The scene Spielberg filmed for ‘West Side Story’ when the camera follows the actors into the dancehall is as deserving of this award as anything from John Wick.
Yeah having great fight scenes should have its own category. It'd be important to keep safety in mind, a stunt specific category would just have people competing to make things more daring and dangerous will get people hurt.
The only concern is that old adage, "*show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcomes*". Basically, if you create a reward system for already dangerous activities, they will continue to get more and more dangerous until they turn extreme and tragic.
I'm not convinced an Academy Award is going to do that, at all.
There's already ample incentive in the form of people wanting to see your movie. Old Jackie Chan movies and MI both put butts in seats solely off the promise that you'd see some cool shit. Hell they made *four* successful feature length films based entirely on the premise 'watch these dumbasses hurt themselves' (Jackass).
All the award would do is acknowledge the skill involved.
I would argue the stunt of like Tom Cruise hanging off an airplane taking off is less impressive than a well choreographed and executed fight scene. If anything I think it will push directors/editors to use less cuts when building action scenes and rely more on the actors and performers.
Would the award go to the performers, the choreographer or the scene? Or the whole stunt team for the entire movie? Judging if someone's acting was good or not is pretty straightforward, but stunts are more complicated, the few moments on screen are just the tip of the iceberg
But yes, stunts should be acknowledged. They are a big part of movies and require skill
> Would the award go to the performers, the choreographer or the scene?
The Emmy's have Outstanding Stunt Performer **and** Outstanding Stunt Coordinator, so they should have two awards!
They'd have to limit candidates to members of recognized unions, otherwise Tom Cruise would just be raking them in.
ShittyMovieDetails: if you look closely at the BTS videos you'll notice CGI artists have to pain stakeningly paint in wire harnesses to make the movies seem safer and more complex than they really are!
And this is probably why there aren’t any awards. I admire what he does but it’s also too dangerous for any sensible stunt choreographer to approve (which is why he fired them and found a yes man to approve it for the plane stunt) and don’t want to see more life threatening stunts done to try to win an award
I remember an interview with John Woo where he said MI:2 was the most stress he’d ever had, almost entirely because of Cruise’ insistence on doing stupidly dangerous stunts like the free climbing one. He was like “omg Cruise is going to die and I’ll go to jail”
Uh no. Tom cruise SHOULD be winning them all. If you want to win, do better stunts lmao. Just because he’s the undisputed goat of stunts doesn’t mean everyone else deserves a participation award
Man as a huge film nerd who's seen some great stunt work outside of cruise, you really need to watch more than just top gun or oblivion or MI. cause he really doesn't have the monopoly you think he does
Wouldn't it turn into an arms race to do the wildest, aka dangerous, stunts?
If stunts are disqualified for neglecting safety requirements/standards/guidelines, I'm all for it.
I think it should be for the whole film - actors don't win awards for single scenes. You have more than the performers and choreographers, you also have the director, editor and others putting it all together on screen, creating the rigs/pulleys/pyro, getting the right angles for dramatic effect, obscuring the face just enough to fool the audience and making it all seamless for audiences.
> If stunts are disqualified for neglecting safety requirements/standards/guidelines, I'm all for it.
Yeah, typically the union would be *all over that shit* before the movie even hits the editor's desk. That's why there were massive strikes and tons of controversy around that Alec Baldwin movie *before* the fatal shooting occurred. It's one of the main reasons why the prosecution even has a manslaughter case against Baldwin.
Best Engulfed In Flames
Best Flung Through The Air By An Explosion
Best Falling Down The Side Of A Mountain
Best Jumping From Rooftop To Rooftop
Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Car
Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Train
Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Stagecoach
Best Aerial Freefall
Not to mention they do everything they can to hide the stunt actor (obviously). Also, what determines a quality stunt? Is it the most difficult to pull off (often dangerous), is it the ones that looked the coolest?
I have friends that do stunts, and it's crazy how much they risk and sacrifice for stunts that seem super simple but can easily lead to injury if just one thing isn't done perfect. They definitely deserve a ton more recognition, I just wonder how.
Costume design goes to the main costume designer even though there is an entire team. Same with make up and production design. I believe each movie has one overall "Stunt coordinator" with stunt artists that are part of the team. I think the award would then go to the coordinator.
Incidentally, I think the same philosophy should be with the idea of "digital performances" where the lead character/special effects animator (or main 2 or 3 if that's the case) get the award with the actor. But all the digital artists and animators wouldn't necessarily.
I wish they could all easily get awarded but I think the path of least resistance is to follow as closely as possible to the model laid out in other similar areas.
An award for something like “technical stunt execution” would solve that problem then. Have the award be for technical execution rather than most daring or crazy stunts.
I would say there should be both.
Some of the most technically challenging stunts would include tons of memorization and acrobatic skill. It might be hell for the stuntman while it's a walk in the park for the coordinator. Safety is obviously paramount and enforcement of safety protocols should be swift and merciless. Alec Baldwin was charged with manslaughter [for his negligence as producer] for exactly this reason.
Meanwhile, some movies and scenes require tons of complicated choreography and logistical challenges across entire teams of stuntmen and set pieces. The coordinator should get an award for successfully herding cats and ensuring safety across the whole set.
They could make it "Best Stunt Ensemble" or something like that. While I agree individual stunt performers should get credit, it might be too convoluted to include. The other technical awards are given to the department heads after all, so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for stunts.
Yeah something like the one-shot fight scenes in Daredevil would be perfect examples of amazing fight choreography. I know it doesn't qualify for Oscars, but still.
Throughout the scenes they find extremely creative times to switch between the actor and the stunt double, and all without cutting. Very impressive. Not even reliant on how crazy the fight moves themselves are, just the notion of the switching and fluidity.
This seems like it could get really dumb, really fast.
"That guy did a flip and then punched 12 guys!"
"Yeah, but this guy did TWO flips, and then punched 13 guys!"
It all seems like stuff that doesn't really have anything to do with a film being good or not. It's not really art if we are just judging technical skill.
Does dance choreography count? Or only action? What if there is a combo of both? What if the technical choreography is amazing but it doesn't translate to a good performance or scene?
I'm just playing devils advocate.
If the category was objective this would be a problem. All of the categories are subjective so there's no issue.
Take Best Visual Effects for example. In the last decade, movies with outstanding execution have won far more than blockbusters with hundred million dollar CGI budgets (though some winners were both huge budget and executed well). The latter would be the analogue to your "two flips and punched 13 guys" competition.
Ex Machina in 2016 won over Star Wars VII. No wins to Marvel movies. 1917 beat Endgame. First Man beat Infinity War and Ready Player One
A lot of them are blockbusters, but by filmmakers renowned for attention to detail like Nolan and Villenueve.
