Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability!
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 10:10AM CDT
Categories: Movie Related News, People NewsPosted by: Dead Metal Views: 66,352
Topic Options: View Discussion · Sign in or Join to reply
Thanks to seibertron.com member Albershide we can give you an update to the horrific accident which happened last month during filming of Transformers 3.
TMZ has posted an exclusive article explaining that Paramount was cleared and not liable for what happened to the extra.
Click here to read the original article on TMZ.
TMZ has posted an exclusive article explaining that Paramount was cleared and not liable for what happened to the extra.
Click here to read the original article on TMZ.
Credit(s): Albershide, TMZ
News Search
Got Transformers News? Let us know here!
Most Popular Transformers News
Most Recent Transformers News
News Categories: Toy News, Movie Related News, Cartoon News, Comic Book News, Site News, Rumors, Event News, Digital Media News, Collectables, Sponsor News, Game News, Site Articles, Store News, Reviews, People News, Company News, Sightings, Press Releases, Unlicensed Products News, Auctions, Transtopia, Interviews, Editorials, Collector's Club News, Knock Offs, Podcast, Heavy Metal War, Contests, Book News, Top Lists
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135129)
Posted by First-Aid on October 13th, 2010 @ 10:34am CDT
Posted by First-Aid on October 13th, 2010 @ 10:34am CDT
Call me sentimental, but I really think that if she ends up needing help with medical bills and other things down the road (which Paramount should cover but I've dealt with workers' comp and they are a--holes and stall as much as possible) that we as a collector's community should put something together involving all of the fansites to help out. She's really kind of a part of Transformers lore now (for all the wrong reasons) and I think we should support her.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135132)
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 10:47am CDT
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 10:47am CDT
Some of you on here are just pieces of crap, and you know who you are.
The studio is responsible for accidents related to the filming of their movie, period. Unless extras were required to sign a waver which totally gave up all rights (which would be very lengthy, convoluted, not to mention outright shady), then the studio will have to compensate her for medical cost and physical disabilities she may be left with.
I certainly hope this girl never reads what some of you here and other pieces of garbage have wrote on other sites.
The studio is responsible for accidents related to the filming of their movie, period. Unless extras were required to sign a waver which totally gave up all rights (which would be very lengthy, convoluted, not to mention outright shady), then the studio will have to compensate her for medical cost and physical disabilities she may be left with.
I certainly hope this girl never reads what some of you here and other pieces of garbage have wrote on other sites.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135140)
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 11:11am CDT
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 11:11am CDT
First-Aid to the rescue! 
Sorry, that's good though. Your noble intentions wouldn't have anything to do with the fact she's cute, would it? No, just kidding, that's a really nice idea you have. The studio should handle things, but you never know, maybe if they don't step up.
Sorry, that's good though. Your noble intentions wouldn't have anything to do with the fact she's cute, would it? No, just kidding, that's a really nice idea you have. The studio should handle things, but you never know, maybe if they don't step up.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135158)
Posted by Blackstreak on October 13th, 2010 @ 11:35am CDT
Posted by Blackstreak on October 13th, 2010 @ 11:35am CDT
It's unfortunate she was paralyzed, unfortunate the accident happened at all. I would think at minimum her hospitalization and medical bills were already covered, if not by Paramount then by Workman's Comp.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135178)
Posted by Dead Metal on October 13th, 2010 @ 12:12pm CDT
That's actually a good idea, wouldn't be the first time we rooted together do do something similar.
Posted by Dead Metal on October 13th, 2010 @ 12:12pm CDT
First-Aid wrote:Call me sentimental, but I really think that if she ends up needing help with medical bills and other things down the road (which Paramount should cover but I've dealt with workers' comp and they are a--holes and stall as much as possible) that we as a collector's community should put something together involving all of the fansites to help out. She's really kind of a part of Transformers lore now (for all the wrong reasons) and I think we should support her.
That's actually a good idea, wouldn't be the first time we rooted together do do something similar.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135185)
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 12:44pm CDT
You could be right there, I dunno how workers comp works in a situation like this. I'll echo what First-Aid said about workers comp though, in that it's almost a joke and frustrating to no end. I got hurt at work once and the workers comp rep I spoke to on the phone twisted every word I said and hit me with so many "Do You Still Beat Your Wife" questions that I wanted to reach through the phone and strangle him. It's really a horrible process, completely Catch 22.
Posted by Liftgate on October 13th, 2010 @ 12:44pm CDT
Blackstreak wrote:It's unfortunate she was paralyzed, unfortunate the accident happened at all. I would think at minimum her hospitalization and medical bills were already covered, if not by Paramount then by Workman's Comp.
You could be right there, I dunno how workers comp works in a situation like this. I'll echo what First-Aid said about workers comp though, in that it's almost a joke and frustrating to no end. I got hurt at work once and the workers comp rep I spoke to on the phone twisted every word I said and hit me with so many "Do You Still Beat Your Wife" questions that I wanted to reach through the phone and strangle him. It's really a horrible process, completely Catch 22.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135199)
Posted by RK_Striker_JK_5 on October 13th, 2010 @ 1:15pm CDT
Posted by RK_Striker_JK_5 on October 13th, 2010 @ 1:15pm CDT
Well, some of my faith in humanity just fucking died after reading some of the posts here. Have you no shame? Have you no empathy? Apparently not. 
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135213)
Posted by Redimus on October 13th, 2010 @ 1:40pm CDT
The lawyers may have ruled that Transformers 3 isn't Paramount's fault, but I still hold them responsible!
