Last major injury was tearing my adductor muscles in both legs at the end of April, when I got my para-scout recruits rescued from a mountain in the Alps at 9800 feet. I also suffered from hypothermia afterwards.
I admit thought it's the only proper on-the-job injury I suffered this year. I did bloody my thumb several times though handling my SIG550 a bit clumsily, I am a very good shot though.
Actually, I fail to see what that has to do with anything, but since you asked so nicely...
The amount of stunt work that the main actor can perform is constricted by stunt union rules as well as what the insurance companies will cover. This always varies from one script to another and from one insurance company to another. All of Craig's stunt work and his double's work are limited because of these contracts. Therefore, it is really not all that usefull to debate how much stunt doubles do in relation to how much the main actor does in any given action film, since they can only be arbitrarily decided to the extent the union and the insurers allow and really not what the performers want to do. I doubt that even an actor and director could put in a "non-liability" clause in a contract that would exclude the insurer from having to pay for injuries. When it comes to projects of this size and cost, the production companies really don't have any choice in these matters. It would be like buying an Aston and not getting it insured. Good luck with that. Here's a good article on the insurance companies and stunt work..
Craig has a visible stunt double in CR on various occasions. It is obvious from the get-go he doesn't do much of the stunts. But then EON went so overboard with the physical OTT stuff that it is clear it has to be a stuntman.
Bond 25 will make the same mistakes I guess, but hope dies last.
Yes some fairly obvious stunt doubles in CR to be sure. Although credibility is important, I must believe that it's possible for the actor even if a stuntman actually did it. The point I was trying to make albeit clumsily was that DC clearly does do a considerable amount and he has the physicality to be credible.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig has a visible stunt double in CR on various occasions. It is obvious from the get-go he doesn't do much of the stunts. But then EON went so overboard with the physical OTT stuff that it is clear it has to be a stuntman.
Bond 25 will make the same mistakes I guess, but hope dies last.
Yes some fairly obvious stunt doubles in CR to be sure. Although credibility is important, I must believe that it's possible for the actor even if a stuntman actually did it. The point I was trying to make albeit clumsily was that DC clearly does do a considerable amount and he has the physicality to be credible.
Exactly right. For comparison's sake, Roger Moore in AVTAK. The snow scenes are laughable.
The amount of stunt work that the main actor can perform is constricted by stunt union rules as well as what the insurance companies will cover. This always varies from one script to another and from one insurance company to another. All of Craig's stunt work and his double's work are limited because of these contracts. Therefore, it is really not all that usefull to debate how much stunt doubles do in relation to how much the main actor does in any given action film, since they can only be arbitrarily decided to the extent the union and the insurers allow and really not what the performers want to do. I doubt that even an actor and director could put in a "non-liability" clause in a contract that would exclude the insurer from having to pay for injuries. When it comes to projects of this size and cost, the production companies really don't have any choice in these matters. It would be like buying an Aston and not getting it insured. Good luck with that. Here's a good article on the insurance companies and stunt work..
Exactly right. For comparison's sake, Roger Moore in AVTAK. The snow scenes are laughable.
I think there's a ripening to this stuff where it's initially bought into, then as technical advances are made it's viewed with derision, then it crosses over to a place of nostalgia and affection. I know a lot of Bond fans who love that AVTAK opener, and it's partially BECAUSE it's obvious that Moore was never even on location. I wonder if the digital face replacement of Skyfall or that weird rubber Daniel Craig mask in the Day of the Dead sequence of Spectre will ever be viewed with the same rose-colored glasses as the obvious stunt doubles of the Moore era.
Exactly right. For comparison's sake, Roger Moore in AVTAK. The snow scenes are laughable.
I think there's a ripening to this stuff where it's initially bought into, then as technical advances are made it's viewed with derision, then it crosses over to a place of nostalgia and affection. I know a lot of Bond fans who love that AVTAK opener, and it's partially BECAUSE it's obvious that Moore was never even on location. I wonder if the digital face replacement of Skyfall or that weird rubber Daniel Craig mask in the Day of the Dead sequence of Spectre will ever be viewed with the same rose-colored glasses as the obvious stunt doubles of the Moore era.
Who knows, for some reason I don't mind Sir Rogers stunt men being obviously, I kind of can see Sir Roger on set looking affable and cool saying " do what? Not for me I'm afraid, but I do have a lovely chap here who will jump off anything " then taking a puff on his cigar.
As for the dc rubber mask, I wonder how many people would have spotted it if spy shots hadn't been in the media.
The one obvious stunt man I do wonder at is the one in the pts fight in Thunderball when big Sean is fighting with the "widow" there doesn't look to be anything in that fight beyond Seans capability??
Exactly right. For comparison's sake, Roger Moore in AVTAK. The snow scenes are laughable.
