[Merged] Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun - Page 10

SuburbanTurkey · 25th October 2021, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because of the oldest, most proven, and most ubiquitous rule of the universe.

**** Happens.

"But one incident is one too many" is an unrealistic truism.

This one incident should (and surely will) be investigated and appropriate consequences should applied once the facts are clear, no arguments there.

But it's not some watershed moment for onset gun safety. It's not the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire or Chernobyl for action films.

Sometimes an incident is just an incident, not a canary in a coal mine.

But why does **** happen? Sometimes unforeseeable flukes occur, but more often than not it's because best practices aren't followed, either out of ignorance, laziness, or cheapness.

You correctly say that workplace accidents happen in other industries. Most of the time it's possible to pinpoint why these safety failures occur, and very rarely is the conclusion "**** happens".

ETA: I predict that the fault this workplace accident, like most, can be pinpointed by failures to have systems in place consistent with best practices. An individual or individuals are likely responsible and they should be identified and punished as appropriate.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Compilation of full blowback and recoil Airsoft pistols with magazines a revolver and Winchester that load with and eject individual cartridges and an assault rifle with operating bolt and recoil.

If you 'over gas' them and operate without BB s you even get 'smoke' in the right places
Just add sound

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Those look pretty good. I would say, though, you still need a better product for use on film. It can be done, obviously, but I don't think off-the-shelf airsoft is the answer. Maybe for some direct-to-video stuff, it is.

ETA: I see their SIG P229 replica is around $150, I have a real SIG P227. Maybe I will get the airsoft version, to compare.

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Those look pretty good. I would say, though, you still need a better product for use on film. It can be done, obviously, but I don't think off-the-shelf airsoft is the answer. Maybe for some direct-to-video stuff, it is.

Without handling the best, I defy you to tell the difference on a film

Jack by the hedge · 25th October 2021, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't want to see your version of John Wick.

Hasn't John Wick already come up in this thread as an example of a film (several films) where lots of people got shot at close range so consequently blanks were not a safe option and dummy guns were used with muzzle flashes added in post?

In which case, you did see that version.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

There's a lot of cases of hearing loss and of minor burns from handling firearms.

Some notable ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sion_accidents

But on the same list are things like "Mathew Perry dislocated his shoulder doing a comical pratfall over a chair filming an episode of Friends" and we are don't have a discussion about making chairs safer.

Explosives seem to be a much more common source of death and injury than guns, clearly we need to replace them with only airsoft.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

But why does **** happen? Sometimes unforeseeable flukes occur, but more often than not it's because best practices aren't followed, either our of ignorance, laziness, or cheapness.

And it is not unlikely that that is the case here. But that is the **** that he was talking about as much as truly unpredictable accidents.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:48 AM

Modest proposal.

The firearm equivalent to the Mill Blackbird.

The Mill Blackbird is specially made vehicle specifically designed to be CGI over'ed. It's a robust stuntcar with a safety cage that you can drive in a scene doing all your crazy stunts and crashes, and latter CGI any make/model of car you want over it. The vehicle is able to shift it's dimensions slightly to confirm to the rough shape of most any car.

http://archive.themill.com/portfolio...lackbird%C2%AE

Make that, but a gun. A small not a gun that can recoil and have weight and heft but can't actually fire that you can have on set and then latter just slap a Desert Eagle or a Colt .45 or a Luger over it.

Have a revolver model, a semi-automatic model, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Modest proposal.

The firearm equivalent to the Mill Blackbird.

The Mill Blackbird is specially made vehicle specifically designed to be CGI over'ed. It's a robust stuntcar with a safety cage that you can drive in a scene doing all your crazy stunts and crashes, and latter CGI any make/model of car you want over it. The vehicle is able to shift it's dimensions slightly to confirm to the rough shape of most any car.

http://archive.themill.com/portfolio...lackbird%C2%AE

Make that, but a gun. A small not a gun that can recoil and have weight and heft but can't actually fire that you can have on set and then latter just slap a Desert Eagle or a Colt .45 or a Luger over it.

Have a revolver model, a semi-automatic model, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.

If you are getting rid of firing blanks on set why would you need something like that?

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Hasn't John Wick already come up in this thread as an example of a film (several films) where lots of people got shot at close range so consequently blanks were not a safe option and dummy guns were used with muzzle flashes added in post?

In which case, you did see that version.

I'm pretty sure they weren't using $20 airsoft props. But, if you find evidence of such, please provide the link.

In the meantime, here is Keanu Reeves training:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Something tells me they probably used some fairly functional weapons in the movie; at least with blanks.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

If you are getting rid of firing blanks on set why would you need something like that?

One of the earlier complaints from the "If guns aren't perfect then my immersion is totally ruined" crowd was that actors can't mimic recoil properly.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I would imagine that some of the additional costs incurred with a safer prop might be offset by reduced insurance costs? If worse comes to worst, you can always reduce the catering budget.