Posted by Redimus on October 13th, 2010 @ 1:40pm CDT
The News Post wrote:Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability!
The lawyers may have ruled that Transformers 3 isn't Paramount's fault, but I still hold them responsible!
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135254)
Posted by Megatronsdemise666 on October 13th, 2010 @ 3:35pm CDT
Posted by Megatronsdemise666 on October 13th, 2010 @ 3:35pm CDT
wowers
uhm
where do i starty marty
uhm i would feel bad if i were the producers
if i were bay i would give her a extra when the DVD/ Blu-ray comes out
or at least suck her in as sams sick aunt and the go visit her?
idk but i would feel bad and do that
even if im a decepticon lover >.<
BUNNIES RULE
uhm
where do i starty marty
uhm i would feel bad if i were the producers
if i were bay i would give her a extra when the DVD/ Blu-ray comes out
or at least suck her in as sams sick aunt and the go visit her?
idk but i would feel bad and do that
even if im a decepticon lover >.<
BUNNIES RULE
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135349)
Posted by BATTLEMASTER IIC on October 13th, 2010 @ 6:42pm CDT
Posted by BATTLEMASTER IIC on October 13th, 2010 @ 6:42pm CDT
I feel bad for the welder though.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135389)
Posted by Covenant on October 13th, 2010 @ 8:48pm CDT
Posted by Covenant on October 13th, 2010 @ 8:48pm CDT
Cleared!?
It's things like this that make me think the word 'justice' was invented solely to have a reference for what there seems to be a severe lack of in situations like this.
It's things like this that make me think the word 'justice' was invented solely to have a reference for what there seems to be a severe lack of in situations like this.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135572)
Posted by Vicalliose on October 14th, 2010 @ 9:15am CDT
Posted by Vicalliose on October 14th, 2010 @ 9:15am CDT
From what I read, it was decided for her to be in the scene at the last minute, and I don't think she signed a waver.
Doesn't that still count as negligence?
Either way, this sounds like bulls**t to me.
Doesn't that still count as negligence?
Either way, this sounds like bulls**t to me.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135761)
Posted by Rogue Bot on October 14th, 2010 @ 4:48pm CDT
Poor girl.
Some of you though...are just...HORRID! But to those who aren't...well...good. ^^;
I hope she can make a full recovery.
Posted by Rogue Bot on October 14th, 2010 @ 4:48pm CDT
Poor girl. Some of you though...are just...HORRID! But to those who aren't...well...good. ^^;
I hope she can make a full recovery.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1135836)
Posted by First-Aid on October 14th, 2010 @ 6:59pm CDT
She's cute? Seriously? I've never seen a pic of her...that would just be a plus.
Actually my intentions are more related to my careers in health care and caring for other human beings more than anything. it just sounded like a good idea to me.
Look folks...if you want to play the blame game, fine. Accidents really do happen...believe me, running ambulances for 5 years and 15 years overall in health care have proven that. Blame really doesn't matter at this point...all that does matter is that she gets better. It would be HORRIBLE PR for Paramount to not take care of her...they'll do something, for sure. But I think it would help to keep an eye on things regarding her, and maybe jump in when we can to help out.
Posted by First-Aid on October 14th, 2010 @ 6:59pm CDT
Liftgate wrote:First-Aid to the rescue!
Sorry, that's good though. Your noble intentions wouldn't have anything to do with the fact she's cute, would it?
She's cute? Seriously? I've never seen a pic of her...that would just be a plus.
Actually my intentions are more related to my careers in health care and caring for other human beings more than anything. it just sounded like a good idea to me.
Look folks...if you want to play the blame game, fine. Accidents really do happen...believe me, running ambulances for 5 years and 15 years overall in health care have proven that. Blame really doesn't matter at this point...all that does matter is that she gets better. It would be HORRIBLE PR for Paramount to not take care of her...they'll do something, for sure. But I think it would help to keep an eye on things regarding her, and maybe jump in when we can to help out.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1136360)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 16th, 2010 @ 2:59am CDT
Good post. It is always good for the public to stay attentive to the situation and then come in to help steer corporations back to where things need to be when they stray off course.
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 16th, 2010 @ 2:59am CDT
First-Aid wrote:Liftgate wrote:First-Aid to the rescue!
Sorry, that's good though. Your noble intentions wouldn't have anything to do with the fact she's cute, would it?
She's cute? Seriously? I've never seen a pic of her...that would just be a plus.
Actually my intentions are more related to my careers in health care and caring for other human beings more than anything. it just sounded like a good idea to me.
Look folks...if you want to play the blame game, fine. Accidents really do happen...believe me, running ambulances for 5 years and 15 years overall in health care have proven that. Blame really doesn't matter at this point...all that does matter is that she gets better. It would be HORRIBLE PR for Paramount to not take care of her...they'll do something, for sure. But I think it would help to keep an eye on things regarding her, and maybe jump in when we can to help out.
Good post. It is always good for the public to stay attentive to the situation and then come in to help steer corporations back to where things need to be when they stray off course.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1136670)
Posted by First-Aid on October 16th, 2010 @ 8:57pm CDT
My sincerest thanks to all who have responded positively. Does anyone know how to get ahold of the family? If we could get other fansites in on something like this I would be willing to act as a health care liaison or something of the like. I also think it would be very beneficial to her and her family to know that we as Transformers fans (movie or not...you know EVERYONE should be in on this) support her. I certainly know it would make me feel good...
Posted by First-Aid on October 16th, 2010 @ 8:57pm CDT
Prime Riblet wrote:First-Aid wrote:Liftgate wrote:First-Aid to the rescue!
