Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

TMZ has posted this update on the litigation involving the injured extra and the producers of DOTM.

The 26-year-old movie extra who was critically injured during a stunt for "Transformers 3" will receive an $18.5 million settlement from producers.

Gabriela Cedillo had sued Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Studios after she suffered a serious head injury during a stunt-gone-wrong in Indiana on Sept. 1, 2010.

To read the full article, please click the link provided above.

For those who don't remember, she was an extra during the Sentinel Prime highway chase scene. A cable on a rig had snapped, whipped through her windshield, and fractured her skull, causing several life threatening injuries.

Her recovery has not been an easy one. The damage she received appears to be permanent and will cause various quality of life issues. For some time, fans have speculated as to whether or not she would receive compensation, and some questioned whether or not she deserved compensation. Those questions have finally been answered.

We here at Seibertron wish Ms. Cedillo and her family the best and hope that her recovery continues and improves.

Keep your optics tuned to Seibertron for all the latest news!

I still feel that there are certain risks you take when your an extra during a stunt as nothing is garranteed to go as planned, but regardless i wish her and her family the best.

I'm sorry, but why would anyone argue that she didn't deserve any form of compensation? If ever there was a valid case then it sounds like this would be it.

5150 Cruiser wrote:I still feel that there are certain risks you take when your an extra during a stunt as nothing is garranteed to go as planned, but regardless i wish her and her family the best.

She was supposed to be driving a car, that's it. There was no reason for the cable to come near her, at any time.

Normally, you and I agree on most things, but this is one time I just absolutely have to disagree. She was injured for no good reason. I of course don't think the production did it on purpose, it was merely an accident, but it was a $25.00 gig, to drive her car down a road.

Nothing more, nothing less. For that, she shouldn't be on the brink of life and death.

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:I still feel that there are certain risks you take when your an extra during a stunt as nothing is garranteed to go as planned, but regardless i wish her and her family the best.

She was supposed to be driving a car, that's it. There was no reason for the cable to come near her, at any time.

Normally, you and I agree on most things, but this is one time I just absolutely have to disagree. She was injured for no good reason. I of course don't think the production did it on purpose, it was merely an accident, but it was a $25.00 gig, to drive her car down a road.

Nothing more, nothing less. For that, she shouldn't be on the brink of life and death.

First let me say that i in no way shape or form feel she deserves what happened. It was a freak accident and i suppose it could have happened to anyone working on set.

Maybe i was mistaken, but i thought she was driving her car and it was in the vicinity of the other cars that were being flipped (like the cars in the scene that didn't get flipped or crushed by the Dreads). So while nothing was flying over her, she was still in the vicinity of the stunts. Thats why i said that you take certain risks. There's always an inherit danger when being around these type of stunts even if your not durectly involved.

All though no amount of money is going to replace what permanet injuries she has, or may suffer, at least she did recieve some sort of compensation.

I hate that that happened to her. Condolences go to both her and the family.

shes deserved this money for a long time

Megan has already said that bay runs the movies like a nazi camp and doesnt care if people get hurt during the making of the films. Afew people got hurt in the 2nd movie and this poor women almost gets killed because people are to lazy to do there god damn jobs right and make sure everything is safe

Hopefully if there is going to be a 4th awful film then maybe it will have someone better than Bay to direct it and he can go back to producing crap hes used to like Pearl Harbour etc

I really do feel so sorry for this poor girl, its discusting to even think some people have questioned if she deserves to be compensated considering what happened to her

Swindle01 wrote:shes deserved this money for a long time

Megan has already said that bay runs the movies like a nazi camp and doesnt care if people get hurt during the making of the films. Afew people got hurt in the 2nd movie and this poor women almost gets killed because people are to lazy to do there god damn jobs right and make sure everything is safe

Hopefully if there is going to be a 4th awful film then maybe it will have someone better than Bay to direct it and he can go back to producing crap hes used to like Pearl Harbour etc

I really do feel so sorry for this poor girl, its discusting to even think some people have questioned if she deserves to be compensated considering what happened to her

Are we really gonna turn a thread about someone getting injured into a "the movies suck and it's all Bay's fault he's the devil blah blah blah" discussion? I would ask you use some restraint.

