Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

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.

Capt.Failure wrote:

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.

Err... My response wasn't directed at you. That's why I quoted Cruiser. I thought it would've been clearer, my bad, I guess?

Autobot032 wrote:Err... My response wasn't directed at you. That's why I quoted Cruiser. I thought it would've been clearer, my bad, I guess?

...

<rereads that>

Whoops. Didn't see that. Now I feel dumb.

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.

Lol. You almost sound like you're rooting for the studio and they're cover up when you say this. But you're probably not. This is standard procedure in big business I guess.

Malkovich in DOTM: "Yeah a co-worker just died, ok, ya, let's move on....."

vectorA3 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.

Lol. You almost sound like you're rooting for the studio and they're cover up when you say this. But you're probably not. This is standard procedure in big business I guess.

Malkovich in DOTM: "Yeah a co-worker just died, ok, ya, let's move on....."

When I read his words it came off to me as, "This is what studio executives actually believe." I didn't read it as his own opinion on the matter.

^ Point taken