Sorry, that's good though. Your noble intentions wouldn't have anything to do with the fact she's cute, would it?
She's cute? Seriously? I've never seen a pic of her...that would just be a plus.
Actually my intentions are more related to my careers in health care and caring for other human beings more than anything. it just sounded like a good idea to me.
Look folks...if you want to play the blame game, fine. Accidents really do happen...believe me, running ambulances for 5 years and 15 years overall in health care have proven that. Blame really doesn't matter at this point...all that does matter is that she gets better. It would be HORRIBLE PR for Paramount to not take care of her...they'll do something, for sure. But I think it would help to keep an eye on things regarding her, and maybe jump in when we can to help out.
Good post. It is always good for the public to stay attentive to the situation and then come in to help steer corporations back to where things need to be when they stray off course.
My sincerest thanks to all who have responded positively. Does anyone know how to get ahold of the family? If we could get other fansites in on something like this I would be willing to act as a health care liaison or something of the like. I also think it would be very beneficial to her and her family to know that we as Transformers fans (movie or not...you know EVERYONE should be in on this) support her. I certainly know it would make me feel good...
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1136701)
Posted by Autobot032 on October 16th, 2010 @ 10:46pm CDT
Posted by Autobot032 on October 16th, 2010 @ 10:46pm CDT
Something's bugging me here. (I apologize for changing the course of the topic, but I need to get this out.)
The state cleared them, said the welds, plates, bolts, whatever were fine and up to standards, etc.
Basically, a freak accident.
I don't buy that. I just don't. The rig failed the night before her accident, why shouldn't they have assumed it could do so again? Obviously, something wasn't right with it to begin with.
Something in the setup was flawed.
A bolt would break under extreme pressure.
A weld would snap under extreme pressure.
On their own, they do not just blow up in your face.
A bolt, sitting on a shelf does not just instantly explode. It's impossible, it just doesn't happen.
A weld, holding two things together, sitting idle and not in use, doesn't just break apart for the hell of it.
Somewhere, there was either an operator mistake or the stuff used was flawed from the getgo, which would be the manufacturer's fault, either way, none of these items just fail by being in existence.
They failed during use, in the function they were meant to be used for. Human interaction caused these things to go from harmless inanimate objects to death traps.
It absolutely defies logic when they say it's a freak accident and no one's to blame.
I will say it again. Inanimate objects do not just fail for the sake of doing so. It is impossible.
Humans are clearly at fault here.
The state cleared them, said the welds, plates, bolts, whatever were fine and up to standards, etc.
Basically, a freak accident.
I don't buy that. I just don't. The rig failed the night before her accident, why shouldn't they have assumed it could do so again? Obviously, something wasn't right with it to begin with.
Something in the setup was flawed.
A bolt would break under extreme pressure.
A weld would snap under extreme pressure.
On their own, they do not just blow up in your face.
A bolt, sitting on a shelf does not just instantly explode. It's impossible, it just doesn't happen.
A weld, holding two things together, sitting idle and not in use, doesn't just break apart for the hell of it.
Somewhere, there was either an operator mistake or the stuff used was flawed from the getgo, which would be the manufacturer's fault, either way, none of these items just fail by being in existence.
They failed during use, in the function they were meant to be used for. Human interaction caused these things to go from harmless inanimate objects to death traps.
It absolutely defies logic when they say it's a freak accident and no one's to blame.
I will say it again. Inanimate objects do not just fail for the sake of doing so. It is impossible.
Humans are clearly at fault here.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1136742)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 17th, 2010 @ 7:06am CDT
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 17th, 2010 @ 7:06am CDT
I am not seeing where the article states that the equipment failed, only that the "stunt" failed. It is not stated that the rigging was what was at fault. That being said, I do believe that it was human involvement that caused this mishap (as it usually is), but it is possible that tolerances of the rigging used was not taken into account by the person/people in charge of the stunt. And this could be said about two completely different types of rigging rated for whatever uses which happened to both be used for something they can't handle.
Kind of like a 300 lb man stepping on a ladder rated at a max capacity of 50 lbs. It breaks. He then tries to step on a ladder rated to hold a maximum of 250 lbs. The second ladder breaks as well. The man clearly is not using the proper tool for the job.
Kind of like a 300 lb man stepping on a ladder rated at a max capacity of 50 lbs. It breaks. He then tries to step on a ladder rated to hold a maximum of 250 lbs. The second ladder breaks as well. The man clearly is not using the proper tool for the job.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1137349)
Posted by 5150 Cruiser on October 18th, 2010 @ 9:28pm CDT
Good point. One must remember this was a stunt. That being said, one can't always take into acount every tolerance that comes about.
Now, i think we need to step back and really take a look at what this judement really means. now while they were cleared off all charges and fault, that doesn't mean that the producers still aren't going to help her out. it just means that they weren't found neglagent and at this point, no additional law suits can be filed for this accident. And i still believe this was an accident. Nothing more. I remember reading somewhere that the movie was going to assist her in paying for her medical bills. Granted this was before the ruling, but i haven't read anywhere that they were going to back out helping now that they were found clear of any neglagence. If they did in fact say they would help her, i hope they keep their word.
Posted by 5150 Cruiser on October 18th, 2010 @ 9:28pm CDT
Prime Riblet wrote:I am not seeing where the article states that the equipment failed, only that the "stunt" failed. It is not stated that the rigging was what was at fault. That being said, I do believe that it was human involvement that caused this mishap (as it usually is), but it is possible that tolerances of the rigging used was not taken into account by the person/people in charge of the stunt. And this could be said about two completely different types of rigging rated for whatever uses which happened to both be used for something they can't handle.