While injuries are bound to happen it's a shame whenever it does. I hope she's able to lead a productive life still and I'm glad a settlement was reached. While I believe she should have known the risks involved with being an extra on set I'm also glad she was compensated for her injuries.

Swindle01 wrote:shes deserved this money for a long time

Megan has already said that bay runs the movies like a nazi camp and doesnt care if people get hurt during the making of the films. Afew people got hurt in the 2nd movie and this poor women almost gets killed because people are to lazy to do there god damn jobs right and make sure everything is safe

I don't believe for one second that Bay doesn't care if people get hurt or not, and if you honestly believe that your a bigger fool than Fox was for calling the jewish director a Nazi.

Accidents happen dude. even when things are checked and double checkecd things happen. There stunts. And a different director wouldn't have changed what happened.

$18.5 million dollars

...

$18.5 MILLION DOLLARS

Isn't that a little over compensating? I mean her whole family won't have to work for the rest of their lives, including their grandchildren.

She needed to be compensated of course, but 18.5 million dollars. I'm not american, but isn't that a little overboard?

Overboard?

Not at all.

The damage she received appears to be permanent and will cause various quality of life issues.

As she gets older the damage may worsen and she may end up needing specialist care, and that's where this money will come in.

Not to mention, her left eye had to be sewn shut because she doesn't have the motor function required to close it. The eye would've dried out and became infected, perhaps even rotted from the lack of natural protection.

Plus brain damage, plus her ruined career (she was on her way towards a modeling career), plus pain and suffering.

$18.5 million is a drop in the bucket when you think about it. Not to mention, what price do you put on a life? All innocent life is precious. She was innocent.

Autobot032 wrote:Not to mention, her left eye had to be sewn shut because she doesn't have the motor function required to close it. The eye would've dried out and became infected, perhaps even rotted from the lack of natural protection.

Plus brain damage, plus her ruined career (she was on her way towards a modeling career), plus pain and suffering.

$18.5 million is a drop in the bucket when you think about it. Not to mention, what price do you put on a life? All innocent life is precious. She was innocent.

Agreed. I would also caution against the use of this incident to further the Bay Hate agenda. Obviously not from any mods but rather other people posting in this thread and others. Using the personal tragedies of others to promote your viewpoints is at best exploiting those tragedies and I'd like to think people are above such tactics.

Is safety paramount to Paramount?

She's entitled to every cent of this money as we all know medical bills are expensive. She's lucky that she didn't die and I hope she's not a vegetable now. On the first Spiderman movie a wire snapped and a crew member was sliced in half and instantly killed. Back to DOTM, shame on the studio for denying it/trying to misinform when the incident first happened. I believe they tried to say she was not involved in the movie and was just a passerby (hence what 5150 said) I knew it was lies all along.
Speaking of GI Joe Retaliation (sucks that its being delayed) a crew member died late last year when some equipment he was using fell. In this same article, http://www.cinemablend.com/new/G-I-Joe- ... 28044.html - it mentions a fatality during the filming of Expendables 2 as well.

i read an artical someone died on set of batman dark knight shooting but as long shes doing better that is good shouldnt movie companys have extras sign waver before shooting begins for shuch thing as this does not happen haklf person fault to agree to do stunt other half responisbilyt is company that funding film to be made

They made so much money on this film and all the damn toys its really not that big of a deal.

I hate it when hollywood makes a movie about heroes to sell me this damn plot about good and evil and then become scumball when it comes time to be there for someone. There is no movie worth hurting someone for so do it right or pay the bill.

18.5 is nothing they should have done it without a court case.

I heard about this on the radio.

good im glad shes getting something, that accident pretty much ruined her life and who knows if she'll be able to work again. Yeah if you do stunts there is risk and thats your job but its one thing to break an arm and another to have your head nearly chopped off because something failed horribly. Plus im sure the insurance isnt doing jack ****. And besides this movie made a **** ton of money so paramount wont even notice the lose, if you ask me she should've gotten more and probably would have if they didnt settle.

the thing of this is, that she was not a stunt woman. Just an extra paid to drive her car in the background. A stunt person would have heavy and full insurance -all bases covered pretty much.

