Merged: Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

According to this, he’s one of twelve of a variety of types of producers. I agree that he bears some responsibility in the abstract, but it might be difficult to prove he has any specific reliability or knowledge about the day-to-day safety concerns.

I figure it’s too soon to know how this will shake out.

Thing is, this was his project,hr is the one who originated it. the other producers were more or less hired help. He was calling the shots, and seems to me he should have known about the conditions on the set.

[theprestige]

Is it just me, or is it weird that nobody is asking which producer is responsible for hiring an incompetent armorer?

Sure, Baldwin accepted into his hands a loaded gun from someone other than the armorer. But whose fault was that?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dudalb

That is the way it should be, but sadly in forums nowdays it almost always is.

It sure is, if you make it so.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I smell that just becuase Baldwin is an out spoken liberal, some people will defend and excuse his behavior. That is pretty much as bad as what I see Trump supporters do.

I'm smelling the opposite, that certain people are using this tragedy as an opportunity to stick it to 'liberals', and the defense is justifiable.

I am less interested in assigning blame as in trying to prevent something like this from happening again. Nobody wanted it to happen, and I'm sure that if any of the people involved thought it might they would have taken steps to prevent it. But guns are inherently dangerous, and far too many people are not sufficiently careful when handling them. That's not their fault though - the real culprit here is our gun culture and the people who support it.

I have sympathy for Baldwin because he is primarily an actor and in this case he was acting - not directing, not producing, not handling props etc. He trusted other people to do the job properly and they failed, not him. What's worse is that they put him in the position of 'pulling the trigger'.

Many hateful things have been said about Baldwin over this that try to make him into a criminal, when he is actually a victim. I don't care what his politics are, if this happened to any actor (expect perhaps Steven Seagal) I would be equally perturbed by how he was being treated.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Bob001

It certainly would be, if someone who was "clearly innocent" was prosecuted. But it's indisputable that Baldwin pointed a gun at someone, the gun fired (because Baldwin pulled the trigger, according to the FBI, despite Baldwin's denials) and someone died. A trial is precisely the place to assess his responsibility.

I don't disagree.

Neither does Ziggurat (who started this side-topic).

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is it just me, or is it weird that nobody is asking which producer is responsible for hiring an incompetent armorer?

Sure, Baldwin accepted into his hands a loaded gun from someone other than the armorer. But whose fault was that?

Baldwin's fault. Baldwin was negligent to say the least. It is strange seeing so many people bending themselves into a pretzel to excuse him shooting a person.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Baldwin's fault. Baldwin was negligent to say the least. It is strange seeing so many people bending themselves into a pretzel to excuse him shooting a person.

Yup, from the start of the thread

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

Lots of problems on set, it seems.

Aside from the personnel issues generally, is this:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Perhaps not quite the one-off accident that it seems:



https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

Perhaps the accident was the result of a budget squeeze that resulted in cutting corners.

Normally this isn't something an actor would be responsible for, but Baldwin is also producing this movie. Hard to say what that means, producing can be very hands on or just mean you forked up a bunch of money.

I get the feeling whoever was calling the shots and responsible for cutting corners regarding safety is going to get a fair bit of blame.

Supposedly "cold" gun had two incidents prior to the fatal shooting. Not a good sign of rigorous safety culture.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I'm smelling the opposite, that certain people are using this tragedy as an opportunity to stick it to 'liberals', and the defense is justifiable.

I am less interested in assigning blame as in trying to prevent something like this from happening again. Nobody wanted it to happen, and I'm sure that if any of the people involved thought it might they would have taken steps to prevent it. But guns are inherently dangerous, and far too many people are not sufficiently careful when handling them. That's not their fault though - the real culprit here is our gun culture and the people who support it.

I have sympathy for Baldwin because he is primarily an actor and in this case he was acting - not directing, not producing, not handling props etc. He trusted other people to do the job properly and they failed, not him. What's worse is that they put him in the position of 'pulling the trigger'.