Kind of like a 300 lb man stepping on a ladder rated at a max capacity of 50 lbs. It breaks. He then tries to step on a ladder rated to hold a maximum of 250 lbs. The second ladder breaks as well. The man clearly is not using the proper tool for the job.
Good point. One must remember this was a stunt. That being said, one can't always take into acount every tolerance that comes about.
Now, i think we need to step back and really take a look at what this judement really means. now while they were cleared off all charges and fault, that doesn't mean that the producers still aren't going to help her out. it just means that they weren't found neglagent and at this point, no additional law suits can be filed for this accident. And i still believe this was an accident. Nothing more. I remember reading somewhere that the movie was going to assist her in paying for her medical bills. Granted this was before the ruling, but i haven't read anywhere that they were going to back out helping now that they were found clear of any neglagence. If they did in fact say they would help her, i hope they keep their word.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1137356)
Posted by First-Aid on October 18th, 2010 @ 10:08pm CDT
Posted by First-Aid on October 18th, 2010 @ 10:08pm CDT
I said it earlier...bad PR does nasty things to your bottom line, especially once the knowledge gets out. Paramount isn't about to risk its bottom line. They will help out, probably more than normally. Like I said earlier, I believe we as fans should be ready to help out in any way we can if needed. i'll be happy to take point on that should it come to it...i think my medical background qualifies me in a unique way.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1137674)
Posted by Covenant on October 19th, 2010 @ 8:10pm CDT
I have to comment that this is a lazy line of thinking that results in these types of issues. It's a multi-million, big budget Hollywood movie. There are suppose to be experts and professionals present for just such things. If you're, for example, using a tow-line on a crane to swing a car at an angle through the air, you are required (even if, gawd forbid, not by requirement but for the intelligence regarding safety of fellow human beings around you) to have the correct people present to ensure a rigging will hold, that a car suspended & in motion in a stunt won't break free from its hold especially if its already done so a day or more prior, and (most important) that a person, an extra, involved with an entirely different stunt won't be injured to a degree that she'll suffer severe brain damage.
Paramount not being found negligent in any way is courtroom semantics/high-paid lawyer bullshit, and further proof that a legal system is broken.
Bay, his crew, Paramount..in reality, where the rest of us low-to-mid earnings people live our lives, are irresponsible, negligent and fully to blame for what happened.
But I do hope you're right in the idea they'll help her anyway. Scraping the minimum, she deserves that much.
And I do hope some of the folks at the beginning of this topic that really didn't care would think of that. This amounts to Bay coming to any one of you asking if you'd like to be an extra in this film. You're going to jump at it. And there isn't a waiver in Hollywood that accounts for physical & mental damage of this degree. Then they're careless with a rig, and you end up mentally damaged (at least) for the rest of your life, all for a stunt you weren't even suppose to be in. Let that shit sink in, please.
Posted by Covenant on October 19th, 2010 @ 8:10pm CDT
5150 Cruiser wrote:That being said, one can't always take into acount every tolerance that comes about.
I have to comment that this is a lazy line of thinking that results in these types of issues. It's a multi-million, big budget Hollywood movie. There are suppose to be experts and professionals present for just such things. If you're, for example, using a tow-line on a crane to swing a car at an angle through the air, you are required (even if, gawd forbid, not by requirement but for the intelligence regarding safety of fellow human beings around you) to have the correct people present to ensure a rigging will hold, that a car suspended & in motion in a stunt won't break free from its hold especially if its already done so a day or more prior, and (most important) that a person, an extra, involved with an entirely different stunt won't be injured to a degree that she'll suffer severe brain damage.
Paramount not being found negligent in any way is courtroom semantics/high-paid lawyer bullshit, and further proof that a legal system is broken.
Bay, his crew, Paramount..in reality, where the rest of us low-to-mid earnings people live our lives, are irresponsible, negligent and fully to blame for what happened.
But I do hope you're right in the idea they'll help her anyway. Scraping the minimum, she deserves that much.
And I do hope some of the folks at the beginning of this topic that really didn't care would think of that. This amounts to Bay coming to any one of you asking if you'd like to be an extra in this film. You're going to jump at it. And there isn't a waiver in Hollywood that accounts for physical & mental damage of this degree. Then they're careless with a rig, and you end up mentally damaged (at least) for the rest of your life, all for a stunt you weren't even suppose to be in. Let that shit sink in, please.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138084)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 20th, 2010 @ 11:22pm CDT
Until I hear that they DO NOT HELP this injured person, I am going to refrain from getting completely up-in-arms about the situation. What are you getting at in this part of your post, Big C? Are you hoping that everyone who was involved in the situation (stunt department, rigging department, fabricators, drivers, management etc.) need to be taken to criminal court over what happened? I know that's not what is said in your paragraph, but the implication is there that the studio is not doing what they can. I want to see how everything plays out before I start passing judgement on something I don't know jack-squat about. THAT is the "shit" I want to let sink in......
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 20th, 2010 @ 11:22pm CDT
Covenant wrote:And I do hope some of the folks at the beginning of this topic that really didn't care would think of that. This amounts to Bay coming to any one of you asking if you'd like to be an extra in this film. You're going to jump at it. And there isn't a waiver in Hollywood that accounts for physical & mental damage of this degree. Then they're careless with a rig, and you end up mentally damaged (at least) for the rest of your life, all for a stunt you weren't even suppose to be in. Let that shit sink in, please.
