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

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I only know what I have seen on various reports on the subject.



I only know what I have seen on John Wards youtube channel that has a whole segment on british plugs. But that and the new york times article seem to think there was a lot of stuff sold up till 92 with out plugs on it.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jjward

Well, he's misinformed or telling lies for some reason.

there was no law that said things had to have plugs so it was possible I suppose but I can't remember ever buying or seeing anything without a plug.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

lol there's tons of movies that don't have guns in them

Sort of hard to make a movie about certain subjects unless you have guns in them.
Some people just plain hate guns,period. FIne, then don't own any. Just don't try to force your likes and dislikes on other people.'

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Unnecessary is a poor barometer though. Movies are unnecessary. Can it be done safely is a better metric.

Let's ban all movies and orther forms of entertainment and put the money toward more "useful" social spending.
It scares a few people here would probably approve that.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yet here they were, improvising like a mother ******. The god damned armorer was not even on set, and guns were in a pile on a table.

That's what I am arguing. Whatever procedures existed are woefully inadequate, and were not followed here anyway. So, contrary to your position, they were improvising like all get-out. That puts responsibility in the hands of the shooter, since they are not following their own safety procedures.

These procedures would horrify the people running any properly ran shooting range.
For heaven's sake, if reenactors can have fairly stringent rules on gun safety, why can't a film company?
A basic course in firearms safety should be required of both cast and crew on any movie set involving firearms.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sort of hard to make a movie about certain subjects unless you have guns in them.
Some people just plain hate guns,period. FIne, then don't own any. Just don't try to force your likes and dislikes on other people.'

Indeed.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Let's ban all movies and orther forms of entertainment and put the money toward more "useful" social spending.
It scares a few people here would probably approve that.

There are extremists on any topic you can name. Have not seen any evidence of that *here* in this thread.

Originally Posted by dudalb

These procedures would horrify the people running any properly ran shooting range.
For heaven's sake, if reenactors can have fairly stringent rules on gun safety, why can't a film company?
A basic course in firearms safety should be required of both cast and crew on any movie set involving firearms.

I agree completely.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

These procedures would horrify the people running any properly ran shooting range.

For heaven's sake, if reenactors can have fairly stringent rules on gun safety, why can't a film company?

A basic course in firearms safety should be required of both cast and crew on any movie set involving firearms.

These procedures would horrify the people running working on any properly ran film set.

As has been said repeatedly, there are quite stringent rules. They weren't followed.

On sets I had the pull to do so, there was an all-hands (present) safety meeting every filming day. Multiple if different hazards were present for different scenes/locations. Input was welcome, ideas for workarounds were encouraged, and it ended with "does anyone not feel comfortable with anything we're doing? Does everyone understand what they need to do entirely?"

Before principal photography, I would make the entire cast & crew watch a 20/20 segment about the Midnight Rider train death.

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

Then I would make those willing watch the footage from the still-rolling camera that captured the desperate race of the crew to get off the bridge as the train came at them at 58 mph with about 60 seconds warning.

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

Then I would sincerely plead with them to help me make sure nothing like this happens to any of them. I always encouraged my ACs to put "for Sarah Jones" on the first camera slate of the day.

Hadn't watched that stuff in a few years, what tears my heart out is they are trying so hard to save the equipment, which tells you everything about the orientation of concern in that set's culture.

[dudalb]

FInd a ex Marine Corp or US Army Rifle Range instructior and put them in charge of gun safety instuction, I guarantee you, people would pay attention.They have interesting ways of making sure you follow safety procedure......

[Matthew Best]

Veteran prop master turned down ‘Rust’ film: ‘An accident waiting to happen’

Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski turned down work on the movie “Rust,” citing a series of red flags about the production.

“There were massive red flags,” he said in an interview Sunday with The Times.

He said he felt that “Rust” was too much of a slapdash production, one with an overriding focus on saving money instead of a concern for people’s safety. Production managers didn’t seem to value experience and were brushing off his questions, he said.

Zoromski ultimately told “Rust” production managers that he would take a pass.

“After I pressed ‘send’ on that last email, I felt, in the pit of my stomach: ‘That is an accident waiting to happen,’” he said.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by dudalb

FInd a ex Marine Corp or US Army Rifle Range instructior and put them in charge of gun safety instuction, I guarantee you, people would pay attention.They have interesting ways of making sure you follow safety procedure......

What ways would they be?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

“After I pressed ‘send’ on that last email, I felt, in the pit of my stomach: ‘That is an accident waiting to happen,’” he said.

Of course he did.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No, in this case it was a run through of a scene. It was not supposed to be a loaded gun. That's why the AD said it was a 'cod gun'

They should have suspected was something fishy about that piece.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Veteran prop master turned down ‘Rust’ film: ‘An accident waiting to happen’

Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski turned down work on the movie “Rust,” citing a series of red flags about the production.

“There were massive red flags,” he said in an interview Sunday with The Times.

He said he felt that “Rust” was too much of a slapdash production, one with an overriding focus on saving money instead of a concern for people’s safety. Production managers didn’t seem to value experience and were brushing off his questions, he said.

