Reality is far more complex than that. Yes, stunt people tend to be a risk seeking crowd. But there’s also the risk of losing their livelihood if they refuse a director’s demands. Film business is a precarious way to make a living, and the power gulf between the director and the stunt person is massive.

History is full of “I think this is a bad idea, but I’ll do it” accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and regularly do dangerous things against their better judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to drastically over simplify the situation.

So again, they chose between doing stunts or doing something else. You don't work to do the stunts in the movie? Fine, don't work on the movie, it's not essential to life anyways so continue on with your life.

Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they should be expected to do them in an unsafe way? Only people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people? I feel like you've got a false dichotomy here. A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to take their staff's safety into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.

> Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they should be expected to do them in an unsafe way?

No, did someone claim that? Stuntmen regularly decline to perform stunts they perceive to be too dangerous. It's part of their job to do risk evaluation and say yes or no.

> Only people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people?

Eh, yes, that's literally the definition of being a stuntman, you do things that are dangerous in place of someone else because you know how to manage the dangerous situation compared to the other non-educated (in dangerousness) person you're replacing for that scene.

> A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to take their staff's safety into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.

Yes, agree! That's why there is a whole stunt team on set, not just the director and the stuntmen themselves. As a team they evaluate the stunts and stop them if they are too unsafe.

Unfortunately, every single stunt in the industry carries the risk of death, so if we want to be really safe, we simply cannot have action movies anymore at all.

The person you were replying to was speaking specifically about situations where the stunt person was uncomfortable doing the stunt and felt pressured into attempting it rather than risking their job.

Who said that it had to be 100% safe? The situations being discussed are those where someone involved felt it was being done in a way that exceeded their risk tolerance but did not feel comfortable refusing.

I guess thinking employees deserve the ability to refuse dangerous work without losing their jobs is just unreasonable coddling of people who should have to risk their lives because the director thinks doing the shot this way would be cooler.

Individual responsibility is not a thing in a nanny state.

For all their faults nanny states do generally allow professionals to do their jobs. The grandparent comment is beyond even that. They're just assuming that because they can't look at a stunt situation and assess the danger with a reasonable degree of accuracy that neither can an experienced professional.

Continue with your life, and risk losing your career. I think if you’re not accounting for this risk in how people think, then you are absolutely misunderstanding what motivates people to do what they do.

Again, people regularly do things against their best judgement because of social and economic pressure. Stunt people are not magically excluded from this process.

Tell that to the Twilight Zone victims.

What am I supposed to tell them? That they chose to be in a risky business (or their parents chose for them to be in a risky business) and in risky businesses there is a chance to get hurt?

In the accident two children were killed by a helicopter due to explosives firing too early: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident

I don’t think they „chose“ to be in a risky business..

It's also noted in my previous comment "(or their parents chose for them to be in a risky business)". Since children don't have their own willpower legally or otherwise until they become adults, their parents are their guardian and ultimately responsible for them. Their parents chose to participate in something they knew was dangerous. We've always known flight in general is dangerous and when combined with explosives, extra dangerous.

From the Wikipedia link:

> All four parents testified that they were never told that there would be helicopters or explosives on set, and they had been reassured that there would be no danger, only noise.

If me and my kids were to be in a film, and the crew assured me there would be no helicopters or explosives on set, but then I arrive and they tell me to go into a helicopter and that explosives will happen next to it, don't I bear responsibility for accepting that?

You make it sound like someone forced the parents and the kids to jump into the helicopter.

They kids were not in the helicopter and the parents were told in the evening before the shooting that it will be just loud but not explosions. The directors specifically hid the kids from fire safety and wellfare officers knowing that what they were doing was illegal.

Quite honestly the entire story is sickening if you read the reports about it.