Cutting craft services is possibly the fastest and most effective way to destroy set morale.

A couple of hot meals is probably half or more of the compensation for the PAs.

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm pretty sure they weren't using $20 airsoft props. But, if you find evidence of such, please provide the link.

In the meantime, here is Keanu Reeves training:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Something tells me they probably used some fairly functional weapons in the movie; at least with blanks.

Why would they use a $20 airsoft prop and not a good quality one?
When the British Army put on a recruiting display the weapons they use are Airsoft replicas. Even picking up the SA80s and the SAWs they had on show I didn't realise they weren't the real thing until one of the squaddies pulled the mag on the SA80 and the belt box off the SAW.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Zero deaths would be preferred, and can easily be accomplished.

Do you consider 3 deaths to be merely the cost of doing business?

Let's take a different tack.

The procedures are fine.

People not following the procedures is the problem.

Bob001 · 25th October 2021, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

.....
ETA: I predict that the fault this workplace accident, like most, can be pinpointed by failures to have systems in place consistent with best practices. An individual or individuals are likely responsible and they should be identified and punished as appropriate.

It already seems clear that multiple people didn't do what they knew they were supposed to do, and crew members had complained about it previously. We don't redesign cars when somebody causes an accident by running a red light.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Cutting craft services is possibly the fastest and most effective way to destroy set morale.

A couple of hot meals is probably half or more of the compensation for the PAs.

The point was, there are probably places that get money allocated when that would be better spent on safety. I am not going to demand that the money come from the catering budget. But, perhaps a close look at financial priorities might be in order.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

3 deaths from entirely different types of accident. That is certainly tragic but it also isn't something to get bent out of shape about when say you have mats in cars that kill more people than that every year.

Regulations are written in blood, and why should movie making be different from any other kind of industry?

Not so entirely different.

This incident and Brandon Lee are close to identical. A prop gun being used recreationally between working days and improperly inspected/prepared.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why would they use a $20 airsoft prop and not a good quality one?
When the British Army put on a recruiting display the weapons they use are Airsoft replicas. Even picking up the SA80s and the SAWs they had on show I didn't realise they weren't the real thing until one of the squaddies pulled the mag on the SA80 and the belt box off the SAW.

The original post that Darat made showed such cheap props, and my quoted response about John Wick was to that post. I've already given my mostly-favorable opinion on the more expensive airsoft devices that you referenced.

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Not so entirely different.

This incident and Brandon Lee are close to identical. A prop gun being used recreationally between working days and improperly inspected/prepared.

Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it.
It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel

SuburbanTurkey · 25th October 2021, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it.
It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel

They strike me as very different causes of failure. The Lee incident is an example of a technical misunderstanding on how ammunition works, as any expert should have been aware that simply removing the powder and leaving the primers was not adequate.

The rumor around this one is that somehow a live round found its way to a weapon that was meant to be unloaded. This smacks of negligence, not ignorance.

Bob001 · 25th October 2021, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

A lot more years than that since the crow was filmed try 27 years since Brandon Lee was shot. Now how many deaths do to horses on set have there been in that time? Stunts kill a lot more and are likely a much more effective area to focus more resources on than firearms accidents on set.

Speaking of stunts, here's a partial account of deaths during stunt filming. It's long.
https://www.looper.com/80372/movie-s...stunt-doubles/

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 09:24 AM

We still, to my knowledge, don't have a full and complete picture of the recent incident. It does seem similar to the Lee incident, but might differ in some key details.

Time will most probably tell.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

We still, to my knowledge, don't have a full and complete picture of the recent incident. It does seem similar to the Lee incident, but might differ in some key details.

Time will most probably tell.

Not with what I am hearing. This seems to be a live round getting in the gun somehow. The Brandon Lee was an incompetant armorer who took the powder out of bullets, one got fired causing the bullet to lodge in the barrel from being driven by the primer, then firing a blank in it in a later scene.

"In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun (which was a real revolver) was loaded with improperly made dummy rounds, improvised from live cartridges that had the powder charges removed by the special effects crew, so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges, and at some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired. Although there were no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck—a dangerous condition known as a squib load. During the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 ft), the dummy cartridges were replaced with blank rounds, which contained a powder charge and the primer, but no solid bullet, allowing the gun to be fired with sound and flash effects without the risk of an actual projectile. However, the gun was not properly checked and cleared before the blank was fired, and the dummy bullet previously lodged in the barrel was then propelled forward by the blank's propellant and shot out the muzzle with almost the same force as if the round were live, striking Lee in the abdomen.[99][100]

After Massee pulled the trigger and shot Lee, Lee fell backwards instead of forwards as he was supposed to. When the director said "cut", Lee did not stand up and the crew thought he was either still acting or kidding around. Jeff Imada, who immediately checked Lee, noticed something wrong when he came close and noted Lee was unconscious and breathing heavily. Medic Clyde Baisey went over and shook Lee to see if he was dazed by hitting his head during the fall, but did not think Lee had been shot since there was no visible bleeding. Baisey took Lee's pulse, which was regular, but within two to three minutes it slowed down dramatically, and stopped.[101]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#Death

So provided that this was the discharge of a live round as has been reported the accidents have little to nothing incomon.