Yes, it is true that for The Dark Knight, a stuntman died in London shooting a scene. I think he was driving, something went wrong and he struck a tree. Tragic. In the credits his name is listed in memoriam with H. Ledger.

vectorA3 wrote:the thing of this is, that she was not a stunt woman. Just an extra paid to drive her car in the background. A stunt person would have heavy and full insurance -all bases covered pretty much.

Yes, it is true that for The Dark Knight, a stuntman died in London shooting a scene. I think he was driving, something went wrong and he struck a tree. Tragic. In the credits his name is listed in memoriam with H. Ledger.

That is true, however it's a simple fact that when you chose to be on set in a film, especially an action film, things can go wrong. I'm not trying to shift blame onto Ms. Cedillo, but it's foolish to say that there are absolutely no risks being an extra in this kind of film. It's doubly unfortunate since when these things do happen the extras aren't set up to receive compensation. This is true of any action film.

Capt.Failure wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:the thing of this is, that she was not a stunt woman. Just an extra paid to drive her car in the background. A stunt person would have heavy and full insurance -all bases covered pretty much.

Yes, it is true that for The Dark Knight, a stuntman died in London shooting a scene. I think he was driving, something went wrong and he struck a tree. Tragic. In the credits his name is listed in memoriam with H. Ledger.

That is true, however it's a simple fact that when you chose to be on set in a film, especially an action film, things can go wrong. I'm not trying to shift blame onto Ms. Cedillo, but it's foolish to say that there are absolutely no risks being an extra in this kind of film. It's doubly unfortunate since when these things do happen the extras aren't set up to receive compensation. This is true of any action film.

I know this firsthand - I've worked on projects with stunts, explosions, helicopters and guns. Safety meetings and all precautions are a must. But in this case, it was a freak accident even though she was probably outside of the dangerous area. What pisses me off, as I mentioned earlier, was the deceit used by the studio press initially after the accident happened. "She was not involved in the movie", etc. - BS! You can hate all you want on Michael Bay (and I do a lot), but he is a stickler for safety and very conscientous of it. For all the explosions he has, you don't hear about people getting hurt. (Maybe he has a good cover-up team - Lol. J/K)

vectorA3 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

vectorA3 wrote:the thing of this is, that she was not a stunt woman. Just an extra paid to drive her car in the background. A stunt person would have heavy and full insurance -all bases covered pretty much.

Yes, it is true that for The Dark Knight, a stuntman died in London shooting a scene. I think he was driving, something went wrong and he struck a tree. Tragic. In the credits his name is listed in memoriam with H. Ledger.

That is true, however it's a simple fact that when you chose to be on set in a film, especially an action film, things can go wrong. I'm not trying to shift blame onto Ms. Cedillo, but it's foolish to say that there are absolutely no risks being an extra in this kind of film. It's doubly unfortunate since when these things do happen the extras aren't set up to receive compensation. This is true of any action film.

I know this firsthand - I've worked on projects with stunts, explosions, helicopters and guns. Safety meetings and all precautions are a must. But in this case, it was a freak accident even though she was probably outside of the dangerous area. What pisses me off, as I mentioned earlier, was the deceit used by the studio press initially after the accident happened. "She was not involved in the movie", etc. - BS! You can hate all you want on Michael Bay (and I do a lot), but he is a stickler for safety and very conscientous of it. For all the explosions he has, you don't hear about people getting hurt. (Maybe he has a good cover-up team - Lol. J/K)

Agreed. Blame here if any is applicable lies on the studios and executives. Accidents happen and it sucks when they do, but they're the ones who try to sweep it under the rug.

Capt.Failure wrote:Agreed. Blame here if any is applicable lies on the studios and executives. Accidents happen and it sucks when they do, but they're the ones who try to sweep it under the rug.

That's ussualy how it goes when your in accidents. Never admit guilt. espeacially before any kind of investigation has been done. If you do, you open yourself up to much more litigation.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:Agreed. Blame here if any is applicable lies on the studios and executives. Accidents happen and it sucks when they do, but they're the ones who try to sweep it under the rug.

That's ussualy how it goes when your in accidents. Never admit guilt. espeacially before any kind of investigation has been done. If you do, you open yourself up to much more litigation.