Many hateful things have been said about Baldwin over this that try to make him into a criminal, when he is actually a victim. I don't care what his politics are, if this happened to any actor (expect perhaps Steven Seagal) I would be equally perturbed by how he was being treated.

What part of this film was Baldwin's baby from day one did not you get?

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by dudalb

What part of this film was Baldwin's baby from day one did not you get?

That irrelevant. Just because he came up with the storyline doesn’t make him responsible for health & safety. Production is the responsibility of the production company, which is usually a single-use LLC created and owned by one or more other production companies, distributors and/or financiers.

Anyone can have a ‘baby’ in this sense. If you have a big idea, you find a writer and a director and pitch that team as a package at the trade fairs to attract funding. If you get it, parties A fund party B to make ‘your’ movie and you are paid in cash or points for your concept. The degree to which you can star in it, or retain any control is negotiable. It’s still your ‘baby’ but you may end up with little input in what is made or how it’s made. According to his lawyers, Baldwin only retained a casting veto, which would not be at all unusual.

The Baldwin-as-Producer case ought to come down to a lot of contractual detail but it’s likely the Baldwin producer credit derives solely from him initiating the project and part-funding it (a $100,000 discount off his acting fee) and not from day-to-day production responsibilities. There is a big difference between a producer credit and a producer job. The fact no actual producer has been charged makes me suspect the negligent producer case has no legs whatsoever. A civil trial judge has already ruled that other named producers were not liable for the armourer’s alleged negligence, despite the fact that the full-time producers would have far more insight into production detail and crew feedback. I trust the prosecutors have more to their case than what is public, because, as the industry reps are saying, without it, this prosecution doesn’t seem to have much in the public interest.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Originally Posted by Ranb

Baldwin's fault. Baldwin was negligent to say the least. It is strange seeing so many people bending themselves into a pretzel to excuse him shooting a person.

Yup, from the start of the thread

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

Lots of problems on set, it seems.

Aside from the personnel issues generally, is this:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Perhaps not quite the one-off accident that it seems:



https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

Perhaps the accident was the result of a budget squeeze that resulted in cutting corners.

Normally this isn't something an actor would be responsible for, but Baldwin is also producing this movie. Hard to say what that means, producing can be very hands on or just mean you forked up a bunch of money.

I get the feeling whoever was calling the shots and responsible for cutting corners regarding safety is going to get a fair bit of blame.

Supposedly "cold" gun had two incidents prior to the fatal shooting. Not a good sign of rigorous safety culture.

From that LA Times article.

If you're on set and two supposedly-safe prop guns have been fired, and with staff walking out due to safety issues, I would say that puts responsibility onto any actor who had heard about those.

Quote:

Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.

Then you have the reports of staff using the prop guns for recreational shooting when they were not used.

It was not a surprising accident, but a tragedy waiting to happen given the clearly lax attitudes to gun safety.

[HansMustermann]

It's probably been said before, but... what happened to basic gun safety?

Back when I was in the army (drafted, mind you) even accidentally pointing a gun in someone's direction, even after you took out the mag and pulled the slide, was a mortal sin. The kind where they'd ride your ass all the way to Bethlehem, like you're Joseph

Now I understand that in a movie you occasionally have to fire in someone's direction, and sometimes towards the camera, but even the latter is usually done with a mirror. (Which flips the image, so then you flip it back afterwards.)

So regardless of how good the armourer is, how much you trust the gun to be empty, etc, why in Lucifer Morningstar's good name is he practising his quickdraw towards a crew member? Like, can't he do it towards a wall? Or go, "guys, move to the sides, give me a 3 ft corridor in that direction"?

Again, seems to me like basic gun safety should still apply, unless it's absolutely inevitable to do otherwise.

[erwinl]

What I don't really get is what the alternative should be, if a need to have a real gun to be present on set, is felt.

I mean. There's the armorer, who is responsible for safety. But there has also been talk, that even with the armorer declaring a gun to be 'cold' it still has to be checked before the filming can start.