Zoromski ultimately told “Rust” production managers that he would take a pass.

“After I pressed ‘send’ on that last email, I felt, in the pit of my stomach: ‘That is an accident waiting to happen,’” he said.

Probably worth exploring why safety precautions are optional for film sets. I know it's irregular work, but just trusting that whoever is running these sets will do the right thing is asking for disaster.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then why were there no standard plugs on electronics at purchase until 1992, and before that the consumer had to wire the plug? There were standards sure but not a single one.

"It seems that many Britons have never mastered the knack of putting on plugs. According to Government figures, between 1980 and 1989, 2,900 people required hospital treatment as a result of injuries caused by incorrectly wired plugs; in the 1980-88 period, 32 people died because of faulty plugs or plug-wiring problems. There Used to Be a Reason

...

Once there was a reason why electrical goods were sold without plugs: the variety of different sockets in Britain. But about 95 percent of sockets now take the chunky three-prong plug with a 13-amp fuse that was introduced in 1947."

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/31/w...-progress.html

Sorry, but this is utter ********, and entirely irrelevant.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Probably worth exploring why safety precautions are optional for film sets. I know it's irregular work, but just trusting that whoever is running these sets will do the right thing is asking for disaster.

It's not that safety is optional. It's that productions can find ways to get away with not taking the proper precautions required by the industry and its many unions. These ways are in evidence here. The production happened far from the major Hollywood locations, they employed inexperienced locals, and even their imported crew members were people taking positions beyond their experience - most critically, the armorer.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The "Rust" shooting is looking less and less like a fluke accident with a dangerous prop and more like the inevitable outcome of a complete lack of any safety culture at all.

I said it before:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

...There's no such thing as accidental discharge of a firearm. There's only negligent discharge.

It may be the one thing I've said about guns that I think Ranb would agree with.

[Thermal]

I keep misreading the damn thread title as Alec Baldwin finally shot crew member...,like we've all been expecting it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I keep misreading the damn thread title as Alec Baldwin finally shot crew member...,like we've all been expecting it.

OMG yes. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by theprestige

OMG yes. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

In another thread I'm wondering when we get France back now that the suspect has been found.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Veteran prop master turned down ‘Rust’ film: ‘An accident waiting to happen’

Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski turned down work on the movie “Rust,” citing a series of red flags about the production.

“There were massive red flags,” he said in an interview Sunday with The Times.

He said he felt that “Rust” was too much of a slapdash production, one with an overriding focus on saving money instead of a concern for people’s safety. Production managers didn’t seem to value experience and were brushing off his questions, he said.

Zoromski ultimately told “Rust” production managers that he would take a pass.

“After I pressed ‘send’ on that last email, I felt, in the pit of my stomach: ‘That is an accident waiting to happen,’” he said.

To use the old Hollywood expression, a number of people should never have Lunch in that town again.
I am all in favor of saving money when making movies, and feel the massive overspending on movies because of waste will end up biting Hollywood in the butt, but safety is one thing that you SHOULD never cut corners on.
When a expereinced guy decides a film is just to dangerous to work on, that is truly damning.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What ways would they be?

COme on, guy, you were in the Royal Navy, you know the ways of experienced non coms and how they have little patience with repeated incompetence;that is what this set needed.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Probably worth exploring why safety precautions are optional for film sets. I know it's irregular work, but just trusting that whoever is running these sets will do the right thing is asking for disaster.

I repeat: what a bunch of amateur reenactors can do enforcing firearm safety measures you think a movie studio could do.
Of course, that might be the problem. this was a cut rate ,cheap production.
There is low budget and there is cheap, this was cheap.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

COme on, guy, you were in the Royal Navy, you know the ways of experienced non coms and how they have little patience with repeated incompetence;that is what this set needed.

This is the stupidest take ever. Movie productions aren't the depraved Royal Navy. What makes you think a modern Hollywood key grip would put up with even a minute of your imaginary midahipman's hysterical abuse?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I repeat: what a bunch of amateur reenactors can do enforcing firearm safety measures you think a movie studio could do.
Of course, that might be the problem. this was a cut rate ,cheap production.
There is low budget and there is cheap, this was cheap.

Cheap, fast or good. Pick two.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Cheap, fast or good. Pick two.

1) Cheap, fast
2) Good.

Commas are tricky.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

1) Cheap, fast
2) Good.

Commas are tricky.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is the stupidest take ever. Movie productions aren't the depraved Royal Navy. What makes you think a modern Hollywood key grip would put up with even a minute of your imaginary midahipman's hysterical abuse?

Just try doing the key grip's job for him. Then realize the other Union members will be just as protective (or should be) about their territories. With the unions, productions can get severely fined if someone besides the greensman moves that potted plant.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Just try doing the key grip's job for him. Then realize the other Union members will be just as protective (or should be) about their territories. With the unions, productions can get severely fined if someone besides the greensman moves that potted plant.

I just note that this was apparently not a union set, which means a lot of the usual rules didn't apply.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I just note that this was apparently not a union set, which means a lot of the usual rules didn't apply.

