your use of exclamation points.

That's not at all universally true. Also, it has nothing to do with your arguement that stunt men are the red-headed stepchildren of the entertainment industry. If you want to argue against unjust treatment of professionals, you should have gone with jockeys. Stuntmen have a pretty strong union and go to school to get their jobs. There are many levels of certification for the stunts they do, and they pursue all that out of choice.

Noted, and factored into your stance on celebs being attention whores.

There again, if stunt men were good looking and good actors, and wanted their faces on billboards, they'd be movie stars... not stunt men. No?

Stunt men are paid pretty well. Hell of a lot better than day players, for example. The stunt man works for a few days, where the star is there for weeks/months and has much of the weight of the picture to carry. It's a totally different job. You might as well argue that the caterers deserve to be credited with the success of Hollywood, what with their exposure to knives, hot fluids and roaches.


And? Did you forget what your arguement was, because that wasn't it.

Fame, glamor, success--that's what Hollywood is all about! If it wasn't fun, Hollywood wouldn't exist! And don't knock my use of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's news to me. If that's the case, then that's a good thing! I don't know much about jockeys, though.

Now you're putting words in my mouth!

Again, that's an oversimplification, IMO. Stuntmen, it seems to me, are often driven by economic necessity into a hazardous occupation that is, again IMO, inherently exploitative.

Catering may expose you to knives, hot fluids and roaches, but it's not quite the same thing as being locked in a burning car that falls off a cliff, for example. Anyway, my basic point is that stuntmen often contribute to beefing up the image of the actors the double for but fail to get credited for their performance and, consequently, sufffer for it in terms of economic clout. And they don't get paid anywhere close to what actors get paid!

My point is that doing stunts is a hazardous occupation. True, stuntmen are trained performers, but they still work in a risky profession, playing with fire, as it were, on a habitual basis. Are they compensated adequately for the risks they take? Do they receive adequate benefits in terms of health insurance, liability insurance, etc.? I guess the issues related to stunting (to coin a phrase) apply equally to any hazardous occupation. They are the common issues of occupational exploitation.