By whom should it be checked? The persone in whose hand the gun is, should be obvious. But each and every one on set should check it as well?
The last (where the gun and dummy ammo is checked by everyone on set, should be the most safe option. But is this workable if there may be 30-40 or more people on set? How can the first 'checker' know that the gun is still safe if the last person on set has checked it?

Alternatively. If only the 'shooter' has to check the gun (as said, I presume, in a good workflow that the armorer has also checked it), after receving it. Does this still not mean that the rest of the people on set have to trust that the gun is really safe?
In what is this different than keeping the responsibility of checking the gun with only the armorer?

Edit: HansMustermann's post appeared while I was busy with this one. But my question still stands.

[HansMustermann]

With that revolver, you'd have a good reason to be a wee bit more trusting.

The "problem" with revolvers, unlike semi-auto, is that when it points even vaguely towards the camera, you can see the rounds in the side chambers. So they have to have a bullet. So they'd use rounds that look exactly like the normal ones, but with no propellant and cap and a hole in the side of the cartridge case.

Since that hole IIRC isn't visible from the back, you'd have to literally take out every single round out of the cylinder, examine each of them, and put them back.

I dunno about you, but if I saw someone doing that in front of me right there on the set, I'd feel a lot more confident. Doesn't even matter if it's the actor, the armourer, or the janitor. Just seeing them actually examine the rounds would do it for me. Plus, if you're really paranoid, you can stand next to him and see for yourself that it has the hole.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

With that revolver, you'd have a good reason to be a wee bit more trusting.

The "problem" with revolvers, unlike semi-auto, is that when it points even vaguely towards the camera, you can see the rounds in the side chambers. So they have to have a bullet. So they'd use rounds that look exactly like the normal ones, but with no propellant and cap and a hole in the side of the cartridge case.

Since that hole IIRC isn't visible from the back, you'd have to literally take out every single round out of the cylinder, examine each of them, and put them back.

I dunno about you, but if I saw someone doing that in front of me, I'd feel a lot more confident. Plus, if you're really paranoid, you can stand next to him and see for yourself that it has the hole.

Ok.
Suppose I see that checking going on.

But then I have to trust that said person really checked those bullets, wouldn't I? I mean, not that said person would fake checking the ammo (although that is a safety issue as well), but maybe the person was not completely there with his mind (thinking about the upcoming scene or so) and did check, but only saw what he was expecting to see, but not what was really in their hand.

In any case. For any use of a gun, it would have to be checked by anybody even remotely downrange from the gun, wouldn't it? And if not. Why not?

It's all fine and good to have a good firearm gun safety culture, but on a workplace setting, things should be caught in a robust workflow.
How would a workflow like this work, such that there is no issue with having to trust on other people?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by erwinl

What I don't really get is what the alternative should be, if a need to have a real gun to be present on set, is felt.

I mean. There's the armorer, who is responsible for safety. But there has also been talk, that even with the armorer declaring a gun to be 'cold' it still has to be checked before the filming can start.
.....

1/ There is never a need for real guns to be on movie sets. There are commonly available replica guns that cannot hold or fire real rounds. Some will fire blanks.
https://www.mcssl.com/store/59b910c3...ern-blank-guns
https://armory.net/collections/weste...y=best-selling
https://replicaweaponry.com/denix-m1...cap-gun-black/

2/ Multiple sources say that the guns should always be in the hands of the armorer or prop master when they are not being used by actors, and the armorer should inspect the gun closely before every use.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...ls/6161048001/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...sets-1.6221637

The actor doesn't have to be an expert. On a set where there had already been "accidental" discharges, the actor could just point the gun at the ground and pull the trigger six times. Even Baldwin could have done that.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

With that revolver, you'd have a good reason to be a wee bit more trusting.

The "problem" with revolvers, unlike semi-auto, is that when it points even vaguely towards the camera, you can see the rounds in the side chambers. So they have to have a bullet. So they'd use rounds that look exactly like the normal ones, but with no propellant and cap and a hole in the side of the cartridge case.

Since that hole IIRC isn't visible from the back, you'd have to literally take out every single round out of the cylinder, examine each of them, and put them back.