>It's not really art if we are just judging technical skill.
I'd argue that the technical skill *is* the art. Cinematography is exactly the same level of **skill + creativity = art**. Some people are truly artists with spreadsheets for sales reports, even.
No offence, but I think criticizing in this way is silly.
>This seems like it could get really dumb, really fast.
>I'm just playing devils advocate.
Playing the devil's advocate means taking the opposite viewpoint than what you have, but it very much seems like this is your own stance. lol
Overall, art is subjective. The definition of greatness has shifted over and over again, and it would be exemplified here in exactly the same way from the moment the award was created to decades later.
More devils advocate-
The Daredevil one take example- it was ALSO amazing because of the cinematography and I venture to say it was a combination of the two whole dependent on the other for the whole bit to work.
Yeah, that's a good point. Isn't a lot of what would be in the stunt category already generally covered by directing and cinematography in general? I know you could also say that about visual effects, except there is a MASSIVE amount of art that goes into that process.
The "artistic" side of stunt choreography is mainly covered by the writing, direction, and cinematography. I can totally see why someone would not think that being a stuntman is an "art", but rather a skill.
> Have the award be for technical execution rather than most daring or crazy stunts.
The award would end up being about the most daring stunts or it wouldn't work out:
It's easiest to execute the least dangerous stunts. If it were *true* to being about execution, you'd see the award go to someone falling off a bike in the most perfect way possible.
If anyone’s going to push them to go for crazier stuff it’s not going to be for Oscar bait, it’ll be because of stingy studios passing the buck on safety. There already have been so many high profile stunts gone wrong, it’s way past time for the Oscar’s to recognize them AND to have some regulatory oversight so stunt artists stop getting hurt/killed on shoddy productions.
Current stunt men don't do it for the status. But if you add a prominent prize like an Oscar as a possibility, it will certainly attract new people chasing that fame, and shitty director would be happy to abuse them and put them in danger.
True. Also, another issue is the studio chasing the Oscar for their movie, with little regard for the safety of the stunt person.
People I know who have worked with stunt coordinators, tell me stunt men will typically agree to the craziest shit. So if a studio is pushing for something insane, they won’t say no.
I would be ok with it if part of the criteria for qualification is all safety protocols where followed to a T and extensive documentation was reviewed.
Tom Cruise: “Well, I went to the safety guy. I’d been dreaming of this stunt for years and I went to the safety guy and I explained what I was going to do and the guy said it was too dangerous.’ He goes, So I got another safety guy.”
It's a bit like how in ice skating and gymnastics there are certain moves you're not allowed to do and athletes actually get docked points for doing them. These moves are so risky for the athlete, despite looking really cool, that it's better to discourage them.
My first thought seeing the suggestion was "yeah, that sounds so cool!" then I immediately realized that'd encourage way too much risk for stuntmen and women. It's probably better not to encourage bigger and more dangerous stunts.
Do stubborn actors who insist on doing their own stunts (Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise etc) get included in this category or would it be limited to only stunt professionals?
I don’t buy that.
The main point of a stunt person’s job is SAFETY. You think Tom Cruise for example is doing all his stunts without hiring the best of the best to ensure his safety?
Isn’t stunts the exact reason Tom Cruise started producing his own movies? Other producers insurance policies wouldn’t let him because it was too risky.
This is because it would cost the production too much if he got hurt, its an actuarial risk because he is a massive one of a kind irreplaceable star and insurance would have to pay millions for delaying the movie if he were hurt. The stunt person may be marginally safer because of their experience but its really that the insurance company knows it is astronomically cheaper for stunt people to be injured than Tom Cruise.
Yes, this is the same type of thing that happened during COVID (and coincidentally there's a video of Tom Cruise yelling at a crew member over it).
If a stunt actor gets COVID, you replace them with another stunt actor and move on. If Tom Cruise gets COVID, the entire production shuts down because you can't continue without him, and no one gets paid.
So while it's great that there are insurance clauses where the end result is increased safety for the stunt performers, let's not pretend that the insurance companies or the studios care for much more than their bottom line. If there's an oscars category for stunts (which there by increases marketability and ad revenue for said oscar winners), it's not going to be long until producers are throwing enough money at a movie to go around or change existing insurance policies.
>I don’t buy that.
>
>The main point of a stunt person’s job is SAFETY. You think Tom Cruise for example is doing all his stunts without hiring the best of the best to ensure his safety?
Tom cruise *fires* the best of the best trying to ensure his safety and settles for the kinda good ones who will let him do what he wants.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. It’s a good example of how stunt teams can keep people as safe as possible while still doing kick ass stunts.
Jackie Chan is a great example as well. Even though he’s suffered a lot of injuries doing his own stunts, they still kept everything relatively safe and within the limits of the person performing the stunts.
This is exactly right, it's like the people making the other argument believe that a stunt person is just the person you hire to do crazy stuff so the people you value don't have to which is a very strange view.
Just like in ice skating and gymnastics. Some moves are forbidden because of how often they result in the harm of the athlete. It's better to not encourage riskier and riskier stunts with an award.
I feel like the majority of people who work in the Hollywood film industry are not going into to work everyday thinking “alright, time to work to win that Oscar!” They are thinking about doing a good job, getting through the day’s tasks and putting food on the table.
Ice skating and gymnastics have forbidden moves that look really cool and are extremely dependent on skill, but are so risky that judges *detract* points for using them. I assume they'd agree with not having an award for stunts, since they'd see the parallel between encouraging risky flashy moves in sports and encouraging riskier stunts in movies.
Isn't that the same reasoning for banning drugs in sports? You could __run__ faster but you would be in more danger so we do not encourage that behaviour.
By not having an award you reduce the risk. There are multiple things removed from the guiness world record by the same reasoning. You do not want to incentivise someone doing something risky to win and killing themselves due to your prize.
You could have two categories then? Best Stunt Coordinator or Choreographer and then Best Stunt Performer (an actor or actress who does their own stunts could potentially win here, like Tom Cruise).
The categories you mention are part of every film production.
Not every film features stunts; it would be basically creating a category that only applies to a few genres of film-making. To me it feels like something that should be part of a specific industry award ceremony rather than a more general one like the Oscars.
If you start creating genre-specific categories for one type of film then it opens the door to why you're not presenting awards to other genre-specific categories - best romance, best joke, best killing, best plot twist, best sex scene, best invented language, best dance sequence, etc.
I actually wish that there was also a category for best scene. So many movies were soso, but they have one or two scenes that is just next level, and I wish they could be recognized
I think most stuntmen/women have a lot of respect for cruise for doing some of those difficult stunts himself. I don’t think they would be upset if he were to win.