Until I hear that they DO NOT HELP this injured person, I am going to refrain from getting completely up-in-arms about the situation. What are you getting at in this part of your post, Big C? Are you hoping that everyone who was involved in the situation (stunt department, rigging department, fabricators, drivers, management etc.) need to be taken to criminal court over what happened? I know that's not what is said in your paragraph, but the implication is there that the studio is not doing what they can. I want to see how everything plays out before I start passing judgement on something I don't know jack-squat about. THAT is the "shit" I want to let sink in......
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138110)
Posted by Autobot032 on October 21st, 2010 @ 1:42am CDT
He didn't say string 'em all up and off with their heads. You say that you're not going to get all up in arms about it until you know more, well...what more is there to know?
Let's recap, shall we?
1.) She was in a stunt that she wasn't supposed to be. (No waiver will cover that, and any lawyer worth a damn will make that work.)
2.) She has been permanently injured on a level that we've never really heard of. (Her entire left side of her body is paralyzed and her eye sewn shut. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? From a movie stunt, no less? I don't think so.)
3.) Paramount said they'd compensate her. (Problem is, where do they draw the line at compensation? Her hospital bills? Her quality of life? Where?)
4.) The state investigators say it's basically a freak accident and that the production isn't to be held accountable for it. (So...who is? The rig failed the night before her accident, there's no good reason why they should've used it again, with a person, knowing it could fail again. That's clearly human error. If no one's liable, then no one has to pay, and she suffers...for $25.00 (I think it was $25.00) and that's all it's worth?)
If the weld breaks, it's the fault of the welder. It should've been checked in triplicate, at the very least.
If the plate snaps, it's the fault of the fabricator. It should've been designed better.
I could go on and on with each piece, but you get the idea.
A weld, on it's own is not dangerous.
A plate of metal, on it's own, is not dangerous.
A person okaying this rig when it failed miserably the night before, is dangerous.
I don't care what the state said. I don't care if it's "up to code". Something went wrong, they knew it failed, and they used it anyway.
That is wrong. That cost a woman her life (and being in the state she's in...that's not a life.)
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.
That's it. No criminal records, no hanging in the town square, just making sure she's taken care of. Is that too much to ask? Is that wrong? No.
Paramount made over a billion on the two films, combined, and now just made $115 million by selling off Iron Man 3 and The Avengers to Disney. You mean to tell me they can't afford to pay for this girl's pain and suffering? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they make.
I don't see how this is confusing, convoluted rocket science for anyone. I really don't.
Posted by Autobot032 on October 21st, 2010 @ 1:42am CDT
Prime Riblet wrote:Covenant wrote:And I do hope some of the folks at the beginning of this topic that really didn't care would think of that. This amounts to Bay coming to any one of you asking if you'd like to be an extra in this film. You're going to jump at it. And there isn't a waiver in Hollywood that accounts for physical & mental damage of this degree. Then they're careless with a rig, and you end up mentally damaged (at least) for the rest of your life, all for a stunt you weren't even suppose to be in. Let that shit sink in, please.
Until I hear that they DO NOT HELP this injured person, I am going to refrain from getting completely up-in-arms about the situation. What are you getting at in this part of your post, Big C? Are you hoping that everyone who was involved in the situation (stunt department, rigging department, fabricators, drivers, management etc.) need to be taken to criminal court over what happened? I know that's not what is said in your paragraph, but the implication is there that the studio is not doing what they can. I want to see how everything plays out before I start passing judgement on something I don't know jack-squat about. THAT is the "shit" I want to let sink in......
He didn't say string 'em all up and off with their heads. You say that you're not going to get all up in arms about it until you know more, well...what more is there to know?
Let's recap, shall we?
1.) She was in a stunt that she wasn't supposed to be. (No waiver will cover that, and any lawyer worth a damn will make that work.)
2.) She has been permanently injured on a level that we've never really heard of. (Her entire left side of her body is paralyzed and her eye sewn shut. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? From a movie stunt, no less? I don't think so.)
3.) Paramount said they'd compensate her. (Problem is, where do they draw the line at compensation? Her hospital bills? Her quality of life? Where?)
4.) The state investigators say it's basically a freak accident and that the production isn't to be held accountable for it. (So...who is? The rig failed the night before her accident, there's no good reason why they should've used it again, with a person, knowing it could fail again. That's clearly human error. If no one's liable, then no one has to pay, and she suffers...for $25.00 (I think it was $25.00) and that's all it's worth?)
If the weld breaks, it's the fault of the welder. It should've been checked in triplicate, at the very least.
If the plate snaps, it's the fault of the fabricator. It should've been designed better.
I could go on and on with each piece, but you get the idea.
A weld, on it's own is not dangerous.
A plate of metal, on it's own, is not dangerous.
A person okaying this rig when it failed miserably the night before, is dangerous.
I don't care what the state said. I don't care if it's "up to code". Something went wrong, they knew it failed, and they used it anyway.
That is wrong. That cost a woman her life (and being in the state she's in...that's not a life.)
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.
That's it. No criminal records, no hanging in the town square, just making sure she's taken care of. Is that too much to ask? Is that wrong? No.
Paramount made over a billion on the two films, combined, and now just made $115 million by selling off Iron Man 3 and The Avengers to Disney. You mean to tell me they can't afford to pay for this girl's pain and suffering? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they make.