I dunno about you, but if I saw someone doing that in front of me right there on the set, I'd feel a lot more confident. Doesn't even matter if it's the actor, the armourer, or the janitor. Just seeing them actually examine the rounds would do it for me. Plus, if you're really paranoid, you can stand next to him and see for yourself that it has the hole.

As I understand it, dummy rounds don't have primers. That's something the actor or anyone else could see just by looking at the base of the cartridge in the cylinder. And once again, whatever kind of guns they were using, there shouldn't have been live rounds anywhere near the set.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Bob001

1/ There is never a need for real guns to be on movie sets. There are commonly available replica guns that cannot hold or fire real rounds. Some will fire blanks.
https://www.mcssl.com/store/59b910c3...ern-blank-guns
https://armory.net/collections/weste...y=best-selling
https://replicaweaponry.com/denix-m1...cap-gun-black/

2/ Multiple sources say that the guns should always be in the hands of the armorer or prop master when they are not being used by actors, and the armorer should inspect the gun closely before every use.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...ls/6161048001/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...sets-1.6221637

O I agree that there's no need at all for weapons to be present on a set. Rubber weapons can be used for far away shots and for the close ups you have the hero props. No need for a real weapon to be present.
But yet.
Still, there they are. So obviously a need is felt.

Quote:

The actor doesn't have to be an expert. On a set where there had already been "accidental" discharges, the actor could just point the gun at the ground and pull the trigger six times. Even Baldwin could have done that.

But then you're already talking about a broken down workflow.
What would be a reasonable work flow, in the eyes of people, who want (feel a need to have) those guns to be present on set?

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Clearly continued use of the phrase, "Prop Gun", while correct by Hollywood terms, is very misleading to those of us living in the real world. What we have here is a fully operational, real live, honest to goodness hand held firing weapon, and nothing less.


Somebody got very, very sloppy along the way.

Originally Posted by Mike!

I'm going to have a hard time not holding Baldwin primarily responsible for this in the end. He's been working in film for almost 40 years, made lots of movies, I'd say a good double digit percentage of them with a gun in his hand. This was a revolver, it's extremely simple to take a moment to look and see if it is loaded or not, just to be sure. It's not like a semiautomatic where taking the clip out still likely leaves one still in the chamber. I have to believe he's been given enumerable lessons in gun safety through his acting career. No matter what he was told, he should have checked it himself one more time before "practicing" with it. That simple. No excuses. None. It's on him. Now, no doubt, there are others who are also culpable, but in the end, the gun was in Baldwin's hand, and he pulled the trigger. "I didn't know it was loaded." doesn't work for normal folk, and it shouldn't work for him ether.

My first and second post in this thread.
I can't believe this happened well over a year ago already.
I think the charge of accidental manslaughter is going a bit light on him, honestly, it should be negligent homicide.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Mike!

My first and second post in this thread.
I can't believe this happened well over a year ago already.
I think the charge of accidental manslaughter is going a bit light on him, honestly, it should be negligent homicide.

It could be, if you look at it in isolation.

If you look at it, as a result of a deviant culture evolving in the movie industry, where it is thought normal that real guns are allowed to be present, then the issue is somewhat different.

In other words. Is it best to go for the 'punish' route, appropriate for crimes, or go for the safety culture as seen in the airline industry?
How safe can you get it, if no one is watching?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Bob001

As I understand it, dummy rounds don't have primers. That's something the actor or anyone else could see just by looking at the base of the cartridge in the cylinder. And once again, whatever kind of guns they were using, there shouldn't have been live rounds anywhere near the set.

That must be something they brought in following Brandon Lee's death. They left the primers in the dummy rounds. Somebody fired one and that was enough to force the bullet into the barrel. Then the round was replaced by a blank and the charge in the blank was enough to fire the bullet out of the barrel with enough force to kill Lee.

Personally, I would make the dummies out of plastic and easily recognisable when examined e.g. make the base a fluorescent colour or something.