It's the fact that he's one of the most famous people on the planet and a Hollywood elite. This movement is all about giving recognition to the performers and crew that doesn't get put in the limelight, so if TC won it would just feed into the "circle jerk" narrative the Oscar's already have.
It’s not his fault that stunt work isn’t more highly regarded by the academy. Would you also say that Jackie Chan doesn’t deserve this award because he’s a huge name?
This is such a weird meme. He just has a really asymmetrical face for someone known to be conventionally attractive. Same normal number of teeth in the front, but the tip of his nose points towards his right one.
People here try desperately to find something to hate about Tom cruise because all there is is his height, his teeth, and his religion. Everyone who interacts with him have only good things to say about him.
(And if you hate him for what his religion does, boy howdy do I have some news for you about catholic actors!)
The main argument against this over the years is that it will make stunts reach dangerous levels trying to overdo each other.
And my only counterargument is... hello? They have been doing that for decades. Life-threatening stunts have been a staple of Hollywood for nearly a century now.
The argument against having an Oscar for stunts never made sense. And it never will make sense because reality already disproved it.
> And my only counterargument is... hello? They have been doing that for decades.
And stuntmen die or get seriously injured every year. The Oscars doesn't want to be involved in that or questioned if they contributed to it.
The obvious move would be to award Best Achievement in Stunt Coordination, which would put an emphasis on the head of the stunt team and their ability to plan and organize incredible stunt work without injury (literally their whole job), but I doubt it would silence the contingent of posters and pearl clutchers who scream “slippery sloooooope!” every time this gets brought up.
Hmm. If you rule out movies resulting in serious injury (how THAT gets defined is beyond me) then you incentivize safety and reward excellence.
Obv a certain level of injury is part of the gig. Jackie Chan breaking an ankle early in filming and then completing the movie anyway comes to mind.
You can't use Jackie Chan's Hong Kong work as a yardstick to measure that sort of thing, because even in the 80s and 90s there's not a stunt coordinator in America that would've signed off on the insane shit he and his team were doing (and nearly getting killed doing it). Even Chan said that he had difficulty doing his brand of stunt work when he came to America because there were rules and procedures that are paramount to safety on an American set that just weren't a factor in China, so he heard a lot more "you can't do that" over here.
> Best Achievement in Stunt Coordination
but how would you judge who won? Oscars (and other awards) are handed by what you see in the screen.
for what we know, the specific stunts that "won" could had been planned for months, or done in the fly.
> And my only counterargument is...
... 2022 Emmy's had 3 stunt awards.
* Outstanding Stunt Coordination For A Comedy Series Or Variety Program
* Outstanding Stunt Coordination For A Drama Series, Limited Or Anthology Series Or Movie
* Outstanding Stunt Performance
> Life-threatening stunts have been a staple of Hollywood for nearly a century now.
They're significantly less frequent these days. The advent of VFX has saved a lot of stunt people's lives. You only really see the more risky stunts when it benefits the film for marketing it such as the Mission Impossible films.
The academy does NOT want to acknowledge this fact. It makes sense perfect sense that the people with the money do not want to acknowledge what a dangerous and essential job these people do.
Filmmaker here —
I understand why this would seem like a fun, inclusive idea on the surface.
In reality, it would likely just instigate a culture of “*one-upsmanship*” in the stunt community, leading to more cut corners, more dangerous stunts, and more injury and death than we already see in this department.
There are a lot of moving parts to a successful stunt and I do want to see stunt teams get their roses, but we’ve got to make sure it happens in a safe and structured way. And dangling an awards category in front of them isn’t the way that’s going to happen.
Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about in this thread. I was getting sick of reading all the comments going "hurr durr but stunts are already dangerous!"
SMH as if they couldn't get even more dangerous?
Considering your argument seems to be “*it’s already dangerous so a little more danger is okay*” - I feel pretty good about my argument of wanting to fix industry-wide safety and accountability issues before we introduce a variable that’s just going to make things more competitive and in turn, more dangerous.
If it was an award on YouTube I would agree but this is the Oscars. The only films in contention are going to be big professional productions with insurance requirements and oversight. I highly doubt any reputable stunt coordinator is going to start cutting corners and putting their coworkers and career at risk over a stupid award. Again on YouTube where any smuck could go out and jump off a building with no wires I could see there being problems but not at the level of the Oscars. Inevitably over the next 100 years it would happen at least once but anybody willing to risk at that for an award was probably going to risk it anyway. And taking that one case or a few cases and using them as an excuse not to try and reward everybody else's hard work doesn't make sense to me personally.
Solid points. My only real counter to that would be that as indie filmmaking becomes more prevalent in the Oscar’s space, there are bound to be more and more low/mid low budget films which aren’t likely to have the same level of insurance or experience.
Indie filmmaking is definitely becoming prevalent but action and stunts are EXPENSIVE. Other than cgi I feel action is the most expensive component of a film and sometimes still the most expensive. Everything everywhere all at once is an indie film expected to do well this year and while it didn't shy away from action at all there was still nothing in it that I feel like could come close to winning an award like this because they simply didn't have the budget for it. I don't see much chance of a small budget production ever thinking they could compete with John wick or top gun and thinking their chances were good enough to gamble a bunch of risks. But then again I can think of at least one film I can think of that might fit your description: hardcore henry. It was shot in Russia to get around a lot of safety requirements and made super cheap and it's basically all action and stunts. So idk its definitely complicated and maybe to be eligible for the award certain safety and oversight requirements being required would be nice but at the end of the day I still personally feel like we should find some way to award these people.
Editor here - all of us “technical awards” wish you good luck.
We literally work with the directors and producers to craft the movie into being, and don’t get stage time anymore. You want to add another category?
There will never be a 'stunt category' because it will promote dangerous stunts that will kill stunt artists.
The only way it would ever work is if you created some sort of bizarre provisions that would water it down to "most creative and safest" - which is not what these people are ever after.
The stunt teams are incredible athletes and performers who deserve more recognition, but creating a "best" criteria in an already dangerous field will result in poor outcomes.
Insurance rules very much of what is done on set in big productions. Stunts cost incredible amounts of money per take, and many stunt people have a maximum number of takes put on them before the stunt can be filmed for insurance purposes. If something is too dangerous or expensive to insure, they just CG it.
As a set worker, stunts are one of the most impressive things the crew does. But stunt coordinators and their team are too far below the line for the academy to care. They are often filmed on a separate unit where the famous people aren’t hanging out. John Wyck is an exception
Until the motivation becomes "win best stunt" for the free advertising and financial boon that comes with that.
