Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Overboard?

Not at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is safety paramount to Paramount?

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

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

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

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

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

I heard about this on the radio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capt.Failure wrote:

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

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

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

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

vectorA3 wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capt.Failure wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

<rereads that>

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

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

vectorA3 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

^ Point taken

Autobot032 wrote: I understand you're trying to see both sides of the situation, I get that, but I have to admit that I'm thoroughly mystified as to how anyone can fence sit on this one.

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

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

It wasn't a controlled enviorment. There is no such thing. From walking up the stairs in your house, to your morning comute to work, nothing is controlled. NO matter how many saftely steps are taken, things can happen. Wether it be neglgence on someone's part, or equpiment failure thats beyond everyones controll. Things happen and sometimes, there is nothing noone can do about it.
This was a stunt. This means there is an inherit amount of danger envolved, even if your not directly invloved. The fact that she was in another lane has nothing to do with her being completely out of harms way. I believe its a bit nieve to think that being invloved or around stunts where cars are being tossed in the air that there's zero posibility of things to go wrong.

Autobot032 wrote: They ended up getting her hurt and then tried to deny it. They wouldn't have to deny anything if they hadn't allowed this to happen. I don't care what the safety inspector said, if the cable was secure and safe, it shouldn't have broken. Something they did, or the equipment was faulty, whatever, there's a reason why it happened and we may never know it.

Allow this to happen? So you really believe that the movie crew simpley "allowed" this to take place? I surely hope i'm miss reading you. As far as it shouldn't have broken, your right. It shouldn't have. BUt the fact that it didn't, doesn't nessasarly mean that someone didn't do there job propperly. It was already deamed back in 2010, that it was an equipment failure and nothing to do with faulty rigging or the sort. Again, even when all saftelt meansures are done, unexpected things can happen.

Autobot032 wrote: They are responsible. She isn't. And they should've just fessed up and admitted they put her life on the line..

You never admit guilt. That is rule #1 with any accident. That is the job of the insurance compaines and investigators. Even if its a simple fender bender in a parking lot. for example,..
Do you drive? If so, do you have insurance? If so, call your insurance agent and ask them if involved in a car accident wether or not its advisable to openly admit guilt to the other party. I bet you there going to advise you not to admit guilt, even if its aparent that your at fault. Even at times while it might seem aparent, it really isn't. You open yourself up to much more litigation once fault is admitted regardless of wether or not an ivestigation shows you clear of any wrong doing.

Autobot032 wrote:I'm sorry. Like I said, I normally agree with you on most things, but I have to completely disagree, this time. She had reasonable expectations of safety. ..

Hey, your human and so am I. Its cool that we see eye to eye on most things, but even if we don't, at least we can be respectfull about it.

Autobot032 wrote: Okay, let's say you're walking on a new sidewalk. It's perfect. Not a single bump, dip, whatever. Yet, somehow it trips you and hurts you. When looking at it, don't you have a reasonable expectation of having that NOT happen? I would surely hope you do. If you don't, well.....

Dude, that's alittle different than par-taking in a stunt where cars are being tossed in the air. BUt in your senario, concidering you already stated that the sidewalk is pefect. No humps, bumps or dips, at that point i would place blame at the person more than likely tripped over there own feet, walking/chewing gum at the same time, girl with big boobs walked by, anything but the sidewalk or the people who layed the sidewalk are at fault there.

Autobot032 wrote:Bottom line, you can't have it both ways and you're trying your hardest to do so. She was wronged and deserved compensation. Those are the facts.

Just so where clear, i'm not saying that she doesn't deserve any compensation for her injuries, but i don't believe that the production crew was negligent in any way, nor do i believe that this was just cut and dry about it being a 100% safe enviorment. This was a stunt accident gone wrong. No matter how you look at it, there is an inherit danger when being around this enviorment.

vectorA3 wrote:
Lol. You almost sound like you're rooting for the studio and they're cover up when you say this. But you're probably not. This is standard procedure in big business I guess.

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

Not ruiting for the studio in any way. As i explained earlier, not admitting guilt is common practice when involved in any accident. NO matter how big or small. Again, if you drive a car and have insurance, call your insurance company.agent and ask if they advise admitting guilt when being involved in an accident.