Originally Posted by Bob001

The actor doesn't have to be an expert. On a set where there had already been "accidental" discharges, the actor could just point the gun at the ground and pull the trigger six times. Even Baldwin could have done that.

That won't work if one of the rounds is meant to be a blank. If he fires the gun six times, they'll have to load it again and you're back to where you started.

It seems to me that the safety rules Hollywood has in place have been fairly effective right up until Alec Baldwin was handed a gun with a live round in it. I mean, the previous incident of this nature that made the news seems to have been the death of Brandon Lee. Both Lee's death and Halyna Hutchins' death seem to have been caused by the rules being broken. Do you add more rules? It will save maybe a person every thirty years, or maybe not if it's because the new rules are broken.

If you're worried about safety on film sets, it seems to me that pyrotechnics, long falls and helicopters need to be looked at first.

[Nessie]

What have Alec Baldwin, a six year old school boy and a dog all got in common?

[Mike!]

I'll play!

[Nieve questioning voice] I don't know, what do, Alec Baldwin, a six year old school boy and a dog all got in common?[/nieve questioning voice]

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Mike!

I'll play!

[Nieve questioning voice] I don't know, what do, Alec Baldwin, a six year old school boy and a dog all got in common?[/nieve questioning voice]

They have all shot someone, and that bizarre combination is only possible in the USA, because only the USA has enough guns, combined with a lax attitude to guns, to make that combination possible.

The result is an unsolvable problem, where Americans just need to accept they have failed and to learn how best to cope with that failure.

[HansMustermann]

To be fair, unlike the dog and the 6yo, in a movie occasionally you do need guns. But as I was saying, normally I would expect basic gun safety rules to still apply. The fact that he just practised a quickdraw and shoot at a crew member when they weren't even filming is what I find appalling.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

That must be something they brought in following Brandon Lee's death. They left the primers in the dummy rounds. Somebody fired one and that was enough to force the bullet into the barrel. Then the round was replaced by a blank and the charge in the blank was enough to fire the bullet out of the barrel with enough force to kill Lee.

Personally, I would make the dummies out of plastic and easily recognisable when examined e.g. make the base a fluorescent colour or something.



That won't work if one of the rounds is meant to be a blank. If he fires the gun six times, they'll have to load it again and you're back to where you started.

It seems to me that the safety rules Hollywood has in place have been fairly effective right up until Alec Baldwin was handed a gun with a live round in it. I mean, the previous incident of this nature that made the news seems to have been the death of Brandon Lee. Both Lee's death and Halyna Hutchins' death seem to have been caused by the rules being broken. Do you add more rules? It will save maybe a person every thirty years, or maybe not if it's because the new rules are broken.

It's not that one safety rule was broken- it was like a dozen that ended with a corpse. It starts with a live round on set. It ended with pointing a gun at someone you did not intend to shoot and pulling the trigger, for no reason at all other than utterly careless rehearsing.

ETA: it took a lot of really dumbass carelessness to result in the body bag. What this says is that there were likely many, many times when they were just as close, but one element (like the final trigger pull while pointing at a person) didn't happen.

Quote:

If you're worried about safety on film sets, it seems to me that pyrotechnics, long falls and helicopters need to be looked at first.

Actual stunts are dangerous by nature. Practicing a scene that should have been done with nothing that goes bang at all should not have been any more dangerous than sipping coffee.

[HansMustermann]

This.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

That must be something they brought in following Brandon Lee's death. They left the primers in the dummy rounds. Somebody fired one and that was enough to force the bullet into the barrel. Then the round was replaced by a blank and the charge in the blank was enough to fire the bullet out of the barrel with enough force to kill Lee.

Personally, I would make the dummies out of plastic and easily recognisable when examined e.g. make the base a fluorescent colour or something.



That won't work if one of the rounds is meant to be a blank. If he fires the gun six times, they'll have to load it again and you're back to where you started.