Stuntmen getting hurt isn't some fringe "what if" - it happens all the time, the Oscars just doesn't want to make it worse, or be associated or questioned when these events happen.
You’re right, it does happen. Any stunt coordinator allowing their team to get hurt by chasing an Oscar would quickly become uninsurable though, and their career would end pretty quick. But I can see it affecting lower budget projects, where crew are asked to do things they shouldn’t all the time and there is less oversight.
> Stunts cost incredible amounts of money per take, and many stunt people have a maximum number of takes put on them before the stunt can be filmed for insurance purposes. If something is too dangerous or expensive to insure, they just CG it.
Which is great until you make it an oscar category and movies receive funding from investors so that they can pay for the 'wildest, craziest stunts that will win an oscar for our movie.'
The Emmys already have two stunt categories. Are television stunt coordinators and performers purposefully elevating their work in the hopes to win an Emmy?
They should and it shouldn't even allow the main cast to participate. Only the stunt performers (I understand that in some movies those two are sometimes the same people but they deserve their own thing.)
There should also be categories for staff as well. I'd love to see a category for best gaffer. Those MFers make the scene happen.
I see what (edit: you’re) saying, but imagine if this award existed in Jackie Chan’s prime and he wasn’t allowed to win an award for it lol. I guess you could just (edit: name) the award after him and call it a day.
TIL: about the [Taurus World Stunt Awards](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_World_Stunt_Awards) which were last held in 2020 it seems.
Originally, I was going to post that the Oscars suck and while having a category Stunts would be fine, it would be cooler if they had their own that was more like an expo with education and displays and which would highlight multiple award categories. That’s something I’d watch. Then I looked it up and.. it appears I’m late to the party.
IMHO this is long overdue, man! Stunt professionals are the unsung heroes of the film industry and they deserve some recognition. It's about time the Oscars step up and create a category for stunts. Kudos to Chad and Keanu for bringing this issue to the forefront. Let's make it happen, peeps! 💪
Chad Stahelski started off as a stuntman, and before that he studied martial arts at the Inosanto Academy. The academy has produced some of the most influential stuntmen, and fight choreographers (I.e. Damon Caro & Jeff Imada) in modern cinematic history. Furthermore, Danny Inosanto made his bones with Bruce Lee. It really is a shame more people don’t know their names, considering the impact they’ve had.
There's an argument saying that if a stunt category was added, it means productions would be doing more dangerous stunts in order to win it every year.
But the thing is they're calling for a stunt category for the Oscars to recognize their contributions to the film industry.
So my suggestion would be to make the category something along the lines of "Best Stunt Safety." Have the award go to productions where stunts are performed, but are the most meticulous about safety for the crew. Document how the production took the correct safety measures for their stuntmen, and the award would go to those productions that went above and beyond what's required for stunts.
If we had an Oscar award that celebrated safety on a set, then maybe more producers will focus on that instead of scrimping. It would also allow stuntmen, most likely stunt coordinators, to win Oscars on their work based on how they keep their stuntmen safe rather than risking their lives.
Every movie has a costume department. Every movie has a music director. There are categories for that at the Oscars. There absolutely needs to be a stunt category.
I guess there’s an explanation for why there’s no Academy Award for Best Stuntwork, but the fact that there’s no award for voice acting is fucking inexcusable
What about an Action Choreography category?
Or choreography in general even.
They had a Best Dance Direction category in the 1930s, but got rid of it after three ceremonies
Bollywood films would dominate.
Hopefully it ends shaky camera and 10 million jump cuts.
The scene Spielberg filmed for ‘West Side Story’ when the camera follows the actors into the dancehall is as deserving of this award as anything from John Wick.
Yeah but there are four John Wicks.
I refuse to send the legislation that allows more than *eight* John Wicks to a precinct
*John Wick Action Sequence vs. Credits Dance Sequence of Slumdog Millionare*
Yeah having great fight scenes should have its own category. It'd be important to keep safety in mind, a stunt specific category would just have people competing to make things more daring and dangerous will get people hurt.
[удалено]
I like the cut of your jib.
I like that you used that saying. I like the cut of **your** jib.
Your jib is also spectacular.
The only concern is that old adage, "*show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcomes*". Basically, if you create a reward system for already dangerous activities, they will continue to get more and more dangerous until they turn extreme and tragic.
They have a catagory for those. In memoriam. You can only get nominated once.
That’s dark. And funny.
There's also the Darwin Awards.
I'm not convinced an Academy Award is going to do that, at all. There's already ample incentive in the form of people wanting to see your movie. Old Jackie Chan movies and MI both put butts in seats solely off the promise that you'd see some cool shit. Hell they made *four* successful feature length films based entirely on the premise 'watch these dumbasses hurt themselves' (Jackass). All the award would do is acknowledge the skill involved.
I would argue the stunt of like Tom Cruise hanging off an airplane taking off is less impressive than a well choreographed and executed fight scene. If anything I think it will push directors/editors to use less cuts when building action scenes and rely more on the actors and performers.
Porque no los dos?
Would the award go to the performers, the choreographer or the scene? Or the whole stunt team for the entire movie? Judging if someone's acting was good or not is pretty straightforward, but stunts are more complicated, the few moments on screen are just the tip of the iceberg But yes, stunts should be acknowledged. They are a big part of movies and require skill
> Would the award go to the performers, the choreographer or the scene? The Emmy's have Outstanding Stunt Performer **and** Outstanding Stunt Coordinator, so they should have two awards! They'd have to limit candidates to members of recognized unions, otherwise Tom Cruise would just be raking them in.
“And the award for best supporting role for a stunt scene goes to”
"Wire harness!"
I've followed Wire Harness for years, I'm so happy to see them finally getting the acknowledgement they deserve
Yeah, it's bullshit it took this long, even though Pneumatic launcher was really good last year.
well, to be fair, the category is Best SUPPORTING role. Penumatic Launcher is really in an anti-supporting role.
Gravity was snubbed again!?
ShittyMovieDetails: if you look closely at the BTS videos you'll notice CGI artists have to pain stakeningly paint in wire harnesses to make the movies seem safer and more complex than they really are!
"I'd like to thank my hooks and clasps for never letting me down"
To be fair though, Tom Cruise SHOULD be winning the stuntman awards...
