Mike:

It depends. In general you are correct BUT.... It depends upon the configuration, and don't get me started.

If you have a Cast list configured like this

Cast
Cast
Cast
Stunt Double
Stunt
Cast
Cast

Then yes they would be part of the cast, and this does happen sometimes.

If it is the more common

Cast
Cast
Cast
Stunt
Stunt Double
Stunt Double
Stunt

Then NO those would not be part of the cast.

Skip

LOL, Tim so now you know more than those who made the film.You're a trip.

Skip

Well you started by misquoting me, Tim, which devalues your comment. But who are you? If Hollywood puts them in the middle of a credit list then how can you determine that they are not part of the cast, just because of the word STUNT. That's a joke...right? Thank God, it doesn't happen all that often but it DOES happen? Next time quote me CORRECTLY.

Skip

No you did not quote me correctly, you cherry-picked what you wanted to use out of the quote. That is called misleading information. Sorry, Tim, you do not know more than Hollywood, I have never seen you with any sort of producer credit. You can ASSume but that assumption is not correct.  Now your comment is completely invalid since you misquoted me when you are ready deal with my ENTIRE comment and quote it correctly then MAYBE you will understand it.


Skip

Ok so you do lie and admit it. At least that is honest.

Skip

^5 and GOOD memory, Unicus.

Unfortunately we are required to genuflect and bow to the pope's wishes...NOT.

As I have said repeatedly No if thens...where they can be avoided. Which is what Tim MISSED, I am wise and smart  enough (and probably old enough) to realize that Hollywood is not going to cooperate with us and there are going to be situations where conditionals are unavoidable for a wide variety of reasons.

Skip

And I don't think it renders the data useless at all. I think it is YOU believing that you do, and that despite the credits, you have the mystical ability to determine exactly what they were doing. Now Tim, I am also not going to share a recent title, which I notified friend Unicus of, that I personally think is utterly INSANE in this area. But it definitely fits the pattern described. In fact the title is so NUTS I haven't decided on it...yet, personally. When I saw it, I just said "Why...Why me?"

Also as I have said several times recently when the system was conceived, I had a system in mind that was well aware of the shortcomings and that there would be things which would come up that had not been anticipated, BUT that the system would be able to respond to these issues in a much more timely fashion, than the reality has proven to be true. I'll go no further on this, at least not here, but like so many things, Tim, this yet another instance of you believing that you have ALL knowledge even though you had no hand in the processes and have no knowledge of what all is/was involved.

This is also where you andi part on Notes. i do nott look to be as unclear and uncommunicative as I can be. I have 500,000+ other users that i answer to for the clarity of my notes in explaining what I am ding and why and I will never, as you do, CLAIM to have checked the CLT or CLAIM to do EXTENSIVE research and refuse to share the results of the CLT or the extensive research (or in rare cases personal knowledge)

I will say this on a very personal basis, am I happy when I see this come up...not just NO but Hell, NO! But, at the same time, Tim I will not put myself in a position where I know more than the filmmakers do. I can only deal with the data that I see and in the way it is seen, I cannot determine or interpret why the filmmakers chose to do something in a particular way, even IF i don't like it, personally. That is one big thing that separates me from thee. I will never say to the User Community "It is because I say it is" which all too sadly you do ALL the time, and you believe that Ken thinks that is OK, and I don't. You can throw all the quotes you want, Tim, it means nothing. I work for the COMMUNITY not for Ken and just because Ken says something is OK does not mean that I should do it, particularly if i believe it is contrary to the best interests of the communty.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
The simple fact remains that the rules do not address this. Until they do, I won't be including the kind of Utility Stunt and Utility Stunt drivers Mike refers to. From extensive experience, I can report that most users don't either - and rightly so, for the simple reason I gave earlier: either we track something, or we don't. Not sometimes: that would render the data worthless.

Here we go with the exagerated statement, that can't be proven, that you always fall back on.  You really need to find a new song to sing as you have no idea what most user do or do not do.  Neither do I.  What I do know is what the majority of forum users decided on back when this first came up...and that was to do exactly what the rules tell us to do - "For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited."

Now I know what the usual argument is...stunt people aren't actors.  Well, the same can be said for dancers, band members, newscaster, etc..  While they all play a role, and stunt people do play a role, none of them are 'actors'.  We don't pick and choose, we copy the cast list exactly as it is displayed on screen.