It seems to me that the safety rules Hollywood has in place have been fairly effective right up until Alec Baldwin was handed a gun with a live round in it. I mean, the previous incident of this nature that made the news seems to have been the death of Brandon Lee. Both Lee's death and Halyna Hutchins' death seem to have been caused by the rules being broken. Do you add more rules? It will save maybe a person every thirty years, or maybe not if it's because the new rules are broken.

If you're worried about safety on film sets, it seems to me that pyrotechnics, long falls and helicopters need to be looked at first.

The point of dummy rounds is so they look real. You can see just a bit of the base of a cartridge if viewing from the rear of a revolver. Its kind of a feature I think to see if its loaded or not (I assume?). But you cannot tell if theres a primer or not. So a fluorescent colored dummy would not do much, may as well just leave the gun empty.

[lobosrul5]

BTW just something I was made privy to... I know for a fact that a person died on a film set in New Mexico just a few months after this incident, in an accident that I can only describe as... what in the **** were they thinking. I only know this because I'm friends with someone who worked on it*.
It did not involve a famous person or a gun, and a quite settlement was reached. I'm just pointing this out because maybe we are putting too much emphasis on very very rare gun safety deaths on film sets and not enough on other types of accidents. And it makes me wonder how incomplete Thermals linked list is. Theres probably many more that just never become public.

*no, I'm not bragging that I know a famous actor or director etc, she was working as a PA.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by erwinl

Ok.
Suppose I see that checking going on.

But then I have to trust that said person really checked those bullets, wouldn't I? I mean, not that said person would fake checking the ammo (although that is a safety issue as well), but maybe the person was not completely there with his mind (thinking about the upcoming scene or so) and did check, but only saw what he was expecting to see, but not what was really in their hand.

In any case. For any use of a gun, it would have to be checked by anybody even remotely downrange from the gun, wouldn't it? And if not. Why not?

It's all fine and good to have a good firearm gun safety culture, but on a workplace setting, things should be caught in a robust workflow.
How would a workflow like this work, such that there is no issue with having to trust on other people?

Yes, well, nothing is perfect, but every bit helps.

Plus, again, it wouldn't have even mattered, if he wasn't pointing the gun and pulling the trigger at a crew member when not even filming. There was absolutely zero justification for that.

Again, the rule I was taught in the army was to never flag someone with the gun even if I just ejected the magazine and pulled the slide myself. ALWAYS assume it's loaded. It's not even a question of whether I trust someone else. I certainly trust myself, since I just checked 1 second ago. Just don't.

Plus, again, even when filming there are ways to apply most of that. Like, when you're supposed to shoot towards the camera, as I was saying, other movies used a mirror at 45 degrees so the gun isn't actually pointing anywhere near it. Or when shooting at each other, unless it's point blank, most people won't notice that you were aiming a wee bit to the side of the other bloke.

And, sure. It won't ever be 100% safe, but that's no reason to not even try to make it a bit safer.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Yes, well, nothing is perfect, but every bit helps.

Plus, again, it wouldn't have even mattered, if he wasn't pointing the gun and pulling the trigger at a crew member when not even filming. There was absolutely zero justification for that.

Again, the rule I was taught in the army was to never flag someone with the gun even if I just ejected the magazine and pulled the slide myself. ALWAYS assume it's loaded. It's not even a question of whether I trust someone else. I certainly trust myself, since I just checked 1 second ago. Just don't.

Plus, again, even when filming there are ways to apply most of that. Like, when you're supposed to shoot towards the camera, as I was saying, other movies used a mirror at 45 degrees so the gun isn't actually pointing anywhere near it. Or when shooting at each other, unless it's point blank, most people won't notice that you were aiming a wee bit to the side of the other bloke.

And, sure. It won't ever be 100% safe, but that's no reason to not even try to make it a bit safer.

Pointing that wee bit beside the other actor is just something the other actor has to trust you’ll do, isn’t he? Not something to be counted upon, if hands can slip, people lose their stand, or things like that.
Or would you be happy with it, if somebody do that with you?