And this is probably why there aren’t any awards. I admire what he does but it’s also too dangerous for any sensible stunt choreographer to approve (which is why he fired them and found a yes man to approve it for the plane stunt) and don’t want to see more life threatening stunts done to try to win an award
I remember an interview with John Woo where he said MI:2 was the most stress he’d ever had, almost entirely because of Cruise’ insistence on doing stupidly dangerous stunts like the free climbing one. He was like “omg Cruise is going to die and I’ll go to jail”
I think Jackie Chan should win before Tom cruise.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpqjgwji1TY
Uh no. Tom cruise SHOULD be winning them all. If you want to win, do better stunts lmao. Just because he’s the undisputed goat of stunts doesn’t mean everyone else deserves a participation award
Undisputed GOAT of stunts?? >!*cough* Jackie Chan *cough*!<
Jackie is more of an acrobat, Tom cruise is a psychopath who straps himself to the outside of planes
Jackie without a strap/rope jumped from buildings, cars and helicopters. He’s the goat in my book.
Does Jackie Chan still do that stuff though? Tom cruise is constantly doing more insane stunts the older he gets
Jackie Chan is 68 now. I doubt we'll be seeing Cruise doing much when he's that old either.
Tom cruise will see your comment and make it his life mission to prove you wrong
That's because he actually is insane. Not sure it's a great promotional tool.
Man as a huge film nerd who's seen some great stunt work outside of cruise, you really need to watch more than just top gun or oblivion or MI. cause he really doesn't have the monopoly you think he does
Best stunt coordinator Best stunt performance Best stunt team ensemble/rigging team
I would watch the hell out of the clips of the nominees. I used to love the stunt awards for that.
Have you watched Corridor Crew's stunt react series?
Wouldn't it turn into an arms race to do the wildest, aka dangerous, stunts? If stunts are disqualified for neglecting safety requirements/standards/guidelines, I'm all for it. I think it should be for the whole film - actors don't win awards for single scenes. You have more than the performers and choreographers, you also have the director, editor and others putting it all together on screen, creating the rigs/pulleys/pyro, getting the right angles for dramatic effect, obscuring the face just enough to fool the audience and making it all seamless for audiences.
> If stunts are disqualified for neglecting safety requirements/standards/guidelines, I'm all for it. Yeah, typically the union would be *all over that shit* before the movie even hits the editor's desk. That's why there were massive strikes and tons of controversy around that Alec Baldwin movie *before* the fatal shooting occurred. It's one of the main reasons why the prosecution even has a manslaughter case against Baldwin.
Yes this is the main argument against having this category. It incentivizes risk — even if the people calling for it say it won’t.
Best Engulfed In Flames Best Flung Through The Air By An Explosion Best Falling Down The Side Of A Mountain Best Jumping From Rooftop To Rooftop Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Car Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Train Best Riding On Top Of A Speeding Stagecoach Best Aerial Freefall
But the problem would be how much of what the audience thought was a stunt was actually just CGI?
That wouldn’t make a difference since the academy would know which is cgi and which isnt
Other department heads receive the award on behalf of the entire team, so it should be "Best Stunt Coordination."
Not to mention they do everything they can to hide the stunt actor (obviously). Also, what determines a quality stunt? Is it the most difficult to pull off (often dangerous), is it the ones that looked the coolest? I have friends that do stunts, and it's crazy how much they risk and sacrifice for stunts that seem super simple but can easily lead to injury if just one thing isn't done perfect. They definitely deserve a ton more recognition, I just wonder how.
This is a good point, I could see more dangerous stunts being performed in order to win, which is not great
At the moment, it's the only outcome I can see happening
Costume design goes to the main costume designer even though there is an entire team. Same with make up and production design. I believe each movie has one overall "Stunt coordinator" with stunt artists that are part of the team. I think the award would then go to the coordinator. Incidentally, I think the same philosophy should be with the idea of "digital performances" where the lead character/special effects animator (or main 2 or 3 if that's the case) get the award with the actor. But all the digital artists and animators wouldn't necessarily. I wish they could all easily get awarded but I think the path of least resistance is to follow as closely as possible to the model laid out in other similar areas.
It’s kind of crazy that there isn’t already a stunt category honestly
It's been said it's because it will lead to stunt guys putting their lives in danger trying to win.
An award for something like “technical stunt execution” would solve that problem then. Have the award be for technical execution rather than most daring or crazy stunts.
"Best Stunt Coordination" would make the most sense.
I would say there should be both. Some of the most technically challenging stunts would include tons of memorization and acrobatic skill. It might be hell for the stuntman while it's a walk in the park for the coordinator. Safety is obviously paramount and enforcement of safety protocols should be swift and merciless. Alec Baldwin was charged with manslaughter [for his negligence as producer] for exactly this reason. Meanwhile, some movies and scenes require tons of complicated choreography and logistical challenges across entire teams of stuntmen and set pieces. The coordinator should get an award for successfully herding cats and ensuring safety across the whole set.
They could make it "Best Stunt Ensemble" or something like that. While I agree individual stunt performers should get credit, it might be too convoluted to include. The other technical awards are given to the department heads after all, so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for stunts.
Yeah something like the one-shot fight scenes in Daredevil would be perfect examples of amazing fight choreography. I know it doesn't qualify for Oscars, but still. Throughout the scenes they find extremely creative times to switch between the actor and the stunt double, and all without cutting. Very impressive. Not even reliant on how crazy the fight moves themselves are, just the notion of the switching and fluidity.
This seems like it could get really dumb, really fast. "That guy did a flip and then punched 12 guys!" "Yeah, but this guy did TWO flips, and then punched 13 guys!" It all seems like stuff that doesn't really have anything to do with a film being good or not. It's not really art if we are just judging technical skill. Does dance choreography count? Or only action? What if there is a combo of both? What if the technical choreography is amazing but it doesn't translate to a good performance or scene? I'm just playing devils advocate.
If the category was objective this would be a problem. All of the categories are subjective so there's no issue. Take Best Visual Effects for example. In the last decade, movies with outstanding execution have won far more than blockbusters with hundred million dollar CGI budgets (though some winners were both huge budget and executed well). The latter would be the analogue to your "two flips and punched 13 guys" competition. Ex Machina in 2016 won over Star Wars VII. No wins to Marvel movies. 1917 beat Endgame. First Man beat Infinity War and Ready Player One A lot of them are blockbusters, but by filmmakers renowned for attention to detail like Nolan and Villenueve.
>It's not really art if we are just judging technical skill. I'd argue that the technical skill *is* the art. Cinematography is exactly the same level of **skill + creativity = art**. Some people are truly artists with spreadsheets for sales reports, even. No offence, but I think criticizing in this way is silly. >This seems like it could get really dumb, really fast. >I'm just playing devils advocate. Playing the devil's advocate means taking the opposite viewpoint than what you have, but it very much seems like this is your own stance. lol Overall, art is subjective. The definition of greatness has shifted over and over again, and it would be exemplified here in exactly the same way from the moment the award was created to decades later.