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

They strike me as very different causes of failure. The Lee incident is an example of a technical misunderstanding on how ammunition works, as any expert should have been aware that simply removing the powder and leaving the primers was not adequate.

The rumor around this one is that somehow a live round found its way to a weapon that was meant to be unloaded. This smacks of negligence, not ignorance.

Yup and its relatively easy to leave a round in a single action revolver. I don't even know the term for it, but those style revolvers almost always have like a gate where you must empty or load each chamber individually. As opposed to the more modern style where the entire cylinder swings out. *its not that its single action that determines the loading style, its just that vast majority of single action cartridge fed revolvers are that loading style, yet older cap and ball revolvers were also different

Someone loaded it with live ammo, and someone didn't make absolutely sure it was empty. Why live ammo was on set, and why a fully operable revolver was handed to Baldwin is whats going to determine who was at fault.

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Speaking of stunts, here's a partial account of deaths during stunt filming. It's long.
https://www.looper.com/617281/charac...rigin-stories/

I think you mislinked. That article is:

Characters From '80s Movies Who Need Their Own Origin Stories

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Yup and its relatively easy to leave a round in a single action revolver. I don't even know the term for it, but those style revolvers almost always have like a gate where you must empty or load each chamber individually. As opposed to the more modern style where the entire cylinder swings out. *its not that its single action that determines the loading style, its just that vast majority of single action cartridge fed revolvers are that loading style, yet older cap and ball revolvers were also different

Someone loaded it with live ammo, and someone didn't make absolutely sure it was empty. Why live ammo was on set, and why a fully operable revolver was handed to Baldwin is whats going to determine who was at fault.

And thinking about it a gate loading revolver would make checking it even more impossible for Baldwin as he would have to then be the one loading it with the blank.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 09:38 AM

I stand corrected. I was not aware the existence of a full live round in the recent incident had been established.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I stand corrected. I was not aware the existence of a full live round in the recent incident had been established.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ale...es-2021-10-22/

That is what is being reported by the police.

Ranb · 25th October 2021, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They aren't it is the armorers job. Actors simply are not trained for it and it isn't.

Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all.

I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor.

But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set.

Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably.

ETA; https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10...ting-movie-set

Quote:

The armorer “was given the prop gun after it was fired by actor Alec Baldwin” and “then took the spent casing” out of the weapon before handing it over to the police, Detective Cano wrote.

I can't find any details on what kind of handgun was used. The NY Time links says that info has not been released yet. But it also says the spent shell casing was removed, so I'm assuming that it was a single action revolver with a loading gate for now.

The actor/shooter/stunt person can watch the armorer load the revolver. Dummy rounds can be easy to identify especially if they have holes drilled through the brass case making it obvious that it contains no powder. An empty primer pocket also verifies that nothing can push a bullet into the barrel and set up an incident that killed Brandon Lee.

If a scene requires muzzle flash, then a blank round with a cardboard or wax plug is obviously not a bullet.

This is basic stuff that any actor can learn.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it.

It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel

My understanding was a fragment of bullet remained in the barrel from prior use.

But, I acknowledge that sorting fact from apocryphal stories on that one is difficult, given all the CTs involving Chinese mafia, etc.

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all.

I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor.

But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set.

Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably.

I'm nearly certain that the term "cold gun" in Hollywood parlance means a prop that can't push a projectile out the barrel. But, I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict many actors will now double check themselves, and be damned if it holds a scene up for a minute. Also, wouldn't be surprised if the NM State Legislature passes some sort of law that any set where there is a gun that goes bang (ie not a rubber prop), must have a state licensed armorer present who is legally liable.

That said, the amount of serious injuries and deaths from firearms on film sets is dwarfed by other injuries and deaths on film sets, such as Uma Thurman being convinced to drive a stunt where she was seriously injured on Kill Bill, and in no way was she qualified to do it. In other words it would make no sense to ban any blank firing on guns in movie productions without first banning helicopters, airplanes, car stunts, and pyrotechnics first.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

My understanding was a fragment of bullet remained in the barrel from prior use.

But, I acknowledge that sorting fact from apocryphal stories on that one is difficult, given all the CTs involving Chinese mafia, etc.

Quote:

In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun (which was a real revolver) was loaded with improperly made dummy rounds, improvised from live cartridges that had the powder charges removed by the special effects crew, so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges, and at some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired. Although there were no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck—a dangerous condition known as a squib load.

Quote:

A squib load, also known as a squib round, pop and no kick, or just a squib, is a firearm malfunction in which a fired projectile does not have enough force behind it to exit the barrel, and thus becomes stuck.