No doubt there was a lot of complacency on that set. But this could only happen, because it is thought normal for guns to be present on sets like that.
It’s not a personal responsibility question, but one of the entire culture on those sets. And that is what has to be looked at.

There are alternatives to real weapons. Why is it possible that they aren’t used?
And no. A statement like ‘it hardly ever goes wrong’ is not a reason to allow guns on the set (or any set).

[Jack by the hedge]

I presume in countries like the UK where you can't actually get hand guns, all productions invariably use dummies as props. A problem in the US is real guns are probably cheaper than dummies, and readily available, so the temptation to use them will always be there. Even if you rule that no real guns are allowed on set, props need to be realistic so you still need to treat those props as if they might be real by mistake.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by erwinl

No doubt there was a lot of complacency on that set. But this could only happen, because it is thought normal for guns to be present on sets like that.

That's true but not useful. In this case (and often others like it), disaster struck not because of a single failure, but because of a chain of failures. Had any one of the links in that chain not failed, then no one would be dead. It's true that if guns were never on set then no one would be dead, but it's true of every step in that chain.

Furthermore, it's true of a whole bunch of other steps in a whole bunch of other chains. Movies routinely do things besides guns where a chain of failures could end up killing someone. So do a LOT of jobs. Should we never let movies use real cars in stunts, because a car crash could kill someone? Should we never let stuntmen do falls from high places because a fall could kill someone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt_performer#Deaths
How many of these deaths did you know about? How many of them caused a scandal? It sure as hell isn't all of them.

Actors and stuntmen routinely take risks to make more realistic and more exciting movies. Firearms aren't special in this regard. We should demand that risks be controlled and minimized, that safety rules be put in place to help ensure that. But we're not going to bring those risks down to zero without making it basically impossible to do a huge class of movies. Neither actors nor stunt people, the ones taking those risks, actually think that tradeoff is worth it, which is why you aren't seeing any demand from SAG or others to get rid of all guns. The normal rules work pretty damn well, when people actually try to follow them. So just follow those normal rules.

The production of Rust was a **** show. It violated many, many safety rules before the shooting. It didn't come out of nowhere, it wasn't completely unforseeable. We don't need to prevent other productions from using firearms when the track record for productions that actually try to follow sensible safety precautions is actually extremely good.

Quote:

There are alternatives to real weapons. Why is it possible that they aren’t used?

Because the alternatives are either expensive or not realistic (or both).

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I presume in countries like the UK where you can't actually get hand guns, all productions invariably use dummies as props. A problem in the US is real guns are probably cheaper than dummies, and readily available, so the temptation to use them will always be there. Even if you rule that no real guns are allowed on set, props need to be realistic so you still need to treat those props as if they might be real by mistake.

The need to do that, still does not mean that real weapons on set are acceptable.

It has to be thought of as a safety system, where all the shackles together make a chain, which will not fail.
With all the talk going of persecuting Baldwin, what is being done to strengthen that safety system?
Or is no change needed? Are things as they should be, provided the few people who make mistakes get punished for doing so?

[carlosy]

I would assume that there is already some good amount of fake guns available for filming. Especially for scenes where a gun is absolutely pointed at another person.

I mean, there have been lots of scenes in TV shows and movies where someone has a gun directly pointed at someones head, I mean actually touching the head. And there are even scenes where the trigger is actually pulled in that situation. So there must be fake guns available, right? Things that look like the real deal, but are technically not even capable of firing a bullet, even if by any chance a live round finds it way into it.

Right?

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's true but not useful. In this case (and often others like it), disaster struck not because of a single failure, but because of a chain of failures. Had any one of the links in that chain not failed, then no one would be dead. It's true that if guns were never on set then no one would be dead, but it's true of every step in that chain.

Furthermore, it's true of a whole bunch of other steps in a whole bunch of other chains. Movies routinely do things besides guns where a chain of failures could end up killing someone. So do a LOT of jobs. Should we never let movies use real cars in stunts, because a car crash could kill someone? Should we never let stuntmen do falls from high places because a fall could kill someone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt_performer#Deaths
How many of these deaths did you know about? How many of them caused a scandal? It sure as hell isn't all of them.