I don't see how this is confusing, convoluted rocket science for anyone. I really don't.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138116)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 21st, 2010 @ 2:41am CDT
Holy freaking cow, dude. Chill out please. I typically think you are pretty well on the right track, but give me a break on this one. There is absolutely nothing confusing about the fact that the studio should pay what is fair for this girl's destroyed future. Look at my post and please point to where I am arguing against that extremely simple point. You aren't going to convince me that I am wrong to think it is appropriate to see if the studio is going to follow through on what they have said they would do. This will go through civil court and everyone will agree with a settlement, and that will be that. And the girl will be very well represented due to the potential size and nearly guaranteed likelihood of the payout. Now, if that isn't how it ends up, and the studio wants to fight the family in court.....well...THEN I will get a different opinion.
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 21st, 2010 @ 2:41am CDT
Autobot032 wrote:Prime Riblet wrote:Covenant wrote:And I do hope some of the folks at the beginning of this topic that really didn't care would think of that. This amounts to Bay coming to any one of you asking if you'd like to be an extra in this film. You're going to jump at it. And there isn't a waiver in Hollywood that accounts for physical & mental damage of this degree. Then they're careless with a rig, and you end up mentally damaged (at least) for the rest of your life, all for a stunt you weren't even suppose to be in. Let that shit sink in, please.
Until I hear that they DO NOT HELP this injured person, I am going to refrain from getting completely up-in-arms about the situation. What are you getting at in this part of your post, Big C? Are you hoping that everyone who was involved in the situation (stunt department, rigging department, fabricators, drivers, management etc.) need to be taken to criminal court over what happened? I know that's not what is said in your paragraph, but the implication is there that the studio is not doing what they can. I want to see how everything plays out before I start passing judgement on something I don't know jack-squat about. THAT is the "shit" I want to let sink in......
He didn't say string 'em all up and off with their heads. You say that you're not going to get all up in arms about it until you know more, well...what more is there to know?
Let's recap, shall we?
1.) She was in a stunt that she wasn't supposed to be. (No waiver will cover that, and any lawyer worth a damn will make that work.)
2.) She has been permanently injured on a level that we've never really heard of. (Her entire left side of her body is paralyzed and her eye sewn shut. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? From a movie stunt, no less? I don't think so.)
3.) Paramount said they'd compensate her. (Problem is, where do they draw the line at compensation? Her hospital bills? Her quality of life? Where?)
4.) The state investigators say it's basically a freak accident and that the production isn't to be held accountable for it. (So...who is? The rig failed the night before her accident, there's no good reason why they should've used it again, with a person, knowing it could fail again. That's clearly human error. If no one's liable, then no one has to pay, and she suffers...for $25.00 (I think it was $25.00) and that's all it's worth?)
If the weld breaks, it's the fault of the welder. It should've been checked in triplicate, at the very least.
If the plate snaps, it's the fault of the fabricator. It should've been designed better.
I could go on and on with each piece, but you get the idea.
A weld, on it's own is not dangerous.
A plate of metal, on it's own, is not dangerous.
A person okaying this rig when it failed miserably the night before, is dangerous.
I don't care what the state said. I don't care if it's "up to code". Something went wrong, they knew it failed, and they used it anyway.
That is wrong. That cost a woman her life (and being in the state she's in...that's not a life.)
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.
That's it. No criminal records, no hanging in the town square, just making sure she's taken care of. Is that too much to ask? Is that wrong? No.
Paramount made over a billion on the two films, combined, and now just made $115 million by selling off Iron Man 3 and The Avengers to Disney. You mean to tell me they can't afford to pay for this girl's pain and suffering? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they make.
I don't see how this is confusing, convoluted rocket science for anyone. I really don't.
Holy freaking cow, dude. Chill out please. I typically think you are pretty well on the right track, but give me a break on this one. There is absolutely nothing confusing about the fact that the studio should pay what is fair for this girl's destroyed future. Look at my post and please point to where I am arguing against that extremely simple point. You aren't going to convince me that I am wrong to think it is appropriate to see if the studio is going to follow through on what they have said they would do. This will go through civil court and everyone will agree with a settlement, and that will be that. And the girl will be very well represented due to the potential size and nearly guaranteed likelihood of the payout. Now, if that isn't how it ends up, and the studio wants to fight the family in court.....well...THEN I will get a different opinion.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138138)
Posted by Autobot032 on October 21st, 2010 @ 5:42am CDT
I was calm and peaceful when I typed that. Not overboard and angry. Frustrated, yes, but angry, no.
Just because my posts are rather detailed, it doesn't mean I'm raging out or coming unhinged. Quite the opposite, really.
If I was angry, I wouldn't be able to type. When I get mad, I can't think straight, so typing and a coherent post wouldn't be remotely possible at that point.
Posted by Autobot032 on October 21st, 2010 @ 5:42am CDT
Prime Riblet wrote:Holy freaking cow, dude. Chill the out please. I typically think you are pretty well completely on the right track, but give me a break on this one.
I was calm and peaceful when I typed that. Not overboard and angry. Frustrated, yes, but angry, no.
Just because my posts are rather detailed, it doesn't mean I'm raging out or coming unhinged. Quite the opposite, really.
If I was angry, I wouldn't be able to type. When I get mad, I can't think straight, so typing and a coherent post wouldn't be remotely possible at that point.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138142)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 21st, 2010 @ 6:09am CDT
I'm not desperately worried about it. You can tend to get a bit wordy though, Autobot032!
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 21st, 2010 @ 6:09am CDT
Autobot032 wrote:Prime Riblet wrote:Holy freaking cow, dude. Chill the out please. I typically think you are pretty well completely on the right track, but give me a break on this one.