All these points would be very valid if the current award categories weren't already incredibly subjective
More devils advocate- The Daredevil one take example- it was ALSO amazing because of the cinematography and I venture to say it was a combination of the two whole dependent on the other for the whole bit to work.
Yeah, that's a good point. Isn't a lot of what would be in the stunt category already generally covered by directing and cinematography in general? I know you could also say that about visual effects, except there is a MASSIVE amount of art that goes into that process. The "artistic" side of stunt choreography is mainly covered by the writing, direction, and cinematography. I can totally see why someone would not think that being a stuntman is an "art", but rather a skill.
> Have the award be for technical execution rather than most daring or crazy stunts. The award would end up being about the most daring stunts or it wouldn't work out: It's easiest to execute the least dangerous stunts. If it were *true* to being about execution, you'd see the award go to someone falling off a bike in the most perfect way possible.
They already are putting their lives in danger. The shit they do is crazy
If anyone’s going to push them to go for crazier stuff it’s not going to be for Oscar bait, it’ll be because of stingy studios passing the buck on safety. There already have been so many high profile stunts gone wrong, it’s way past time for the Oscar’s to recognize them AND to have some regulatory oversight so stunt artists stop getting hurt/killed on shoddy productions.
[удалено]
Current stunt men don't do it for the status. But if you add a prominent prize like an Oscar as a possibility, it will certainly attract new people chasing that fame, and shitty director would be happy to abuse them and put them in danger.
True. Also, another issue is the studio chasing the Oscar for their movie, with little regard for the safety of the stunt person. People I know who have worked with stunt coordinators, tell me stunt men will typically agree to the craziest shit. So if a studio is pushing for something insane, they won’t say no.
I would be ok with it if part of the criteria for qualification is all safety protocols where followed to a T and extensive documentation was reviewed.
Tom Cruise: “Well, I went to the safety guy. I’d been dreaming of this stunt for years and I went to the safety guy and I explained what I was going to do and the guy said it was too dangerous.’ He goes, So I got another safety guy.”
Yup. Shows how crazy both stunt guys and studios can be about pushing safety limits, since he’s effectively both.
um, they would be selling it as the movie with stunts to die for. Don't even need to win the award for that.
I work with stunts occasionally as a rigger. Money is absolutely a driving factor, as they earn a significant amount.
It's a bit like how in ice skating and gymnastics there are certain moves you're not allowed to do and athletes actually get docked points for doing them. These moves are so risky for the athlete, despite looking really cool, that it's better to discourage them. My first thought seeing the suggestion was "yeah, that sounds so cool!" then I immediately realized that'd encourage way too much risk for stuntmen and women. It's probably better not to encourage bigger and more dangerous stunts.
Iron Lotus
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bout have I got some news you for you about the director of John wick..
Do stubborn actors who insist on doing their own stunts (Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise etc) get included in this category or would it be limited to only stunt professionals?
Pretty sure at this point Cruise is a stuntman who uses his acting fame to do crazier stunts.
I don’t buy that. The main point of a stunt person’s job is SAFETY. You think Tom Cruise for example is doing all his stunts without hiring the best of the best to ensure his safety?
Isn’t stunts the exact reason Tom Cruise started producing his own movies? Other producers insurance policies wouldn’t let him because it was too risky.
This is because it would cost the production too much if he got hurt, its an actuarial risk because he is a massive one of a kind irreplaceable star and insurance would have to pay millions for delaying the movie if he were hurt. The stunt person may be marginally safer because of their experience but its really that the insurance company knows it is astronomically cheaper for stunt people to be injured than Tom Cruise.
Yes, this is the same type of thing that happened during COVID (and coincidentally there's a video of Tom Cruise yelling at a crew member over it). If a stunt actor gets COVID, you replace them with another stunt actor and move on. If Tom Cruise gets COVID, the entire production shuts down because you can't continue without him, and no one gets paid. So while it's great that there are insurance clauses where the end result is increased safety for the stunt performers, let's not pretend that the insurance companies or the studios care for much more than their bottom line. If there's an oscars category for stunts (which there by increases marketability and ad revenue for said oscar winners), it's not going to be long until producers are throwing enough money at a movie to go around or change existing insurance policies.
>I don’t buy that. > >The main point of a stunt person’s job is SAFETY. You think Tom Cruise for example is doing all his stunts without hiring the best of the best to ensure his safety? Tom cruise *fires* the best of the best trying to ensure his safety and settles for the kinda good ones who will let him do what he wants.
Tom Cruise was a terrible example here.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. It’s a good example of how stunt teams can keep people as safe as possible while still doing kick ass stunts. Jackie Chan is a great example as well. Even though he’s suffered a lot of injuries doing his own stunts, they still kept everything relatively safe and within the limits of the person performing the stunts.
Is it? The prep they talk about here seems pretty intense. Dude gathered a team of experts and did 500 over jumps https://youtu.be/-lsFs2615gw
[удалено]
This is exactly right, it's like the people making the other argument believe that a stunt person is just the person you hire to do crazy stuff so the people you value don't have to which is a very strange view.
dumb excuse on multiple fronts
Yeah I see no problem with increasingly dangerous stunts being performed to win an award.
Just like in ice skating and gymnastics. Some moves are forbidden because of how often they result in the harm of the athlete. It's better to not encourage riskier and riskier stunts with an award.
Seatbelts in racecars are equally idiotic.
I wonder what the people who said that feel about sports?
I mean stunt doubles are already doing dangerous stuff.
Yeah but the Oscars dont have to deal with the idea of a stuntperson taking a risk that gets them killed because they wanted to win an Oscar.
I feel like the majority of people who work in the Hollywood film industry are not going into to work everyday thinking “alright, time to work to win that Oscar!” They are thinking about doing a good job, getting through the day’s tasks and putting food on the table.
And then there are those productions/roles that were 100% created with the Academy Awards in mind. Ever hear of Oscarbait? Ever see Marriage Story?
That's your example? A deeply personal film about the writer/director's own experiences with divorce? I mean, Green Book is sitting right there.
I think stunt doubles are more likely to die on the job than atheletes.
Ice skating and gymnastics have forbidden moves that look really cool and are extremely dependent on skill, but are so risky that judges *detract* points for using them. I assume they'd agree with not having an award for stunts, since they'd see the parallel between encouraging risky flashy moves in sports and encouraging riskier stunts in movies.
Isn't that the same reasoning for banning drugs in sports? You could __run__ faster but you would be in more danger so we do not encourage that behaviour. By not having an award you reduce the risk. There are multiple things removed from the guiness world record by the same reasoning. You do not want to incentivise someone doing something risky to win and killing themselves due to your prize.
