And yeah, this is a PRO-CROOZE post.

Dude will jump off buildings, hang from cliffs, jump from moving car to moving car, not giving a FUCK.

If an actor is willing to do that... enormous props in my book. Nowadays it's always a cut to a wide shot to allow a double to do it, or a cut to a CGI version of that actor that never looks as good, or an obvious fucking green screen. I would imagine it frees you up in terms of camera placement, camera movement, etc., not to mention it just makes the illusion that much more credible.

Must be a bitch for the studio heads sweating that their star will get blown to bits or fall off a building... but still.

I wish that CROOZE films would have end credits with blown takes of the stunts like Jackie Chan's do, to remind people, yeah, this crazy Scientologist will leap onto a moving car to entertain you.

I mean yeah it's cool, Michelle Yeoh will always have a special place in the heart as being fearless to the point where she couldn't be insured (I believe at the time only Jackie Chan and Jet Li).

But at the same time, insurance, the market for stunt doubles, some of the things you mentioned, it all feels like a lot of economics standing in the way of such a talent being a long term, viable way for big actors to conduct themselves.

At the same time I wonder how much more I'd enjoy action sequences in movies like the Matrix if the actors involved actually had a decent aptitude for those sorts of scenes. But at the same time the likes of Jason Statham aren't versatile or plentiful enough to be in all those movies.

It must be hard to divide ones time between working on being a good actor and being a good athlete who can be convincing in stunts and fight scenes. I imagine one or all of those talents have to suffer in some way if you're going to try to keep them all.

Tom Cruise isn't exactly someone I go to see for his acting skills.

If you want props for doing your own stunts, either do superhuman shit like Jackie Chan and Tony Jaa or do them in films better than "Knight and Day" or the forgettable MI series.

Films where actors do their own stunts make the movie better; or at the very least, films where actors do their own stunts "allow for the opportunity" for the movie to be better.
It allows for better continuity, DEFINITELY helps in the editing process, not to mention grounding the film in some sense of reality. It gives the director/D.P. more choices in terms of shots. It breeds "friendly competition" between actors ("I don't want to look like I can't do that jump when ______ just did it."). It means the actor isn't "limiting the production" - which believe me, that is something that will get into the heads of the cast and crew.
Imagine The Bourne movies with a stunt double.
The same is true not just with stunts, but any particular "special skill" needed. The movie Ray is a great example of this. That movie is much more interesting visually because Jamie Foxx knows how to play the piano. Now they can actually show him playing the piano, instead of cutting from him sitting at the piano to a piano player's hands.
Cruise gets props from me. He may be "a movie star desperate to be an actor", but he'll push himself a lot farther than many actors.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I can't even name a single Cruise stunt besides the rock climbing one that was at the start of MI2. A terrible movie and a kind of pointless stunt.

Yeah, if you have someone like William Shatner or Katherine Heigl who can't do their own shit or require a stunt double to run for them than it can make life harder. But most time you hear about an actor doing their own stunt, it's pretty pointless. People made a big deal about Angelina Jolie doing her own shit in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the most notable stunt was an almost throwaway shot of her dropping down 30 stories by a wire.


Most leading men do their own fight choreography, many do their own stunts, and Cruise doesn't really do the kind of jaw-dropping stunts like people who are known for doing their own stunts (Chan, Jaa, etc.)

Basically, it's really not that big of a deal for most actors, which is why there's rarely more than a passing reference to when they do do their own stunts.

>I can't even name a single Cruise stunt besides the rock
>climbing one that was at the start of MI2. A terrible movie
>and a kind of pointless stunt.

You mean, other than that huge glass wall exploding behind in the first Mission Impossible movie? The other that you couldn't four fee without seeing a commercial for?

>Yeah, if you have someone like William Shatner or Katherine
>Heigl who can't do their own shit or require a stunt double to
>run for them than it can make life harder. But most time you
>hear about an actor doing their own stunt, it's pretty
>pointless. People made a big deal about Angelina Jolie doing
>her own shit in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the most notable stunt
>was an almost throwaway shot of her dropping down 30 stories
>by a wire.

Try to find another big name female actor who'll do that.
Again, the actor doing their own stunts gives the director, d.p., and editor more choices, which can only be a good thing. If the stunt or shot or movie isn't notable to you, than it's more the director's fault.

>Most leading men do their own fight choreography,

Leading men HAVE to do their own fight choreography either for the establishing shot, or to do a "walk-thru" for the d.p./double to see how the director wants it.

>many do
>their own stunts,

Most don't do the kind of stunts to brag about doing. The equivalent of calling the person who holds open the subway train doors a daredevil.