I was calm and peaceful when I typed that. Not overboard and angry. Frustrated, yes, but angry, no.
Just because my posts are rather detailed, it doesn't mean I'm raging out or coming unhinged. Quite the opposite, really.
If I was angry, I wouldn't be able to type. When I get mad, I can't think straight, so typing and a coherent post wouldn't be remotely possible at that point.
I'm not desperately worried about it. You can tend to get a bit wordy though, Autobot032!
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138364)
Posted by Dead Metal on October 21st, 2010 @ 2:21pm CDT
Posted by Dead Metal on October 21st, 2010 @ 2:21pm CDT
I'm sorry if the chopping up of the quote looks offensive, don't feel bad about it I'm only doing it to make reading my respondsa little easier.
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.
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.
It sounded like they wanted to pay at least for her medical treatment.
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.
It was checked and found to be sufficient for the powers they calculated. Stuff like that gets tested and checked.
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.
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.
Trial and error, that's how stuff works and is improved, just look at steam engines, trains, cars, planes, etc...
Again, it might be temporary.
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.
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.
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.
Autobot032 wrote:
He didn't say string 'em all up and off with their heads. You say that you're not going to get all up in arms about it until you know more, well...what more is there to know?
Let's recap, shall we?
1.) She was in a stunt that she wasn't supposed to be. (No waiver will cover that, and any lawyer worth a damn will make that work.)
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.
2.) She has been permanently injured on a level that we've never really heard of. (Her entire left side of her body is paralyzed and her eye sewn shut. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? From a movie stunt, no less? I don't think so.)
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.
3.) Paramount said they'd compensate her. (Problem is, where do they draw the line at compensation? Her hospital bills? Her quality of life? Where?)
It sounded like they wanted to pay at least for her medical treatment.
4.) The state investigators say it's basically a freak accident and that the production isn't to be held accountable for it. (So...who is? The rig failed the night before her accident, there's no good reason why they should've used it again, with a person, knowing it could fail again. That's clearly human error. If no one's liable, then no one has to pay, and she suffers...for $25.00 (I think it was $25.00) and that's all it's worth?)
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.
If the weld breaks, it's the fault of the welder. It should've been checked in triplicate, at the very least.
It was checked and found to be sufficient for the powers they calculated. Stuff like that gets tested and checked.
If the plate snaps, it's the fault of the fabricator. It should've been designed better.
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.
I could go on and on with each piece, but you get the idea.
A weld, on it's own is not dangerous.
A plate of metal, on it's own, is not dangerous.
A person okaying this rig when it failed miserably the night before, is dangerous.
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.
I don't care what the state said. I don't care if it's "up to code". Something went wrong, they knew it failed, and they used it anyway.
Trial and error, that's how stuff works and is improved, just look at steam engines, trains, cars, planes, etc...
That is wrong. That cost a woman her life (and being in the state she's in...that's not a life.)
Again, it might be temporary.
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.
That's it. No criminal records, no hanging in the town square, just making sure she's taken care of. Is that too much to ask? Is that wrong? No.
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.
Paramount made over a billion on the two films, combined, and now just made $115 million by selling off Iron Man 3 and The Avengers to Disney. You mean to tell me they can't afford to pay for this girl's pain and suffering? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they make.
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 don't see how this is confusing, convoluted rocket science for anyone. I really don't.
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.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138572)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:15am CDT
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:15am CDT
i may sue following the brain damage i suffered watching ROTF 
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138577)
Posted by Autobot032 on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:25am CDT
This is not a comedy thread and making light of the situation is despicable. Cut it out.
If it was your sister who was suffering. you wouldn't like people making cracks about brain damage, so show the same courtesy to this girl and her supporters.
Posted by Autobot032 on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:25am CDT
SEXFIGHTER wrote:i may sue following the brain damage i suffered watching ROTF
This is not a comedy thread and making light of the situation is despicable. Cut it out.
If it was your sister who was suffering. you wouldn't like people making cracks about brain damage, so show the same courtesy to this girl and her supporters.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138583)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:57am CDT
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 22nd, 2010 @ 4:57am CDT
THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138801)
Posted by Evil_the_Nub on October 22nd, 2010 @ 8:18pm CDT
It was still irrelevant and totally uncalled for. We're talking about a serious accident that may affect someone permanently. This isn't the place to make the 456,000th dumb joke to bash RotF.
Posted by Evil_the_Nub on October 22nd, 2010 @ 8:18pm CDT
SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
It was still irrelevant and totally uncalled for. We're talking about a serious accident that may affect someone permanently. This isn't the place to make the 456,000th dumb joke to bash RotF.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138814)
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 22nd, 2010 @ 9:15pm CDT
So it is better to joke about it behind her back?
Posted by Prime Riblet on October 22nd, 2010 @ 9:15pm CDT
SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
So it is better to joke about it behind her back?
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138820)
Posted by SlyTF1 on October 22nd, 2010 @ 9:23pm CDT
So, he can't handle people joking about things that have no effect on the world outside of that one thread, but yet he makes dumb-ass jokes about serious things. I see how this shit works.
Posted by SlyTF1 on October 22nd, 2010 @ 9:23pm CDT
Evil_the_Nub wrote:SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
It was still irrelevant and totally uncalled for. We're talking about a serious accident that may affect someone permanently. This isn't the place to make the 456,000th dumb joke to bash RotF.
So, he can't handle people joking about things that have no effect on the world outside of that one thread, but yet he makes dumb-ass jokes about serious things. I see how this shit works.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138881)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:03am CDT
Come on then, EXPLAIN how this 'shit' 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.