I have not heard the "bullet fragment" story, before this thread. Seems to me that a full bullet was stuck in the barrel, in that case.

Bob001 · 25th October 2021, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I think you mislinked. That article is:

Characters From '80s Movies Who Need Their Own Origin Stories

My mistake. Try this (and will correct above if I can).
https://www.looper.com/80372/movie-s...stunt-doubles/

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I have not heard the "bullet fragment" story, before this thread.

It wasn't a fragment. Someone who didn't know what they were doing, pried the bullets out of the cartridges and emptied the powder. They did this to create dummy rounds, so that from the front the revolver looked loaded. But they left the primers in. When they used the gun for the shot, it went bang. But no one knew why. That primer forced the bullet into the barrel. How, whoever unloaded it didn't see that hey one bullet is gone, maybe I should check the barrel.... just sheer stupidity. Later on they loaded the gun with blanks, which forced the bullet out, which struck Brandon Lee.

Ranb · 25th October 2021, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I'm nearly certain that the term "cold gun" in Hollywood parlance means a prop that can't push a projectile out the barrel. But, I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict many actors will now double check themselves,

Yes, rules, habits or guidelines "written in blood". Something I'm familiar with after serving in the military.

I edited my post above that you quoted.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all.

Interestingly enough, a lot of times they aren't driving, but being towed.

It isn't because they "don't know how" to drive safely.

It is because we want them focused on what they were hired for.

Why doesn't a camera operator change their own batteries and memory cards?

Why can't the lighting supervisor tape down their own electrical cords?

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

It wasn't a fragment. Someone who didn't know what they were doing, pried the bullets out of the cartridges and emptied the powder. They did this to create dummy rounds, so that from the front the revolver looked loaded. But they left the primers in. When they used the gun for the shot, it went bang. But no one knew why. That primer forced the bullet into the barrel. How, whoever unloaded it didn't see that hey one bullet is gone, maybe I should check the barrel.... just sheer stupidity. Later on they loaded the gun with blanks, which forced the bullet out, which struck Brandon Lee.

If it was a primer detonating they may not have even noticed.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all.

I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor.

But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set.

Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably.

Reading the description of the accident it seems like there was not an armorer on set at the time so that was a safety violation to start with.

"Cano said the incident took place at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, south of Santa Fe, during a rehearsal and it was not clear whether it had been filmed.

He said the prop gun was one of three on a cart outside a building. One of them was taken by the assistant director on the movie who went inside and handed it to Baldwin.

"As the assistant director handed the gun to the actor Alec Baldwin, (he) yelled 'cold gun', indicating the prop gun did not have any live rounds," the affidavit said."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ale...es-2021-10-22/

By the reporting there, if accurate, shows that it was not the armorer who handed Baldwin the gun as it should have been but a AD who just picked it up off a cart. Not proper handling by techniques developed for shooting movies.

There of course should never have been live ammunition anywhere near the set.

Your standards would also not have helped in the Brandon Lee shooting or do you check all firearms you are handed for a barrel obstruction?

You should go and complain on C&Arsenal how they hand guns back and forth several times in one take with out them each verifying that it had not become loaded like proper firearms safety would indicate they should.

The way the scene should have gone is that everyone is acting then Baldwin points the non firing gun at the camera. They cut for a second, the armorer comes on and switches it with a cold gun, they start filming discharge the blank, stop filming and switch guns to a non firing one again. Then film and finish the scene.

That it was an assistant director and not an armorer handing him the gun already shows that they were not following proper protocol. But that the protocol was not followed makes it hard to use as an argument that the protocol is insufficient.

And your simple checking to verify blanks would not have saved Brandon Lee because it was a blank there was just a barrel obstruction of a bullet from a previous scene. Do you check every gun you pick up or are handed for barrel obstructions?

It seems proper protocol with an armorer is sufficient, but like with all safety protocol people sometimes get lax and not follow it and then people get hurt and die.

Delphic Oracle · 25th October 2021, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

If it was a primer detonating they may not have even noticed.

Someone should have noticed 5 "bullets" and one empty shell casing.

Sing it with me, everyone!

"One of these things is not like the others..."

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

If it was a primer detonating they may not have even noticed.

At the risk of sounding like Vixen from another thread....

I've had the experience of hearing a primer going off when I was a teenager. . In fact I was in another room when I heard a loud bang, and then my dad yelling out, everything is OK. Reloading mishap. It'd be noticeable in anything but a very loud environment.

lobosrul5 · 25th October 2021, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Reading the description of the accident it seems like there was not an armorer on set at the time so that was a safety violation to start with.

See... thats the problem. There seem to be union rules that everyone follows to not get in trouble with the union. But... theres no legal requirement that they even use union employees. Hence the need for an actual law.

ETA: also another problem. Pretty easy for the actor to check in this case, see if the chambers were empty. But what about a film like Saving Private Ryan. Every actor is going to look through all his magazines for BAR's, Garand's, Tommy Guns etc to make sure no live rounds got mixed up??