I think there's a ripening to this stuff where it's initially bought into, then as technical advances are made it's viewed with derision, then it crosses over to a place of nostalgia and affection. I know a lot of Bond fans who love that AVTAK opener, and it's partially BECAUSE it's obvious that Moore was never even on location. I wonder if the digital face replacement of Skyfall or that weird rubber Daniel Craig mask in the Day of the Dead sequence of Spectre will ever be viewed with the same rose-colored glasses as the obvious stunt doubles of the Moore era.
I'm one of those Bond fans who loves the AVTAK PTS. And AVTAK for that matter, but the point is valid. Craig's doubles might be noticeable, but I believe he could pull the stunts off himself. Not Roger. All Roger wanted was finish the take and play backgammon with Cubby, we all know that. )
Does there come a time though that the actor performing his own stunt becomes a distraction somewhat from the character and scene? E.g. Tom Cruise in MI:RN Hercules scene. All I think of when watching that scene is Wow! That really is Tom Cruise doing that stunt! I tune out for a moment and forget about the film character and the reason for hanging on to the plane.
I honestly don't mind stuntmen as Bond. It's just silly to think the actor should risk life and limb unnecessarily. It's better if fight scenes and low level stuff etc. are performed by the actor, but do I dislike CR opening scene in the toilets being part filmed with a stuntman in place of DC? Definitely not.
I'm more bothered by over use of CGI and green screen which bugs me far more in the authenticity stakes than if an actor is performing his own stunts.
There are just some stunts that should only be performed by a trained stuntman. In the case of someone like Jackie Chan, he was a stuntman who became an actor and the fact that he was doing his own stunts was an integral part of the marketing of those films. That's not so much the case in the Bond films. Craig has done more than his share of stunts and I am sure he will continue to do so in Bond 25. The key in the Bond films of today is to make sure the illusion of it not being a double is convincing. With Brosnan and Craig, EON did a nice job of utilizing stunt doubles who had a good physical resemblance to each actor which along with some other trickery created the illusion pretty well. With Roger Moore, not so much, but it's part of the charm of those films. Roger of course, always self deprecating and appreciative of his stunt doubles used to say of the stuntmen "I do their dialog". Vic Armstrong, one of the greats of the stunt world, has had very good things to say about Craig, especially in the area of his driving ability (yes, that's the same Craig who was accused of not being able to drive a manual) and his willingness to get involved in a lot of his own stuntwork. Armstrong still doubles Tim Dalton as he did stunts for the ex 007 in the TV series Penny Dreadful.
There are just some stunts that should only be performed by a trained stuntman. In the case of someone like Jackie Chan, he was a stuntman who became an actor and the fact that he was doing his own stunts was an integral part of the marketing of those films. That's not so much the case in the Bond films. Craig has done more than his share of stunts and I am sure he will continue to do so in Bond 25. The key in the Bond films of today is to make sure the illusion of it not being a double is convincing. With Brosnan and Craig, EON did a nice job of utilizing stunt doubles who had a good physical resemblance to each actor which along with some other trickery created the illusion pretty well. With Roger Moore, not so much, but it's part of the charm of those films. Roger of course, always self deprecating and appreciative of his stunt doubles used to say of the stuntmen "I do their dialog". Vic Armstrong, one of the greats of the stunt world, has had very good things to say about Craig, especially in the area of his driving ability (yes, that's the same Craig who was accused of not being able to drive a manual) and his willingness to get involved in a lot of his own stuntwork. Armstrong still doubles Tim Dalton as he did stunts for the ex 007 in the TV series Penny Dreadful.
I think a lot of it has to do with technological progress in the film industry as well, when it comes to the notability of stunt doubles. If for some reason in some scene you see the double's face or other reveling attribute, CGI can be used to patch things up, if worst comes to worst. There are also more stunt doubles these days I feel like, which helps with getting the physical appearance right.
Saw it on James Bond Radio's Facebook page. The lads over there are pretty solid and I'd say that they wouldn't share something like that unless they were fairly confident of its accuracy.
They quoted a source that was indirect from them....as was said, would take any of this with many grains of salt...or believe in it if you wish....choices.
Saw it on James Bond Radio's Facebook page. The lads over there are pretty solid and I'd say that they wouldn't share something like that unless they were fairly confident of its accuracy.
I'd prefer the Bonds not to be so stunt driven. I'd like to see a return to more solid writing. Bond was always more interesting in the dinner confrontation in Dr. No or the laser scene in Goldfinger than doing something ridiculous physically, especially if the imagery was comically ineffective.
They quoted a source that was indirect from them....as was said, would take any of this with many grains of salt...or believe in it if you wish....choices.
Saw it on James Bond Radio's Facebook page. The lads over there are pretty solid and I'd say that they wouldn't share something like that unless they were fairly confident of its accuracy.
Well you seem to be in the know Mantis so i'll heed your advice. Have you heard anything about a potential start date? Director etc
I don't believe in miracles. Not with EON anyway, they have lost their way imho.
Really? I'm so surprised to hear you say that! Wow. Insightful.
