GaryM
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,518
- Location
- Was KMMU, looking at KCOE
- Display Name
Display name:
Gary M
Not this time.CGI is expensive, gunpower is cheap.
Not this time.CGI is expensive, gunpower is cheap.
No chance.Wonder if this movie will even get finished?
It’s a low budget western and so low budget that they’ve alienated much of the film crew in the first couple weeks.
Now there’s a fatality.
And let’s be real…..who in the hell is going to pay to see a Western starring Alex Baldwin?
The union supposedly said there were live rounds in the gun. Alec should have known better, should get at least manslaughter charges for this.
My sense is that he's a douche, but I wouldn't wish this on anyone. What a terrible accident/mistake/careless oversight.
Not true, he should have checked the gun when it was handed to him, even a "cold" gun should never be pointed at anyone, and you don't just willy nilly pull the trigger on any gun, especially when you are pointing it at someone. This lady was not an actor, so he had no reason to point it at her. This is his fault, he may not be solely at fault, but he had to do a lot of things wrong for this to happen. The disgruntled employee thing is a dumb theory, but people are working overtime to make him the victim here when he failed on many levels and killed someone.If a disgruntled employee substituted a live round instead of a blank, it’s not his fault.
I’m pretty sure the gun safety rules, as we know them, aren’t operative on a film set, just like the aviation safety rules. There are rules, they’re extremely strict, and they apparently weren’t followed here. But when you say “never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot,” you might as well say “I have no idea what happens on a film set.” .
Since there are crews that do in fact know how to properly handle firearms, there is no excuse for a negligent discharge. None. Nada. Zilch.
I've worked on film sets where guns were being used. Gun safety rules are absolutely operative on film sets. You shouldn't point guns at people, even on film sets. Even when filming. Do people forget that safety rules exist for reasons that are true even in front of cameras? Yes. Do safety rules get broken on film sets? Yes. But that doesn't make it acceptable.I’m pretty sure the gun safety rules, as we know them, aren’t operative on a film set, just like the aviation safety rules. There are rules, they’re extremely strict, and they apparently weren’t followed here. But when you say “never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot,” you might as well say “I have no idea what happens on a film set.” As for “there was no reason for him to point a gun at that woman,” you presume to know what the script says. Maybe I’m wrong, you’ve read it, and you know what scene they were working on.
No one dislikes Alec Baldwin more than I do — remember when he said the wives and daughters of pro-life Congressmen should be raped? — but it’s entirely possible that he’s innocent here. Some of us should take this opportunity to learn compassion toward a fellow man, even if he’s generally distasteful.
Gun safety rules are good, but they aren't absolute, either, and there are times when a person might have assumed something was a replica that wasn't. I for one am FOR airsoft training, for example.I've worked on film sets where guns were being used. Gun safety rules are absolutely operative on film sets. You shouldn't point guns at people, even on film sets. Even when filming. Do people forget that safety rules exist for reasons that are true even in front of cameras? Yes. Do safety rules get broken on film sets? Yes. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
It is ironic. For someone who is so very, very anti-gun, he seems to accepts paychecks for an awful lot of roles that involve him running around pointing guns at people.
This is flawed logic, also. Most of the "good guys" that guys like Baldwin plays are considered the "hero" of the story. How many of the Nazi or KKK movies portray them as good guys, vs. bad guys?By that logic, historical pieces featuring Nazis or the KKK should only be produced by people who are pro-Nazi or pro-KKK, etc?
And when you do airsoft training, do you ASSume the gun someone hands you is an airsoft gun? I'd bet you don't.Gun safety rules are good, but they aren't absolute, either, and there are times when a person might have assumed something was a replica that wasn't. I for one am FOR airsoft training, for example.
The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.
Sad story all the way around. Can't help but be interested to hear what the causes were, assuming they eventually come out.
I've been around a bit of the film industry. I think about the parallels between aviation and movie-making:
The Swiss Cheese Model: I have to assume a lot of things went wrong to end up with one person dead and one injured after what was supposed to be a normal day of filming. Just like in aviation, an accident usually isn't the result of one thing, rather a lining-up of several different disparate events.
Get there-itis: Filming a movie is a complex operation, with lots of moving pieces. And when it's in the middle of production, you're usually burning money by the truckload. People get in a hurry, corners get cut, and things still work out fine, right up until they don't.
I think one can make the same case for gear up landings.
...
No, but I'm also not an actor.And when you do airsoft training, do you ASSume the gun someone hands you is an airsoft gun? I'd bet you don't.