25th October 2021, 08:39 AM	#361
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Because of the oldest, most proven, and most ubiquitous rule of the universe. ** Happens. "But one incident is one too many" is an unrealistic truism. This one incident should (and surely will) be investigated and appropriate consequences should applied once the facts are clear, no arguments there. But it's not some watershed moment for onset gun safety. It's not the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire or Chernobyl for action films. Sometimes an incident is just an incident, not a canary in a coal mine. But why does happen? Sometimes unforeseeable flukes occur, but more often than not it's because best practices aren't followed, either out of ignorance, laziness, or cheapness. You correctly say that workplace accidents happen in other industries. Most of the time it's possible to pinpoint why these safety failures occur, and very rarely is the conclusion "** happens". ETA: I predict that the fault this workplace accident, like most, can be pinpointed by failures to have systems in place consistent with best practices. An individual or individuals are likely responsible and they should be identified and punished as appropriate.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 25th October 2021 at 09:03 AM.

25th October 2021, 08:43 AM	#363
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by Warp12 Those look pretty good. I would say, though, you still need a better product for use on film. It can be done, obviously, but I don't think off-the-shelf airsoft is the answer. Maybe for some direct-to-video stuff, it is. Without handling the best, I defy you to tell the difference on a film
	Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 25th October 2021 at 08:47 AM.

25th October 2021, 08:45 AM	#365
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue There's a lot of cases of hearing loss and of minor burns from handling firearms. Some notable ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sion_accidents But on the same list are things like "Mathew Perry dislocated his shoulder doing a comical pratfall over a chair filming an episode of Friends" and we are don't have a discussion about making chairs safer. Explosives seem to be a much more common source of death and injury than guns, clearly we need to replace them with only airsoft.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 08:47 AM	#366
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey But why does ** happen? Sometimes unforeseeable flukes occur, but more often than not it's because best practices aren't followed, either our of ignorance, laziness, or cheapness. And it is not unlikely that that is the case here. But that is the ** that he was talking about as much as truly unpredictable accidents.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 08:48 AM	#367
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	Modest proposal. The firearm equivalent to the Mill Blackbird. The Mill Blackbird is specially made vehicle specifically designed to be CGI over'ed. It's a robust stuntcar with a safety cage that you can drive in a scene doing all your crazy stunts and crashes, and latter CGI any make/model of car you want over it. The vehicle is able to shift it's dimensions slightly to confirm to the rough shape of most any car. http://archive.themill.com/portfolio...lackbird%C2%AE Make that, but a gun. A small not a gun that can recoil and have weight and heft but can't actually fire that you can have on set and then latter just slap a Desert Eagle or a Colt .45 or a Luger over it. Have a revolver model, a semi-automatic model, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

25th October 2021, 08:45 AM	#364
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 14,120	Originally Posted by Warp12 I don't want to see your version of John Wick. Hasn't John Wick already come up in this thread as an example of a film (several films) where lots of people got shot at close range so consequently blanks were not a safe option and dummy guns were used with muzzle flashes added in post? In which case, you did see that version.

25th October 2021, 08:51 AM	#368
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Modest proposal. The firearm equivalent to the Mill Blackbird. The Mill Blackbird is specially made vehicle specifically designed to be CGI over'ed. It's a robust stuntcar with a safety cage that you can drive in a scene doing all your crazy stunts and crashes, and latter CGI any make/model of car you want over it. The vehicle is able to shift it's dimensions slightly to confirm to the rough shape of most any car. http://archive.themill.com/portfolio...lackbird%C2%AE Make that, but a gun. A small not a gun that can recoil and have weight and heft but can't actually fire that you can have on set and then latter just slap a Desert Eagle or a Colt .45 or a Luger over it. Have a revolver model, a semi-automatic model, a rifle, a shotgun, etc. If you are getting rid of firing blanks on set why would you need something like that?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 09:01 AM	#370
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle If you are getting rid of firing blanks on set why would you need something like that? One of the earlier complaints from the "If guns aren't perfect then my immersion is totally ruined" crowd was that actors can't mimic recoil properly.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

25th October 2021, 09:01 AM	#371
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by Warp12 I would imagine that some of the additional costs incurred with a safer prop might be offset by reduced insurance costs? If worse comes to worst, you can always reduce the catering budget. Cutting craft services is possibly the fastest and most effective way to destroy set morale. A couple of hot meals is probably half or more of the compensation for the PAs.

25th October 2021, 09:05 AM	#373
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by Steve Zero deaths would be preferred, and can easily be accomplished. Do you consider 3 deaths to be merely the cost of doing business? Let's take a different tack. The procedures are fine. People not following the procedures is the problem.

25th October 2021, 09:05 AM	#374
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,343	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey ..... ETA: I predict that the fault this workplace accident, like most, can be pinpointed by failures to have systems in place consistent with best practices. An individual or individuals are likely responsible and they should be identified and punished as appropriate. It already seems clear that multiple people didn't do what they knew they were supposed to do, and crew members had complained about it previously. We don't redesign cars when somebody causes an accident by running a red light.