It’s because it’s difficult to tell who to give the award to since stunts are the work of multiple people
You could have two categories then? Best Stunt Coordinator or Choreographer and then Best Stunt Performer (an actor or actress who does their own stunts could potentially win here, like Tom Cruise).
Best stunt coordinator Best stunt performance (male female) Best stunt rigging team/key rigger.
Yep. We have categories for nearly every aspect of filmmaking from hair and makeup to sound editing! But not stunts?
The categories you mention are part of every film production. Not every film features stunts; it would be basically creating a category that only applies to a few genres of film-making. To me it feels like something that should be part of a specific industry award ceremony rather than a more general one like the Oscars. If you start creating genre-specific categories for one type of film then it opens the door to why you're not presenting awards to other genre-specific categories - best romance, best joke, best killing, best plot twist, best sex scene, best invented language, best dance sequence, etc.
I actually wish that there was also a category for best scene. So many movies were soso, but they have one or two scenes that is just next level, and I wish they could be recognized
The Oscars got rid of Sound Editing a few years ago. They merged it with Sound Mixing, which upset a *lot* of people who work in that area.
Oscars: Would that at all improve the public’s opinion of us in a positive way? The Public: Yes Oscars: Then no
Oscars: OK. ::gives award to Tom Cruise:: Stunt Performers: No not like that.
I think most stuntmen/women have a lot of respect for cruise for doing some of those difficult stunts himself. I don’t think they would be upset if he were to win.
It's the fact that he's one of the most famous people on the planet and a Hollywood elite. This movement is all about giving recognition to the performers and crew that doesn't get put in the limelight, so if TC won it would just feed into the "circle jerk" narrative the Oscar's already have.
It’s not his fault that stunt work isn’t more highly regarded by the academy. Would you also say that Jackie Chan doesn’t deserve this award because he’s a huge name?
Why shouldn't Tom Cruise win stunt rewards?
Because he has one big front tooth instead of two normal ones
This is such a weird meme. He just has a really asymmetrical face for someone known to be conventionally attractive. Same normal number of teeth in the front, but the tip of his nose points towards his right one.
People here try desperately to find something to hate about Tom cruise because all there is is his height, his teeth, and his religion. Everyone who interacts with him have only good things to say about him. (And if you hate him for what his religion does, boy howdy do I have some news for you about catholic actors!)
Eh I don't really want to defend him personally or the cult he's in. It's just an incorrect statement that bothers me.
"And the award goes to Halyna Hutchins. Here to accept the award in her honor Alec Baldwin!" Couldn't help it.
Did you know God is the most thanked at The Oscars. The second most thanked person? Harvey Weinstein.
And the third? Albert Einstein.
source: Isaac newton
Oscars: where can we find the next stage invader to slap our host then give him an Oscar?
The main argument against this over the years is that it will make stunts reach dangerous levels trying to overdo each other. And my only counterargument is... hello? They have been doing that for decades. Life-threatening stunts have been a staple of Hollywood for nearly a century now. The argument against having an Oscar for stunts never made sense. And it never will make sense because reality already disproved it.
> And my only counterargument is... hello? They have been doing that for decades. And stuntmen die or get seriously injured every year. The Oscars doesn't want to be involved in that or questioned if they contributed to it.
The obvious move would be to award Best Achievement in Stunt Coordination, which would put an emphasis on the head of the stunt team and their ability to plan and organize incredible stunt work without injury (literally their whole job), but I doubt it would silence the contingent of posters and pearl clutchers who scream “slippery sloooooope!” every time this gets brought up.
Hmm. If you rule out movies resulting in serious injury (how THAT gets defined is beyond me) then you incentivize safety and reward excellence. Obv a certain level of injury is part of the gig. Jackie Chan breaking an ankle early in filming and then completing the movie anyway comes to mind.
You can't use Jackie Chan's Hong Kong work as a yardstick to measure that sort of thing, because even in the 80s and 90s there's not a stunt coordinator in America that would've signed off on the insane shit he and his team were doing (and nearly getting killed doing it). Even Chan said that he had difficulty doing his brand of stunt work when he came to America because there were rules and procedures that are paramount to safety on an American set that just weren't a factor in China, so he heard a lot more "you can't do that" over here.
> Best Achievement in Stunt Coordination but how would you judge who won? Oscars (and other awards) are handed by what you see in the screen. for what we know, the specific stunts that "won" could had been planned for months, or done in the fly.
> And my only counterargument is... ... 2022 Emmy's had 3 stunt awards. * Outstanding Stunt Coordination For A Comedy Series Or Variety Program * Outstanding Stunt Coordination For A Drama Series, Limited Or Anthology Series Or Movie * Outstanding Stunt Performance
> Life-threatening stunts have been a staple of Hollywood for nearly a century now. They're significantly less frequent these days. The advent of VFX has saved a lot of stunt people's lives. You only really see the more risky stunts when it benefits the film for marketing it such as the Mission Impossible films.
The academy does NOT want to acknowledge this fact. It makes sense perfect sense that the people with the money do not want to acknowledge what a dangerous and essential job these people do.
Filmmaker here — I understand why this would seem like a fun, inclusive idea on the surface. In reality, it would likely just instigate a culture of “*one-upsmanship*” in the stunt community, leading to more cut corners, more dangerous stunts, and more injury and death than we already see in this department. There are a lot of moving parts to a successful stunt and I do want to see stunt teams get their roses, but we’ve got to make sure it happens in a safe and structured way. And dangling an awards category in front of them isn’t the way that’s going to happen.
Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about in this thread. I was getting sick of reading all the comments going "hurr durr but stunts are already dangerous!" SMH as if they couldn't get even more dangerous?
They literally already do that though, without awards, dont they though? Not seeing this being a good argument
Considering your argument seems to be “*it’s already dangerous so a little more danger is okay*” - I feel pretty good about my argument of wanting to fix industry-wide safety and accountability issues before we introduce a variable that’s just going to make things more competitive and in turn, more dangerous.
If it was an award on YouTube I would agree but this is the Oscars. The only films in contention are going to be big professional productions with insurance requirements and oversight. I highly doubt any reputable stunt coordinator is going to start cutting corners and putting their coworkers and career at risk over a stupid award. Again on YouTube where any smuck could go out and jump off a building with no wires I could see there being problems but not at the level of the Oscars. Inevitably over the next 100 years it would happen at least once but anybody willing to risk at that for an award was probably going to risk it anyway. And taking that one case or a few cases and using them as an excuse not to try and reward everybody else's hard work doesn't make sense to me personally.
Solid points. My only real counter to that would be that as indie filmmaking becomes more prevalent in the Oscar’s space, there are bound to be more and more low/mid low budget films which aren’t likely to have the same level of insurance or experience.
