>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