I understand you're trying to see both sides of the situation, I get that, but I have to admit that I'm thoroughly mystified as to how anyone can fence sit on this one.

She is clearly the victim, they are clearly at fault, and she was given a reasonable expectation of safety. You said, previously, that she basically should've seen it as being potentially dangerous and that she accepted the responsibility when she took the role.

Why? I mean, it doesn't make sense. You're not giving any depth to your argument, here. She was driving down the opposing lane of traffic. There was a median divider. The stunt was happening in a different lane. The safety cable broke unbeknownst to her or anyone else. Granted, they had no idea it was going to happen, but neither did she. Why should she assume that such a horrible thing could take place, simply because she was driving her car in a controlled environment?

They ended up getting her hurt and then tried to deny it. They wouldn't have to deny anything if they hadn't allowed this to happen. I don't care what the safety inspector said, if the cable was secure and safe, it shouldn't have broken. Something they did, or the equipment was faulty, whatever, there's a reason why it happened and we may never know it.

They are responsible. She isn't. And they should've just fessed up and admitted they put her life on the line.

I'm sorry. Like I said, I normally agree with you on most things, but I have to completely disagree, this time. She had reasonable expectations of safety.

Okay, let's say you're walking on a new sidewalk. It's perfect. Not a single bump, dip, whatever. Yet, somehow it trips you and hurts you. When looking at it, don't you have a reasonable expectation of having that NOT happen? I would surely hope you do. If you don't, well...

Bottom line, you can't have it both ways and you're trying your hardest to do so. She was wronged and deserved compensation. Those are the facts.

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:Agreed. Blame here if any is applicable lies on the studios and executives. Accidents happen and it sucks when they do, but they're the ones who try to sweep it under the rug.

That's ussualy how it goes when your in accidents. Never admit guilt. espeacially before any kind of investigation has been done. If you do, you open yourself up to much more litigation.

I understand you're trying to see both sides of the situation, I get that, but I have to admit that I'm thoroughly mystified as to how anyone can fence sit on this one.

She is clearly the victim, they are clearly at fault, and she was given a reasonable expectation of safety. You said, previously, that she basically should've seen it as being potentially dangerous and that she accepted the responsibility when she took the role.

Why? I mean, it doesn't make sense. You're not giving any depth to your argument, here. She was driving down the opposing lane of traffic. There was a median divider. The stunt was happening in a different lane. The safety cable broke unbeknownst to her or anyone else. Granted, they had no idea it was going to happen, but neither did she. Why should she assume that such a horrible thing could take place, simply because she was driving her car in a controlled environment?

They ended up getting her hurt and then tried to deny it. They wouldn't have to deny anything if they hadn't allowed this to happen. I don't care what the safety inspector said, if the cable was secure and safe, it shouldn't have broken. Something they did, or the equipment was faulty, whatever, there's a reason why it happened and we may never know it.

They are responsible. She isn't. And they should've just fessed up and admitted they put her life on the line.

I'm sorry. Like I said, I normally agree with you on most things, but I have to completely disagree, this time. She had reasonable expectations of safety.

Okay, let's say you're walking on a new sidewalk. It's perfect. Not a single bump, dip, whatever. Yet, somehow it trips you and hurts you. When looking at it, don't you have a reasonable expectation of having that NOT happen? I would surely hope you do. If you don't, well...

Bottom line, you can't have it both ways and you're trying your hardest to do so. She was wronged and deserved compensation. Those are the facts.

What I'm saying is that to expect there to be a 100% chance of nothing going wrong is just asinine. That attitude has caused some of the greatest tragedies in our time because people never prepared for when something could and did go wrong, even when it seemed like nothing could.

I'm not trying to be on the fence, I'm merely speaking in cold logic when others appeal to emotion. She was indeed wronged and deserved compensation. You are glossing over the simple fact that sometimes things just go wrong and it's beyond stupid* to even think they never will. I deal in logic, not emotion, so I have no problem saying this and it needs to be said.

Note: Not calling you stupid, just stating my general opinion of the notion.

Edit: I should add I think what's the biggest crime here is that there is nothing set up to cover these accidents, leading to cases were executives try to sweep it under the rug. This flippant attitude to the risks and corporate oversight and greed lead to these incidents.