SEXFIGHTER wrote:Come on then, EXPLAIN how this '****' works? You see nothing. I knew virtually nothing about this incident so, in hindsight, i'm guilty of jumping in before reading the thread properly, you understand the word 'clear' don't you. Once again, via the internet of course, you're making it personal with people, backing your little click and using ANY excuse to jump down my throat and highlight possible mistakes in the hope that someone reports me, thats what gets you off is it? Grow up.
What is your deal lately? All it seems like you want to do is pick a fight. You've been very confrontational these past few days, and definitely inflammatory.
No one is out to get you. You do yourself any and all damage, not us.
SEXFIGHTER wrote:I didn't joke about it or her specifically. In hindsight, it looks worse than it is, I didn't read the thread. I didn't even know she'd suffered brain damage. Foot in mouth im afraid.
1.) Obviously you read more of the thread than you're letting on. You made a joke about brain damage. You wouldn't know that that's the topic at hand if you truly hadn't read it.
2.) Let's say it's a case of "Ooops!". You should always read the thread, or at least get the gist of what's being discussed before jumping in headfirst and faceplanting yourself.
3.) You've made your joke, you were called on the carpet for it, you explained your side of the story. It's time for both sides of the argument to let it go. That includes you too, Fighter.
Let's move on and go back to the topic at hand, shall we?
Speaking of...
Dead Metal wrote:She wasn't meant to be in that stunt and she wasn't in that stunt, they had her working in a different scene away from the stunt.
That doesn't help their case, honestly. In fact, it makes it look even worse to a jury. Not only did the rig fail the night before, but when it failed again the next day, it was so catastrophic that it injured a woman on another part of the set.
Regardless of it being an accident, the fact that they were operating it and it caused an accident means they're liable.
If I was running a crane in a demolition site two blocks over, yet I swung the wrecking ball so hard that it snapped and rolled two blocks over and smashed into someone's station wagon while waiting at a red light, the blame would be put squarely on me. An operator should know their equipment, period.
How else can you operate it, if you don't know it inside and out?
Dead Metal wrote:Her eye being sewn shut is likely just a temporary thing, I've heard that this is a common practice, in extreme cases, meant to save the eye and that in most cases this succeeds and the string is removed and she'll be able to use it lie normal. Complaining about that is like complaining about having an arm put in plaster.
Her left side being paralysed is the most worrisome, there is a slight chance that this is mostly cured or even completely cured, but this depends on the treatment and how sever it is.
We've heard of people dying during movie stunts, or almost dying due to their noses almost being rammed into their brains when jumping into a tree (Jacky Chan), The Dark Knight for instance had a man crushed during a scene with the Batmobil.
Likely a temporary thing? You don't know that. I'll meet you half way and say it's not impossible that it could be reopened, but to say that it's likely that they'll reopen her eye is just silliness. You have no way to know that her eye will be miraculously restored and functional.
And sewing her eye shut so it doesn't dry out because her paralyzed body is unable to protect it is incomparable to putting a broken arm in a cast. I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while. Sewn shut eye to help fight off the effects of paralysis or broken arm in a cast...hmm... No comparison.
Of course the paralysis is the most worrisome. A piece of steel pierced her flesh, broke through her skull, and sliced into her brain like the tip of a whip. That causes incredible damage, and I don't even have to be a doctor to see that. She's now paralyzed on the entire left side of her body and because none of it is functioning, they sealed her eye to protect the eyeball. Considering she's incapable of making her body function, reopening her eye is the least of their concerns, but comparing it to a broken arm? Not even close. The cast on a broken arm WILL come off in time. There's no guarantee they'll have a reason to reopen her eye. Why would they if she remains paralyzed?
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this part of your post is just...I don't even know what to label it, but wow.
Dead Metal wrote:It sounded like they wanted to pay at least for her medical treatment.
Yes, they said they'd compensate her medical treatment, I never said otherwise.
But, what is her medical treatment? Is it short term? Is it long term? If it's long term, will she be taken care of in the level of care she not only needs but deserves?
Those questions have yet to be answered, and if given a loophole, any company will exploit it to get out of a payout.
Dead Metal wrote:Again, they did not want her to be part of the stunt, they had her doing something different for a different scene. The stunt was for a completely different scene so yes it was a freak accident because it had such an effect and reach.
I point you to my earlier comment in this reply.
Knowing that the setup went kablooey the night before, it shouldn't have been reused with people nearby, period. I know of many businesses around my home town that check, double check, and triple check their trade tools before using them around or in the vicinity of people. Heck, we all do.
If they used an item that blew up in people's faces, so to speak, on Monday...they most certainly wouldn't have it running again on Tuesday. It would be days of downtime, tracing down every piece, every problem, and correcting them all.
Why can't the stunt people do the same thing? I will fault Bay for one thing in these movies...no one needs the kind of explosions and grandiose stunts he concocts. Sure, they make us all go "Oooh" and "Whoa...", but a 100+ gallon tank full of gasoline for one explosion? (ROTF) Can you honestly tell me that's absolutely NEEDED? Of course it isn't. It's those ridiculous ideas that lead to ridiculously dangerous stunts that have the potential to fail, and when they do, people's lives are at stake.