>and Cruise doesn't really do the kind of
>jaw-dropping stunts like people who are known for doing their
>own stunts (Chan, Jaa, etc.)

Again, Cruise is. For someone who is not a trained martial artist, Cruise's stunt work is remarkable. For someone who basically didn't learn how to do any of that shit until his 20s, it's incredible.
You may find him obnoxious - which he may be, and his movies bland - which some are, but Tom Cruise is in very select company when it comes to the amount of stunt work he does. There's only a half dozen or so actors who have done that level of stuntwork, and none of them for as long as Cruise has.

>Basically, it's really not that big of a deal for most actors,

It actually is. Again, it shows the level of commitment you're willing to make for a picture. If you're not ready to fight a real tiger, you won't get to be in Gladiator. If you're not willing to have the camera on top of you while you do intense hand-to-hand combat while falling out of a very real four story building, you won't get to be in 4 Bourne movies. Then when you combine that with the fact that most directors will intentionally work with the same actors over and over again, it also means that lack of commitment cost you more work. Couple that with how many directors base what actors they hire base on the work they do in other movies, that's even more work.
It's not really that big of a deal for most UNEMPLOYED actors.

>which is why there's rarely more than a passing reference to
>when they do do their own stunts.

There's only a passing reference when "they" (meaning the actors who don't care much about stunts) do their own stunts because they are the ones okay with doing the lightest load possible.
Best believe actors and filmmakers pay particular attention to who does and doesn't do their own stunts.
It may be more of a trade thing than something the public cares about, but that does not make it any less important.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

"You may find him obnoxious - which he may be, and his movies bland - which some are, but Tom Cruise is in very select company when it comes to the amount of stunt work he does."

If the movies are bland, then who cares if he does his own stunts in them? I don't think there's any need to ask, "Why doesn't Tom Cruise get more props for doing his own stunts?" when Knight & Day is tanking. If Cruise's recent films blew up and made an impact on the culture, then he'd get props, like Keanu did for learning Kung-Fu for The Matrix. (And no, I don't remember the shot you're talking about from MI:1.)

NOBODY is saying, "Oh man, you should go see the stunts that Tom Cruise does in Knight and Day." I don't think anyone has ever said that about Cruise and that's why most people don't give him props. Yes, it might make filmmaking easier (and I think most industry people give him credit for doing his own shit) but the general public doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

and I'll have to take your word, because I haven't seen it, I'm sure it's bad for a myriad of reasons beyond Tom. And you can rest assured the movie would have been worse if someone else did the stunts.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

the plot was kinda meh! the acting was alright but those action scenes where "actor x" did the stunts made this so much better?

Personally i think it is nice but doesnt take a film from being good to great or 3stars to 4stars unless as previously mentioned its jackie chan/tony jaa levels of action, which in reality is primarily what you go to see a jackie chan/tony jaa film for.

It could be because I work in the movie field, but yeah, I've enjoyed movies better because I got to see the actor do a stunt instead of a computer or stunt double.
Blade is a better movie because you can see Wesley Snipes do the stunts and not a light-skinned, 2-inches-shorter double in a full length leather coat.
Does it make a difference? Yeah. Does it make a huge difference? Probably not.
I'm more invested because I know Bob the Actor and not Bob the Double did the huge 20 foot jump, or because that's actually Bob playing the saxophone and not Donald Harrison.
I'd think cats would be more appreciative of the main draw actually doing the work instead of outsourcing it. After all, it's what you're paying $10+ a ticket for.



"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Cruise does get points for doing stunts but, like someone already said, they should make the movie better too.

I really can't wait for filmmakers to really start reacting against the cutaway/CGI method for handling stunts. I can't imagine some films without real stunt people. What would Terminator 2 or Die Hard have been without real stunting?


Bad. That's what they would've been.

---------------------------------------
The OKP® King of the Late Pass™

facebook.com/lamont.dozier
---------------------------------------

What the blood claaat ???

What the blood claaat ???

Just don't get hurt or kill someone in the process, please.

this video scares me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

most people dont know...but it sometimes gets talked about if you follow the making of films. cruise gets some love for it...even his workout regiment gets talked about quite a bit. how he builds gyms on each set and works out pretty much all day when he's not on screen. it really only matters to people who follow behind the scenes stuff though.

The green screening there is pretty damn amazing.

into doing their own stuff.

especially some of the stunts that he was doing in the 80s & early 90's
some of the films would show outtakes of stunts gone wrong during the credits of some of his films.

he def has a guardian angel looking after him

7c

He can't move like he used to, and he's endured countless falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI1AwZN4ZYg

Dude is literally risking life and limb in his stunts.