25th October 2021, 09:06 AM	#375
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Cutting craft services is possibly the fastest and most effective way to destroy set morale. A couple of hot meals is probably half or more of the compensation for the PAs. The point was, there are probably places that get money allocated when that would be better spent on safety. I am not going to demand that the money come from the catering budget. But, perhaps a close look at financial priorities might be in order.

25th October 2021, 09:07 AM	#376
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 3 deaths from entirely different types of accident. That is certainly tragic but it also isn't something to get bent out of shape about when say you have mats in cars that kill more people than that every year. Regulations are written in blood, and why should movie making be different from any other kind of industry? Not so entirely different. This incident and Brandon Lee are close to identical. A prop gun being used recreationally between working days and improperly inspected/prepared.

25th October 2021, 09:09 AM	#377
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Why would they use a $20 airsoft prop and not a good quality one? When the British Army put on a recruiting display the weapons they use are Airsoft replicas. Even picking up the SA80s and the SAWs they had on show I didn't realise they weren't the real thing until one of the squaddies pulled the mag on the SA80 and the belt box off the SAW. The original post that Darat made showed such cheap props, and my quoted response about John Wick was to that post. I've already given my mostly-favorable opinion on the more expensive airsoft devices that you referenced.
	Last edited by Warp12; 25th October 2021 at 09:14 AM.

25th October 2021, 09:11 AM	#378
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Not so entirely different. This incident and Brandon Lee are close to identical. A prop gun being used recreationally between working days and improperly inspected/prepared. Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it. It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel

25th October 2021, 09:20 AM	#379
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it. It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel They strike me as very different causes of failure. The Lee incident is an example of a technical misunderstanding on how ammunition works, as any expert should have been aware that simply removing the powder and leaving the primers was not adequate. The rumor around this one is that somehow a live round found its way to a weapon that was meant to be unloaded. This smacks of negligence, not ignorance.

25th October 2021, 09:21 AM	#380
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,343	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle A lot more years than that since the crow was filmed try 27 years since Brandon Lee was shot. Now how many deaths do to horses on set have there been in that time? Stunts kill a lot more and are likely a much more effective area to focus more resources on than firearms accidents on set. Speaking of stunts, here's a partial account of deaths during stunt filming. It's long. https://www.looper.com/80372/movie-s...stunt-doubles/
	Last edited by Bob001; 25th October 2021 at 10:03 AM.

25th October 2021, 09:24 AM	#381
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	We still, to my knowledge, don't have a full and complete picture of the recent incident. It does seem similar to the Lee incident, but might differ in some key details. Time will most probably tell.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

25th October 2021, 09:32 AM	#382
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue We still, to my knowledge, don't have a full and complete picture of the recent incident. It does seem similar to the Lee incident, but might differ in some key details. Time will most probably tell. Not with what I am hearing. This seems to be a live round getting in the gun somehow. The Brandon Lee was an incompetant armorer who took the powder out of bullets, one got fired causing the bullet to lodge in the barrel from being driven by the primer, then firing a blank in it in a later scene. "In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun (which was a real revolver) was loaded with improperly made dummy rounds, improvised from live cartridges that had the powder charges removed by the special effects crew, so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges, and at some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired. Although there were no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck—a dangerous condition known as a squib load. During the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 ft), the dummy cartridges were replaced with blank rounds, which contained a powder charge and the primer, but no solid bullet, allowing the gun to be fired with sound and flash effects without the risk of an actual projectile. However, the gun was not properly checked and cleared before the blank was fired, and the dummy bullet previously lodged in the barrel was then propelled forward by the blank's propellant and shot out the muzzle with almost the same force as if the round were live, striking Lee in the abdomen.[99][100] After Massee pulled the trigger and shot Lee, Lee fell backwards instead of forwards as he was supposed to. When the director said "cut", Lee did not stand up and the crew thought he was either still acting or kidding around. Jeff Imada, who immediately checked Lee, noticed something wrong when he came close and noted Lee was unconscious and breathing heavily. Medic Clyde Baisey went over and shook Lee to see if he was dazed by hitting his head during the fall, but did not think Lee had been shot since there was no visible bleeding. Baisey took Lee's pulse, which was regular, but within two to three minutes it slowed down dramatically, and stopped.[101]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#Death So provided that this was the discharge of a live round as has been reported the accidents have little to nothing incomon.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 09:32 AM	#383
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey They strike me as very different causes of failure. The Lee incident is an example of a technical misunderstanding on how ammunition works, as any expert should have been aware that simply removing the powder and leaving the primers was not adequate. The rumor around this one is that somehow a live round found its way to a weapon that was meant to be unloaded. This smacks of negligence, not ignorance. Yup and its relatively easy to leave a round in a single action revolver. I don't even know the term for it, but those style revolvers almost always have like a gate where you must empty or load each chamber individually. As opposed to the more modern style where the entire cylinder swings out. *its not that its single action that determines the loading style, its just that vast majority of single action cartridge fed revolvers are that loading style, yet older cap and ball revolvers were also different Someone loaded it with live ammo, and someone didn't make absolutely sure it was empty. Why live ammo was on set, and why a fully operable revolver was handed to Baldwin is whats going to determine who was at fault.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161

