If people survive such a crazy stunt, you congratulate them, if not, you bury them and the director. Risking people's lives for a few seconds of film is not worth it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/trivia
> Ed Harris reportedly punched James Cameron in the face after he kept filming while he was nearly drowning.
I would not have wanted my suffering and fear to have been wasted.
There's a great documentary on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k43KHV1fDU
History is full of “I think this is a bad idea, but I’ll do it” accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and regularly do dangerous things against their better judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to drastically over simplify the situation.
Again, people regularly do things against their best judgement because of social and economic pressure. Stunt people are not magically excluded from this process.
No, did someone claim that? Stuntmen regularly decline to perform stunts they perceive to be too dangerous. It's part of their job to do risk evaluation and say yes or no.
> Only people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people?
Eh, yes, that's literally the definition of being a stuntman, you do things that are dangerous in place of someone else because you know how to manage the dangerous situation compared to the other non-educated (in dangerousness) person you're replacing for that scene.
> A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to take their staff's safety into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.
Yes, agree! That's why there is a whole stunt team on set, not just the director and the stuntmen themselves. As a team they evaluate the stunts and stop them if they are too unsafe.
Unfortunately, every single stunt in the industry carries the risk of death, so if we want to be really safe, we simply cannot have action movies anymore at all.
Who said that it had to be 100% safe? The situations being discussed are those where someone involved felt it was being done in a way that exceeded their risk tolerance but did not feel comfortable refusing.
I guess thinking employees deserve the ability to refuse dangerous work without losing their jobs is just unreasonable coddling of people who should have to risk their lives because the director thinks doing the shot this way would be cooler.
I don’t think they „chose“ to be in a risky business..
> All four parents testified that they were never told that there would be helicopters or explosives on set, and they had been reassured that there would be no danger, only noise.
You make it sound like someone forced the parents and the kids to jump into the helicopter.
Quite honestly the entire story is sickening if you read the reports about it.
More info here: https://www.nfi.edu/stunt-coordinator/
A woman was shot and killed by live ammo on a movie set about a month ago.
It's not really anyone's place to dictate someone else's risk appetite. Stuntmen and Stuntwomen know what they are signing up for. They are the ones choosing to risk their own lives, not anyone else.
Some people really love doing crazy shit and making wild art. I still quote Terminator 2 decades later; it is epic art regardless of whether you personally like it or not.
In the vast majority of stories you hear, the actor/stunt-person dies because the director/coordinator/other staff was negligent.
It's obviously not reasonable to expect for a stunt-person's job to be as safe as office work, but "they are the ones choosing to risk their own lives" is bs.
> Stuntmen and Stuntwomen know what they are signing up for.
_Everyone_ knows what they're signing up for, so the only interpretation I can make here is that you believe there should be no protections for employees.
This is making it sound like they're forced to choose their profession and take risks. If I were to guess, the truth is probably completely the opposite - the only reason they got into it was because of the thrill of stuntman work.