> You’re not getting the benefit of injuring these poor stuntmen
As someone who knows a lot of stunt people, I'd just like to point out that the benefit is not in injuring them, it's in the effortless action scenes. But yes, a byproduct of the action are the injuries.
We really need to credit stunt people better. They're the most likely to actually lose their lives during filming. Hence why some are pushing for a stunt category in the Oscars: https://movieweb.com/best-stunt-oscars-needed-why/
That's not at all what he meant. He was saying that in both cases the stunt man is getting injured, but in the case of digital it doesn't look better than CGI, so at that point why not just do CGI and eliminate the injuries.
I worded that somewhat poorly. I didn’t mean to insinuate that injuring them was the goal, I meant to say we are not getting benefit from the final product that justifies the means. I have reworded the post.
To my point though, the “effortless action” is the problem, the final product of all this work and effort feels effortless in that it feels floaty, fake and without consequence. You don’t watch a modern fight scene and get the visceral reaction older things bring.
As someone who knows a lot of stunt people, I'd just like to point out that the benefit is not in injuring them, it's in the effortless action scenes. But yes, a byproduct of the action are the injuries.
We really need to credit stunt people better. They're the most likely to actually lose their lives during filming. Hence why some are pushing for a stunt category in the Oscars: https://movieweb.com/best-stunt-oscars-needed-why/