25th October 2021, 09:34 AM	#384
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Bob001 Speaking of stunts, here's a partial account of deaths during stunt filming. It's long. https://www.looper.com/617281/charac...rigin-stories/ I think you mislinked. That article is: Characters From '80s Movies Who Need Their Own Origin Stories
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161

25th October 2021, 09:37 AM	#385
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Yup and its relatively easy to leave a round in a single action revolver. I don't even know the term for it, but those style revolvers almost always have like a gate where you must empty or load each chamber individually. As opposed to the more modern style where the entire cylinder swings out. *its not that its single action that determines the loading style, its just that vast majority of single action cartridge fed revolvers are that loading style, yet older cap and ball revolvers were also different Someone loaded it with live ammo, and someone didn't make absolutely sure it was empty. Why live ammo was on set, and why a fully operable revolver was handed to Baldwin is whats going to determine who was at fault. And thinking about it a gate loading revolver would make checking it even more impossible for Baldwin as he would have to then be the one loading it with the blank.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 09:38 AM	#386
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	I stand corrected. I was not aware the existence of a full live round in the recent incident had been established.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

25th October 2021, 09:40 AM	#387
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I stand corrected. I was not aware the existence of a full live round in the recent incident had been established. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ale...es-2021-10-22/ That is what is being reported by the police.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 09:50 AM	#388
Ranb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 10,663	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle They aren't it is the armorers job. Actors simply are not trained for it and it isn't. Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all. I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor. But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set. Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably. ETA; https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/10...ting-movie-set Quote: The armorer “was given the prop gun after it was fired by actor Alec Baldwin” and “then took the spent casing” out of the weapon before handing it over to the police, Detective Cano wrote. I can't find any details on what kind of handgun was used. The NY Time links says that info has not been released yet. But it also says the spent shell casing was removed, so I'm assuming that it was a single action revolver with a loading gate for now. The actor/shooter/stunt person can watch the armorer load the revolver. Dummy rounds can be easy to identify especially if they have holes drilled through the brass case making it obvious that it contains no powder. An empty primer pocket also verifies that nothing can push a bullet into the barrel and set up an incident that killed Brandon Lee. If a scene requires muzzle flash, then a blank round with a cardboard or wax plug is obviously not a bullet. This is basic stuff that any actor can learn.
	Last edited by Ranb; 25th October 2021 at 10:04 AM.

25th October 2021, 09:57 AM	#389
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Brandon Lee gun had not been used recreationally as far as I understand it. It had previously been used with rounds that had no propellant to show in the chambers. They did however have primers. One was fired without being noticed and this had just enough pressure from the primer to separate the bullet and leave it in the throat of the barrel My understanding was a fragment of bullet remained in the barrel from prior use. But, I acknowledge that sorting fact from apocryphal stories on that one is difficult, given all the CTs involving Chinese mafia, etc.

25th October 2021, 09:59 AM	#390
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Ranb Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all. I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor. But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set. Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably. I'm nearly certain that the term "cold gun" in Hollywood parlance means a prop that can't push a projectile out the barrel. But, I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict many actors will now double check themselves, and be damned if it holds a scene up for a minute. Also, wouldn't be surprised if the NM State Legislature passes some sort of law that any set where there is a gun that goes bang (ie not a rubber prop), must have a state licensed armorer present who is legally liable. That said, the amount of serious injuries and deaths from firearms on film sets is dwarfed by other injuries and deaths on film sets, such as Uma Thurman being convinced to drive a stunt where she was seriously injured on Kill Bill, and in no way was she qualified to do it. In other words it would make no sense to ban any blank firing on guns in movie productions without first banning helicopters, airplanes, car stunts, and pyrotechnics first.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161

25th October 2021, 09:59 AM	#391
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle My understanding was a fragment of bullet remained in the barrel from prior use. But, I acknowledge that sorting fact from apocryphal stories on that one is difficult, given all the CTs involving Chinese mafia, etc. Quote: In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun (which was a real revolver) was loaded with improperly made dummy rounds, improvised from live cartridges that had the powder charges removed by the special effects crew, so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges, and at some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired. Although there were no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck—a dangerous condition known as a squib load. Quote: A squib load, also known as a squib round, pop and no kick, or just a squib, is a firearm malfunction in which a fired projectile does not have enough force behind it to exit the barrel, and thus becomes stuck. I have not heard the "bullet fragment" story, before this thread. Seems to me that a full bullet was stuck in the barrel, in that case.
	Last edited by Warp12; 25th October 2021 at 10:03 AM.