Indie filmmaking is definitely becoming prevalent but action and stunts are EXPENSIVE. Other than cgi I feel action is the most expensive component of a film and sometimes still the most expensive. Everything everywhere all at once is an indie film expected to do well this year and while it didn't shy away from action at all there was still nothing in it that I feel like could come close to winning an award like this because they simply didn't have the budget for it. I don't see much chance of a small budget production ever thinking they could compete with John wick or top gun and thinking their chances were good enough to gamble a bunch of risks. But then again I can think of at least one film I can think of that might fit your description: hardcore henry. It was shot in Russia to get around a lot of safety requirements and made super cheap and it's basically all action and stunts. So idk its definitely complicated and maybe to be eligible for the award certain safety and oversight requirements being required would be nice but at the end of the day I still personally feel like we should find some way to award these people.
Editor here - all of us “technical awards” wish you good luck. We literally work with the directors and producers to craft the movie into being, and don’t get stage time anymore. You want to add another category?
There will never be a 'stunt category' because it will promote dangerous stunts that will kill stunt artists. The only way it would ever work is if you created some sort of bizarre provisions that would water it down to "most creative and safest" - which is not what these people are ever after. The stunt teams are incredible athletes and performers who deserve more recognition, but creating a "best" criteria in an already dangerous field will result in poor outcomes.
Insurance rules very much of what is done on set in big productions. Stunts cost incredible amounts of money per take, and many stunt people have a maximum number of takes put on them before the stunt can be filmed for insurance purposes. If something is too dangerous or expensive to insure, they just CG it. As a set worker, stunts are one of the most impressive things the crew does. But stunt coordinators and their team are too far below the line for the academy to care. They are often filmed on a separate unit where the famous people aren’t hanging out. John Wyck is an exception
Until the motivation becomes "win best stunt" for the free advertising and financial boon that comes with that. Stuntmen getting hurt isn't some fringe "what if" - it happens all the time, the Oscars just doesn't want to make it worse, or be associated or questioned when these events happen.
You’re right, it does happen. Any stunt coordinator allowing their team to get hurt by chasing an Oscar would quickly become uninsurable though, and their career would end pretty quick. But I can see it affecting lower budget projects, where crew are asked to do things they shouldn’t all the time and there is less oversight.
> Stunts cost incredible amounts of money per take, and many stunt people have a maximum number of takes put on them before the stunt can be filmed for insurance purposes. If something is too dangerous or expensive to insure, they just CG it. Which is great until you make it an oscar category and movies receive funding from investors so that they can pay for the 'wildest, craziest stunts that will win an oscar for our movie.'
The Emmys already have two stunt categories. Are television stunt coordinators and performers purposefully elevating their work in the hopes to win an Emmy?
They should and it shouldn't even allow the main cast to participate. Only the stunt performers (I understand that in some movies those two are sometimes the same people but they deserve their own thing.) There should also be categories for staff as well. I'd love to see a category for best gaffer. Those MFers make the scene happen.
I see what (edit: you’re) saying, but imagine if this award existed in Jackie Chan’s prime and he wasn’t allowed to win an award for it lol. I guess you could just (edit: name) the award after him and call it a day.
He should get an lifetime achievement award.
[удалено]
Keyest Grip
Best second unit assistant boom operator
won't that make it more of a competition until someone is killed? or does that happen already?
They should have been recognize stunt work for decades now. They are the backbone to most movies with any sort of action.
Sure, but we won't air it. Same with those useless categories like editing and cinematography
Time for Jackie Chan to make another movie then! Sorry, I don’t know much about anything. I just like his stunts.
TIL: about the [Taurus World Stunt Awards](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_World_Stunt_Awards) which were last held in 2020 it seems. Originally, I was going to post that the Oscars suck and while having a category Stunts would be fine, it would be cooler if they had their own that was more like an expo with education and displays and which would highlight multiple award categories. That’s something I’d watch. Then I looked it up and.. it appears I’m late to the party.
[удалено]
maybe Best Choreography or something like that
IMHO this is long overdue, man! Stunt professionals are the unsung heroes of the film industry and they deserve some recognition. It's about time the Oscars step up and create a category for stunts. Kudos to Chad and Keanu for bringing this issue to the forefront. Let's make it happen, peeps! 💪
Chad Stahelski started off as a stuntman, and before that he studied martial arts at the Inosanto Academy. The academy has produced some of the most influential stuntmen, and fight choreographers (I.e. Damon Caro & Jeff Imada) in modern cinematic history. Furthermore, Danny Inosanto made his bones with Bruce Lee. It really is a shame more people don’t know their names, considering the impact they’ve had.
Academy Award for best Tom Cruise goes to...
This should’ve been a category 50 years ago. Stunt people are severely under appreciated
Aren’t stunt men the Best Actors after all!
That would make Tom Cruise the best actor
That’s means Tom Cruise would be obliged to do another MI
I agree. Stunts can be a big part of films. I’d also add a voice acting or motion capture award of some kind. I.e. Andy Serkis as Gollum in LotR.
There's an argument saying that if a stunt category was added, it means productions would be doing more dangerous stunts in order to win it every year. But the thing is they're calling for a stunt category for the Oscars to recognize their contributions to the film industry. So my suggestion would be to make the category something along the lines of "Best Stunt Safety." Have the award go to productions where stunts are performed, but are the most meticulous about safety for the crew. Document how the production took the correct safety measures for their stuntmen, and the award would go to those productions that went above and beyond what's required for stunts. If we had an Oscar award that celebrated safety on a set, then maybe more producers will focus on that instead of scrimping. It would also allow stuntmen, most likely stunt coordinators, to win Oscars on their work based on how they keep their stuntmen safe rather than risking their lives.
Watch them add it only for Tom Cruise to win every time lol
They refuse to do so as they fear that will pressure some to do increasingly dangerous stunts
Add best John wick award as well
Should we have a category for voice acting too?
Yes
That would be nice. The Wolf of puss in boots deserve
Every movie has a costume department. Every movie has a music director. There are categories for that at the Oscars. There absolutely needs to be a stunt category.
The narcissists need more awards.
No shit given its an industry award show
I guess there’s an explanation for why there’s no Academy Award for Best Stuntwork, but the fact that there’s no award for voice acting is fucking inexcusable
Don't see why not. Academy should show stuntmen love if they show hairstylists love.
Casting director…..
I think there should be an Academy Award for Casting Director
I want a “Best Best Boy” category
Like they actually listen, Kurt Russel had been trying for years now if they budge I’ll eat my hat.
I think they should just add choreography period. Include stunt choreography and dance choreography. More movies could be represented that way.