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:03am CDT
SlyTF1 wrote:Evil_the_Nub wrote:SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
It was still irrelevant and totally uncalled for. We're talking about a serious accident that may affect someone permanently. This isn't the place to make the 456,000th dumb joke to bash RotF.
So, he can't handle people joking about things that have no effect on the world outside of that one thread, but yet he makes dumb-ass jokes about serious things. I see how this shit works.
Come on then, EXPLAIN how this 'shit' 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.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138882)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:07am CDT
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.
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:07am CDT
Prime Riblet wrote:SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
So it is better to joke about it behind her back?
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.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138883)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:10am CDT
i agree it isn't, i jumped in with both feet before checkin' whats actually happened..the 'braindamage' gag was purely coincidental.
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:10am CDT
Evil_the_Nub wrote:SEXFIGHTER wrote:THEY NEVER READ THIS THREAD. Anyway, im not makin jokes about the real injuries suffered, i wanna make that clear. Get off your high horse.
It was still irrelevant and totally uncalled for. We're talking about a serious accident that may affect someone permanently. This isn't the place to make the 456,000th dumb joke to bash RotF.
i agree it isn't, i jumped in with both feet before checkin' whats actually happened..the 'braindamage' gag was purely coincidental.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138884)
Posted by Autobot032 on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:18am CDT
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
*facepalms out of frustration*
...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.
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.)
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.)
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.
Posted by Autobot032 on October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:18am CDT
SEXFIGHTER wrote:Come on then, EXPLAIN how this 'shit' 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.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138955)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 10:39am CDT
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on October 23rd, 2010 @ 10:39am CDT
What is your deal lately? All it seems like you want to do is pick a fight.
Its my period
Its my period
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138967)
Posted by SlyTF1 on October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:29am CDT
That explains everything.
Posted by SlyTF1 on October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:29am CDT
SEXFIGHTER wrote:What is your deal lately? All it seems like you want to do is pick a fight.
Its my period
That explains everything.
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1138997)
Posted by Dead Metal on October 23rd, 2010 @ 1:49pm CDT
Have they ever said how the stunt actually failed the first time round? I mean with failed they could have meant that someone screwed up and the car didn't flip the way they wanted which would result in the stunt having to be re-shot. And not that stuff broke.
Now as to the eye, would they sew the eye shut if there wasn't any chance at all to save it? I mean if they would leave the eye sewn shut for ever, they would remove the eyeball since it would be useless. The fact that they saved the eyeball means that they're counting on opening it again.
Her medical treatment will be a long one, it will contain the time it takes for her wounds to heal and rehabilitation. Paramount will likely pay for that too since rehab is part of the treatment.
The banging your head at my statement of trial and error, why do you think safety precautions exist for those things, because people died or got hurt.
And why would a studio use something that is potentially lethal? Because it's part of the job
http://www.pulpanddagger.com/canuck/Kong_hand.html
Or the almost countless times the guys wearing the Godzilla suites almost drowned/suffocated because something didn't go according to plan. Or when Bruce Lee's son Brandon Lee died due to a shooting scene in the Crow went horribly wrong.
And how can you know something is inadequate or not sufficient if nothing like it ever happened before, the tests they did with the stunt where sufficient due to an accident like this wasn't thought possible since it never happened before. Safety precautions can sadly only be taken when there are known needs for them.
I apologise for my hospital comment.
Edit:
They DID put her in the same scene as the stunt!
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... ch-it-here
Posted by Dead Metal on October 23rd, 2010 @ 1:49pm CDT
Autobot032 wrote:Made shorter for your reading pleasure!
Have they ever said how the stunt actually failed the first time round? I mean with failed they could have meant that someone screwed up and the car didn't flip the way they wanted which would result in the stunt having to be re-shot. And not that stuff broke.
Now as to the eye, would they sew the eye shut if there wasn't any chance at all to save it? I mean if they would leave the eye sewn shut for ever, they would remove the eyeball since it would be useless. The fact that they saved the eyeball means that they're counting on opening it again.
Her medical treatment will be a long one, it will contain the time it takes for her wounds to heal and rehabilitation. Paramount will likely pay for that too since rehab is part of the treatment.
The banging your head at my statement of trial and error, why do you think safety precautions exist for those things, because people died or got hurt.
And why would a studio use something that is potentially lethal? Because it's part of the job
http://www.pulpanddagger.com/canuck/Kong_hand.html
Or the almost countless times the guys wearing the Godzilla suites almost drowned/suffocated because something didn't go according to plan. Or when Bruce Lee's son Brandon Lee died due to a shooting scene in the Crow went horribly wrong.
And how can you know something is inadequate or not sufficient if nothing like it ever happened before, the tests they did with the stunt where sufficient due to an accident like this wasn't thought possible since it never happened before. Safety precautions can sadly only be taken when there are known needs for them.
I apologise for my hospital comment.
Edit:
They DID put her in the same scene as the stunt!
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... ch-it-here
Re: Transformers 3: Paramount cleared of liability! (1139004)
Posted by Burn on October 23rd, 2010 @ 2:33pm CDT
Posted by Burn on October 23rd, 2010 @ 2:33pm CDT
Given that my mother lost one of her eyes in her early 20's and her eye isn't sewn shut, I seriously doubt they would sew ANY eye shut on a permanent basis. So I would imagine it's part of the healing process, whether it saves they eye or not, who knows, but it'll be something they're trying to do to help the healing process.