Actors and stuntmen routinely take risks to make more realistic and more exciting movies. Firearms aren't special in this regard. We should demand that risks be controlled and minimized, that safety rules be put in place to help ensure that. But we're not going to bring those risks down to zero without making it basically impossible to do a huge class of movies. Neither actors nor stunt people, the ones taking those risks, actually think that tradeoff is worth it, which is why you aren't seeing any demand from SAG or others to get rid of all guns. The normal rules work pretty damn well, when people actually try to follow them. So just follow those normal rules.

The production of Rust was a **** show. It violated many, many safety rules before the shooting. It didn't come out of nowhere, it wasn't completely unforseeable. We don't need to prevent other productions from using firearms when the track record for productions that actually try to follow sensible safety precautions is actually extremely good.



Because the alternatives are either expensive or not realistic (or both).

And yet replica guns are made and are being used. So these are thought of as good enough for on the screen.

Where the problem is, with this movie Rust, or like that aircraft disaster in that Texas airshow, is that the system as it is now enables people to disregard the system. And that there is nothing to stop people from disregarding it. Not as long as disasters don’t happen.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by erwinl

And yet replica guns are made and are being used. So these are thought of as good enough for on the screen.

They are good enough, if you don't have to fire them. If you want to fire a gun and make it realistic, you either need to spend a lot of money for good CG, or you need to use a real one.

Quote:

Where the problem is, with this movie Rust, or like that aircraft disaster in that Texas airshow, is that the system as it is now enables people to disregard the system. And that there is nothing to stop people from disregarding it. Not as long as disasters don’t happen.

If you make a rule that real guns aren't allowed on set, people can ignore that rule just as easily as they can ignore rules about how to handle real guns on set.

[Marcus]

Baldwin didn't aim at the victim. They were working out the logistics of a crossdraw show while seated on a church pew, i.e. the positioning of the final aiming point, which was supposed to be at a camera. The gun went off halfway through its arc, between where it was holstered on his left to the final aiming point on his right.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Baldwin didn't aim at the victim. They were working out the logistics of a crossdraw show while seated on a church pew, i.e. the positioning of the final aiming point, which was supposed to be at a camera. The gun went off halfway through its arc, between where it was holstered on his left to the final aiming point on his right.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is more detail than I've read. What's your source?

[Marcus]

This article gives some of the details.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/enter...day/index.html


Also all of this was discussed in great technical detail, I think it was in this thread, or perhaps it was links referenced earlier in this thread. Later when I have time I'll see if I can find it.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Marcus

This article gives some of the details.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/enter...day/index.html


Also all of this was discussed in great technical detail, I think it was in this thread, or perhaps it was links referenced earlier in this thread. Later when I have time I'll see if I can find it.

There's a lengthy section about previous complaints about the assistant director.

Quote:

Halls had been the subject of complaints over safety and his behavior on set during two productions in 2019, two people who worked closely with him told CNN.

Assistant director on 'Rust' was subject of complaints dating back to 2019
The complaints against Halls include a disregard for safety protocols for weapons and pyrotechnics use, blocked fire lanes and exits, and instances of inappropriately sexual behavior in the workplace.

Maggie Goll, an IATSE Local 44 prop maker and licensed pyrotechnician, said in a statement to CNN that while working on Hulu’s “Into the Dark” Anthology Series in February and May of 2019, Halls neglected to hold safety meetings and consistently failed to announce the presence of a firearm on set to the crew, as is protocol.

It links to another story.

Quote:

An assistant director on the film set of “Rust” was the subject of complaints over safety and his behavior on set during two productions in 2019, two people who worked closely with him tell CNN.

The complaints against assistant director Dave Halls include a disregard for safety protocols for weapons and pyrotechnics use, blocked fire lanes and exits, and instances of inappropriately sexual behavior in the workplace.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/24/enter...nts/index.html

The first story doesn't say how long it took to get Hutchins to a hospital. Maybe she could have survived with speedier care.