Dead Metal wrote:It was checked and found to be sufficient for the powers they calculated. Stuff like that gets tested and checked.
Obviously it wasn't sufficient. The fact that it didn't work the first time out should've been a clue to them.
If it was checked and tested as you say it was (and I'm not saying it wasn't), and it still failed (and it did), why on Earth would anyone with common sense set it up again and say "Okay fellas, let's see what happens this time!"
I'd go running in the other direction as fast as I could and never look back.
Dead Metal wrote:It was designed to fit the requirements of the stunt, just because the powers set free by the stunt at that time weren't the ones they had originally counted on does not mean that the plate was badly designed.
You missed my point. I think you're still missing some of it. I didn't say that it was badly designed, I said if it was, then it's human error. A metal plate on it's own is absolutely harmless. It's when it's USED that it has the potential to become dangerous.
It's that whole "they didn't count on..." part that makes it human error, and makes them liable. Badly designed or not, if they hadn't used it to begin with, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
My point is, it's all human error.
Dead Metal wrote:They did say it failed before, but from what the report said that first one was nothing like this, chances are that a completely different piece failed that first time.
That still doesn't help their case. That means it's one of the following:
1.) The first failure caused problems for the rest of the setup, including structural integrity, and that lead to the second failure.
2.) The fact that one piece failed the night before, and a different part failed the second time, means somewhere it was either a design flaw (human error) or wasn't operated correctly (human error).
Dead Metal wrote:Trial and error, that's how stuff works and is improved, just look at steam engines, trains, cars, planes, etc...
*facepalms out of frustration*
Dead Metal wrote:Again, it might be temporary.
...possibly. I'd love for it to be temporary and for this poor woman to be able to go back to having at least somewhat of a normal life. I hope she can, I hope she does, but the fact of the matter is, a piece of metal cut through her windshield, her skull, and into her brain! That kind of force, that kind of power, that's not a simple patch job. That's a "I don't even know where to begin" job. There's always a chance she could come out of it unscathed, or without extensive damage, but it's probably not the expected outcome. It's a miracle she's still alive. Period.
No one's calling for blood, or heads to roll, or prison, etc. All anyone is asking for is for someone to make sure she's taken care of.
Dead Metal wrote:It's already been said that they are going to do something, just wait and see what that is, I don't think Paramount will want headlines reading "Paramount breaks promise and leaves woman to fend for herself".
And she is being taken care of as she's in a hospital.
Oh, I never said they'd leave her hanging. I do worry though, that if they choose to find a legal loophole of some kind, they'd use it. You can't say they wouldn't. You don't know they wouldn't. Just like I don't know for sure that they would. I'm saying anything's possible. It's silly to believe otherwise.
And yes, she is being taken care of in a hospital, but on who's dime? And what level of care is she receiving? If you think a hospital wouldn't skimp or flat out refuse service, that's just silliness. It's usually not the case, but hospitals have been known to do just that. Now, if they're getting paid the big bucks, then sure, she's being treated with the best care. (NOTE: I am not saying the hospital she's in is not taking good care of her, I'm just saying that hospitals, in general can and have refused service or a certain level when money was in question.)
Dead Metal wrote:Who ever said they can't afford it? Or wouldn't pay her? Paramount has said they will help her, what more do you need for now, if you can't wait for the follow-up coverage and you really want to make sure she's good - go and visit her at the hospital.
I didn't say they couldn't afford it. I didn't say they wouldn't pay for it. I'm worried that the state's investigation could prevent her from receiving long term care if they decide to back out. I didn't say they would, however. There IS a difference.
Oh and that visit her at the hospital line? Don't get smart mouthed. No one's addressed you in a rude manner, so show the same courtesy. And I actually would go visit her and tell her how many fans are rallying behind her and supporting her with wishes of good health and a quick recovery, if it were possible for me to do that. Using that line was pretty crappy.
I wouldn't have expected that from you. I'm a little disappointed, actually. (I know, I know, that's not worth a damn to you.)
Dead Metal wrote:Currently I'm thinking you're the one who's confused or just doesn't want to stop hating on Paramount for all the wrong reasons.
I'm not confused at all. I hadn't read the latest update on the stunt itself, but I had the basic gist all along. I was steered in the right direction, finally, and I'm up to speed, as far as I know.
And I'm not "hating on" Paramount. In fact, I give them credit for standing up and saying "We'll help out." I'm not mad at Paramount. I'm angry with the state for saying the production's not at fault for the accident. The production and Paramount are not one and the same. How can I blame Paramount for something they had nothing to do with? How can I be angry with them when they stepped up to the plate and offered their help?
I'm only worried that if the production's given a free pass, will Paramount do the same if given the chance? If so, where does that leave this poor woman?
All I care about... (AND I DO MEAN ALL) is that she's taken care of. I am not saying she won't be. I am not saying she isn't currently being. Asking what if questions is allowed here, last time I checked.
NOTE: Realize that I am not a perfect Christian, nor do I profess to be. I apologize if anyone's ever offended by me, I'm not perfect. Don't hold my posts and opinions against other Christians.
Poor girl. 