25th October 2021, 10:03 AM	#392
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,343	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 I think you mislinked. That article is: Characters From '80s Movies Who Need Their Own Origin Stories My mistake. Try this (and will correct above if I can). https://www.looper.com/80372/movie-s...stunt-doubles/

25th October 2021, 10:05 AM	#393
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by Warp12 I have not heard the "bullet fragment" story, before this thread. It wasn't a fragment. Someone who didn't know what they were doing, pried the bullets out of the cartridges and emptied the powder. They did this to create dummy rounds, so that from the front the revolver looked loaded. But they left the primers in. When they used the gun for the shot, it went bang. But no one knew why. That primer forced the bullet into the barrel. How, whoever unloaded it didn't see that hey one bullet is gone, maybe I should check the barrel.... just sheer stupidity. Later on they loaded the gun with blanks, which forced the bullet out, which struck Brandon Lee.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 4,161

25th October 2021, 10:06 AM	#394
Ranb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 10,663	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 I'm nearly certain that the term "cold gun" in Hollywood parlance means a prop that can't push a projectile out the barrel. But, I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict many actors will now double check themselves, Yes, rules, habits or guidelines "written in blood". Something I'm familiar with after serving in the military. I edited my post above that you quoted.

25th October 2021, 10:08 AM	#395
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by Ranb Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all. Interestingly enough, a lot of times they aren't driving, but being towed. It isn't because they "don't know how" to drive safely. It is because we want them focused on what they were hired for. Why doesn't a camera operator change their own batteries and memory cards? Why can't the lighting supervisor tape down their own electrical cords?

25th October 2021, 10:10 AM	#396
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 It wasn't a fragment. Someone who didn't know what they were doing, pried the bullets out of the cartridges and emptied the powder. They did this to create dummy rounds, so that from the front the revolver looked loaded. But they left the primers in. When they used the gun for the shot, it went bang. But no one knew why. That primer forced the bullet into the barrel. How, whoever unloaded it didn't see that hey one bullet is gone, maybe I should check the barrel.... just sheer stupidity. Later on they loaded the gun with blanks, which forced the bullet out, which struck Brandon Lee. If it was a primer detonating they may not have even noticed.

25th October 2021, 10:11 AM	#397
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by Ranb Then they should be trained for it. Same as driving a car for a film; if they can't do it safely, then they don't do it at all. I can understand if the film set was only supposed to have rubber guns with no live ammo anywhere near the set and then the crew replaced the non-functioning prop with an actual loaded firearm without telling the actor. But as far as I know, Baldwin was handed what he thought was a functioning firearm that was not loaded with live ammo. In my opinion, when a person is handed a gun, they need to be able to determine exactly what kind of condition it is in concerning its ability, or inability, to fire a projectile on set. Will this raise the price of filming a scene? Maybe. Would it make the set safer? Probably. Reading the description of the accident it seems like there was not an armorer on set at the time so that was a safety violation to start with. "Cano said the incident took place at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, south of Santa Fe, during a rehearsal and it was not clear whether it had been filmed. He said the prop gun was one of three on a cart outside a building. One of them was taken by the assistant director on the movie who went inside and handed it to Baldwin. "As the assistant director handed the gun to the actor Alec Baldwin, (he) yelled 'cold gun', indicating the prop gun did not have any live rounds," the affidavit said." https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ale...es-2021-10-22/ By the reporting there, if accurate, shows that it was not the armorer who handed Baldwin the gun as it should have been but a AD who just picked it up off a cart. Not proper handling by techniques developed for shooting movies. There of course should never have been live ammunition anywhere near the set. Your standards would also not have helped in the Brandon Lee shooting or do you check all firearms you are handed for a barrel obstruction? You should go and complain on C&Arsenal how they hand guns back and forth several times in one take with out them each verifying that it had not become loaded like proper firearms safety would indicate they should. The way the scene should have gone is that everyone is acting then Baldwin points the non firing gun at the camera. They cut for a second, the armorer comes on and switches it with a cold gun, they start filming discharge the blank, stop filming and switch guns to a non firing one again. Then film and finish the scene. That it was an assistant director and not an armorer handing him the gun already shows that they were not following proper protocol. But that the protocol was not followed makes it hard to use as an argument that the protocol is insufficient. And your simple checking to verify blanks would not have saved Brandon Lee because it was a blank there was just a barrel obstruction of a bullet from a previous scene. Do you check every gun you pick up or are handed for barrel obstructions? It seems proper protocol with an armorer is sufficient, but like with all safety protocol people sometimes get lax and not follow it and then people get hurt and die.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th October 2021, 10:13 AM	#398
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop If it was a primer detonating they may not have even noticed. Someone should have noticed 5 "bullets" and one empty shell casing. Sing it with me, everyone! "One of these things is not like the others..."