Quoting TheMovieman:

Quote:
I've seen the stunts listed with the cast in several instances but have always considered them part of the crew. This recently came up in a contribution (for The Interpreter) and was wondering what should be done.

Technically, they are sometimes listed with the cast but they don't play characters but, IMO, logically they are part of the crew.

I feel the same way...but, if there is no space seperating them from the regular cast list, then they must be included as part of the cast.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that if it's
Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt
Actor
Actor

they are included...but if it's

Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt
other crew

they aren't.

Steve

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting TheMovieman:

Quote:
I've seen the stunts listed with the cast in several instances but have always considered them part of the crew. This recently came up in a contribution (for The Interpreter) and was wondering what should be done.

Technically, they are sometimes listed with the cast but they don't play characters but, IMO, logically they are part of the crew.

I wondered the same but the rules say to list "actor’s Name and the Role that they played" which is why I voted yes. There is no "role" per say, the name is just followed by "stunts". Is stunts considered a role? Also, if this is correct and stunts should be eliminated, would the "source" be the rules?

If the stunt players are an integral part of the cast list - same font, same spacing, etc., then they are to be included.  If there is gap between actors and stunt people, or a change of font, then they aren't.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
[
I wondered the same but the rules say to list "actor’s Name and the Role that they played" which is why I voted yes. There is no "role" per say, the name is just followed by "stunts". Is stunts considered a role? Also, if this is correct and stunts should be eliminated, would the "source" be the rules?

What if the actor that the stunt is replacing ("playing") is listed? That's as good as a role, surely.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
[
I wondered the same but the rules say to list "actor’s Name and the Role that they played" which is why I voted yes. There is no "role" per say, the name is just followed by "stunts". Is stunts considered a role? Also, if this is correct and stunts should be eliminated, would the "source" be the rules?

What if the actor that the stunt is replacing ("playing") is listed? That's as good as a role, surely.

I'm sooo confused! Personally I feel that people who perform the stunts should be included - the movie would not be the same without them. I changed my vote to neutral until I understand the rule correctly and can make the correct choice.

Generally, Kathy stunt people are not part of the Cast, they are USUALLY spearated from the cast and in their own listing. There are occassions where the stunt, or some of them, are actually a part of the cast listing. I don't like it, but it is what it is and in those cases they are part of the Cast. What snarbo referred to was derived from reporting what we went through with Stunts on the last Rules rewrite which was never published.<shrugs>

Skip

Uhh yep, have i told you lately how much I hate Hollywood.

Skip

Quoting Touti:

Quote:
Snarbo's example is good but it left one possibility out.

Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt

Crew

Should they be considered part of the cast ?

No. As I stated earlier I did read in one of the forum's somewhere

Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt
Actor
Actor
they are credited

Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt
other crew

or
Actor
Actor
Stunt
Stunt

Crew

they are not.
second NOT example is basically the same as the first NOT example.

Steve