Regardless of the era of the firearm, no one, including actors, is excused feom knowing and verifying the condition of a firearm he is holding. And if live rounds are being used on set, everyone is aware. And you don't point guns at people and pull the trigger!The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.
The union - who's members walked off the set, seems to be (understandably) pushing a smear campaign on the non-union scab crew that replaced them.
It sounds like someone gave Alec a gun loaded with live blanks and maybe he thought he was just supposed to be dry-firing the gun.
If so, that still looks bad for Baldwin. I personally own and shoot several 19th century replica handguns. You may not be able to tell easily if there are blanks or actual bullets in the gun, but it's pretty obvious if there are cartridges of any kind loaded in the weapon.
And haven't spent time on professional film sets where firearms are being used.No, but I'm also not an actor.
Regardless of the era of the firearm, no one, including actors, is excused feom knowing and verifying the condition of a firearm he is holding. And if live rounds are being used on set, everyone is aware. And you don't point guns at people and pull the trigger!
But movies do teach. If you're really anti gun, don't be doing a film that teaches that a good guy with a gun is a legitimate option. The left loves to call out right-wing hypocrites, and they should, but it goes both ways.I'm confident that a historically accurate Old West portrayal would feature plenty of guns on all sides. If they didn't, you'd most likely be complaining that he'd rewritten history to suit his personal views. I think it's a pretty silly argument, frankly.
The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.
The union - who's members walked off the set, seems to be (understandably) pushing a smear campaign on the non-union scab crew that replaced them.
It sounds like someone gave Alec a gun loaded with live blanks and maybe he thought he was just supposed to be dry-firing the gun.
If so, that still looks bad for Baldwin. I personally own and shoot several 19th century replica handguns. You may not be able to tell easily if there are blanks or actual bullets in the gun, but it's pretty obvious if there are cartridges of any kind loaded in the weapon.
But would a blank penetrate this lady's abdomen, exit through her back, then go through the director's shoulder?
This was a serious f-up. Why would Baldwin point the gun at a crew member who he would have absolutely no reason to point a gun at, ever, never mind point and pull the trigger? He's a hot head, no body should deny that. There are reports this lady was one of the main people complaining about how the crew was being treated and I read another report, although unsubstantiated, that she and Baldwin had gotten into it a few hours before. Maybe he wanted to put a little scare into her? Who knows, but this should not have happened.
Do we have any confirmation that is what happened?
Kind of like with aviation accidents, I’d maintain a healthy sense of skepticism at this point.
If it was an actual projectile round, I’d think LE would definitely be looking at possible sabotage by one of the union members
This is where we disagree... but it obviously wasn't verified empty.even if the gun was empty and he had verified it was empty.
this has already been addressed multiple times in this thread. have you ever seen where an actor is looking directly at the camera? it's the same thing, it's the camera perspective of someone shooting right at you, and the only way to do that is for the actor to, you guessed it, shoot directly at you (you being the camera, with a camera person right behind the camera). strange that this really needs any explanation.
as to your point about the lady complaining.......did you see the video of her riding on a horse saying "one of the many percs of being on this crew is being able to ride horses every day", or something to that effect? she didn't seem to be complaining then......
the thing I don't understand is about the "crew" that walked off and was quickly and easily replaced by another "crew". is "crew" a bunch of extras that I could see being easily replaced? because I wouldn't think an actual film crew could be that easily replaced. the "crew" complained that the hotels they were put up in was too far away from the set.
This is where we disagree... but it obviously wasn't verified empty.
My understanding is that if a gun is pointed at a camera and fired, the camera operator is not behind that camera. That's common sense. A scene can be rehearsed, the camera set up, and when the scene is shot, the camera is turned on, the operator gets out of the danger zone, then the action commences.
If the gun is not fired but pointed at the camera and for some reason it needs to have dummy bullets in it, the camera operator plus a host of other people confirm the gun will not fire before the scene happens.
They might be. But there are other really stupid ways that could happen.Do we have any confirmation that is what happened?
Kind of like with aviation accidents, I’d maintain a healthy sense of skepticism at this point.
If it was an actual projectile round, I’d think LE would definitely be looking at possible sabotage by one of the union members
Where do you get this info from? It may be true, I don’t know squat about filming movies, but I have to say this sounds pretty made up to me. Please prove me wrong.
I get this info from working on sets where guns are being handled.Where do you get this info from? It may be true, I don’t know squat about filming movies, but I have to say this sounds pretty made up to me. Please prove me wrong.