Five films in 13 years is just wrong on every level. Why should they all of a sudden do a complete turn around and plan two films in a row.
5 in 13 is frustrating. However it's certainly not all EONS fault. The 4 year gap leading up to Skyfall was down to MGM going bankrupt. The blame can hardly be laid at EON'S door. Also a big reason for the 4 gap this time round would be down to the lack of a distributor. It's a fact of life that movie deals run out and renewing them, or finding an entirtely new distributor that's going to take care of your franchise is a lengthy process.
I'd prefer the Bonds not to be so stunt driven. I'd like to see a return to more solid writing. Bond was always more interesting in the dinner confrontation in Dr. No or the laser scene in Goldfinger than doing something ridiculous physically, especially if the imagery was comically ineffective.
I think the golden mean is in play here, in as much as a balance of those elements is ideal. The derring-do is for me a necessary condition. Bond at its best uses counterpoint. Too much of either and Bond becomes a generic action man, or a dull playboy. Bond at its pinnacle finds a narrative and character amidst the action where we see Bond thinking and he has to dig deep to win through. I'm really hoping for some of this. Whether EON has lost its way for me will be decided by the next film.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090215/ISSUE03/100027123/insurance-plays-starring-role-in-management-of-stunt-risks
Yes some fairly obvious stunt doubles in CR to be sure. Although credibility is important, I must believe that it's possible for the actor even if a stuntman actually did it. The point I was trying to make albeit clumsily was that DC clearly does do a considerable amount and he has the physicality to be credible.
Exactly right. For comparison's sake, Roger Moore in AVTAK. The snow scenes are laughable.
Liability is everywhere you go anymore. I was just at a funeral and the pallbearers had to sign liability waivers....not a joke it's true.
I think there's a ripening to this stuff where it's initially bought into, then as technical advances are made it's viewed with derision, then it crosses over to a place of nostalgia and affection. I know a lot of Bond fans who love that AVTAK opener, and it's partially BECAUSE it's obvious that Moore was never even on location. I wonder if the digital face replacement of Skyfall or that weird rubber Daniel Craig mask in the Day of the Dead sequence of Spectre will ever be viewed with the same rose-colored glasses as the obvious stunt doubles of the Moore era.
Who knows, for some reason I don't mind Sir Rogers stunt men being obviously, I kind of can see Sir Roger on set looking affable and cool saying " do what? Not for me I'm afraid, but I do have a lovely chap here who will jump off anything " then taking a puff on his cigar.
As for the dc rubber mask, I wonder how many people would have spotted it if spy shots hadn't been in the media.
The one obvious stunt man I do wonder at is the one in the pts fight in Thunderball when big Sean is fighting with the "widow" there doesn't look to be anything in that fight beyond Seans capability??
I'm one of those Bond fans who loves the AVTAK PTS. And AVTAK for that matter, but the point is valid. Craig's doubles might be noticeable, but I believe he could pull the stunts off himself. Not Roger. All Roger wanted was finish the take and play backgammon with Cubby, we all know that.
I honestly don't mind stuntmen as Bond. It's just silly to think the actor should risk life and limb unnecessarily. It's better if fight scenes and low level stuff etc. are performed by the actor, but do I dislike CR opening scene in the toilets being part filmed with a stuntman in place of DC? Definitely not.
I'm more bothered by over use of CGI and green screen which bugs me far more in the authenticity stakes than if an actor is performing his own stunts.
I think a lot of it has to do with technological progress in the film industry as well, when it comes to the notability of stunt doubles. If for some reason in some scene you see the double's face or other reveling attribute, CGI can be used to patch things up, if worst comes to worst. There are also more stunt doubles these days I feel like, which helps with getting the physical appearance right.
Link?
calling this rubbish
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Really? I'm so surprised to hear you say that! Wow. Insightful.
Five films in 13 years is just wrong on every level. Why should they all of a sudden do a complete turn around and plan two films in a row.
Well you seem to be in the know Mantis so i'll heed your advice. Have you heard anything about a potential start date? Director etc
5 in 13 is frustrating. However it's certainly not all EONS fault. The 4 year gap leading up to Skyfall was down to MGM going bankrupt. The blame can hardly be laid at EON'S door. Also a big reason for the 4 gap this time round would be down to the lack of a distributor. It's a fact of life that movie deals run out and renewing them, or finding an entirtely new distributor that's going to take care of your franchise is a lengthy process.
I think the golden mean is in play here, in as much as a balance of those elements is ideal. The derring-do is for me a necessary condition. Bond at its best uses counterpoint. Too much of either and Bond becomes a generic action man, or a dull playboy. Bond at its pinnacle finds a narrative and character amidst the action where we see Bond thinking and he has to dig deep to win through. I'm really hoping for some of this. Whether EON has lost its way for me will be decided by the next film.
Check this interesting timeline:
and compare the three last decades
We had LTK in 1989 with Bond in limbo after that.
1995 to 2002 got us four films in 7 years with the same actor.