I heard that it had been a union set, but all the union people walked out because of rampant safety violations.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I keep misreading the damn thread title as Alec Baldwin finally shot crew member...,like we've all been expecting it.

For some reason that's what I thought myself, when I first glanced at the title, and remember being mildly surprised. Mildly, because I haven't heard about Baldwin being a drug addled gun nut; but then I don't know about the man at all, beyond having seen him act on film and TV, so he well might have been for all I knew.

Is there a word for this kind of thing? Like typo, except when you're (mis-) reading the word?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Just try doing the key grip's job for him. Then realize the other Union members will be just as protective (or should be) about their territories. With the unions, productions can get severely fined if someone besides the greensman moves that potted plant.

Yes, by the strictest letter. But someone can ask the greensman if its ok as this counts as being "under their direction and supervision." On many sets, especially if good camaraderie has developed, this will start to blur.

"See, for about 45 seconds there, the 2AC was acting as 'assistant greensman'..."

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Me, personally? I could see myself checking a weapon before the start of a scene. It is not that difficult to do. I mean, if this weapon had real, live rounds in it, this could be verified in seconds.

Again, I am not saying he did anything wrong. But, I just can't imagine aiming guns at people and pulling the trigger, without taking some level of personal responsibility in verifying the safety of such. At minimum, your career might depend on it.

Originally Posted by Steve

I agree. There seems to be a marked difference between general gun safety among those who are taught to take personal responsibility for every gun they handle, and movie gun safety among those who are taught that someone else will take that responsibility for them.

Originally Posted by Steve

Why are so many of your posts so hyperbolic? An actor, or anyone else handling a gun, merely has to check that the actual status of a gun is what they have been told that it is. This is not an onerous task.

The highlight stands as a true statement that applies equally to everyone.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yet here they were, improvising like a mother ******. The god damned armorer was not even on set, and guns were in a pile on a table.

That's what I am arguing. Whatever procedures existed are woefully inadequate, and were not followed here anyway. So, contrary to your position, they were improvising like all get-out. That puts responsibility in the hands of the shooter, since they are not following their own safety procedures.

From TMZ:

Hudson says the other, more experienced actors checked their weapons 2 or 3 times after they received them from the armorer, and it didn't matter whether they were told the gun was "cold" or "hot." Baldwin did not check the weapon, but rather relied on the assistant director who assured him the gun was "cold."

https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-...-alec-baldwin/

[arthwollipot]

Wait - Baldwin was the less experienced one?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Wait - Baldwin was the less experienced one?

Perhaps....

He could be less experienced working with firearms on set, or less recently experienced with working with firearms on set.

He could be less experienced working with this particular crew, and their apparently lax safety when it comes to firearms.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by dudalb

COme on, guy, you were in the Royal Navy, you know the ways of experienced non coms and how they have little patience with repeated incompetence;that is what this set needed.

So what would an ex marine do to them that anyone else wouldn't be able to do? Are you advocating some kind of physical coercion?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Well, he's misinformed or telling lies for some reason.



there was no law that said things had to have plugs so it was possible I suppose but I can't remember ever buying or seeing anything without a plug.

As far as I remember it was to do with legal liability if the plug was wired wrongly. A lot of white goods were supplied without plugs from the manufacturer and the shops often avoided taking responsibility for fitting the plug so it was left to the customer. The change, IIRC, was to require the seller to supply the item already fitted with a plug, and moulded-on plugs make proper wiring the responsibility of the manufacturer as they can't be opened later for inspection.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? No, there are allegations that this specific firearm previously went off unexpectedly on the set.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...fired-rcna3635

I'm 16 hours and a hundred plus posts behind, TapaCrap won't let me save this spot and also jump to the end of thread, so I'll just assume this gets ninja'd (and corrected if I'm wrong)...
I know the prop gun had reported failures and you were commenting on that. What I meant was... I believe the post you quoted was part of a long running derail about a separate kaboom incident and the safety factors used in the design. Separate plot.
No biggie... just pointing out the confusion. Which now, I may be guilty of as well.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Wait - Baldwin was the less experienced one?

How many productions has he been in where he handled guns?

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sort of hard to make a movie about certain subjects unless you have guns in them.
Some people just plain hate guns,period. FIne, then don't own any. Just don't try to force your likes and dislikes on other people.'

Agreed, as long as gun lovers also agree and fully undertake to never, ever come within range of any unarmed persons in the public sphere, even accidentally. Otherwise, bearing a weapon constitutes the exercise of a right (or preference) in a manner which directly and measurably reduces the safety of others, negatively impacting their rights. No two ways about it, as carrying in public is without question an intimidating form of forcing one's opinion on others. I assume you agree, or do not understand what words like "forcing likes and dislikes" mean.

If carrying weapons is further argued to be useful in protecting against other firearms, there is a simpler, more direct manner to largely eliminate that threat as well, requiring only one guess. One might also, say, fund more law enforcement. If it is argued as necessary to protect freedom, that is simply nonsense, given that should rebellion against authority be actually justified, at that point any ban on carrying in public spaces becomes entirely moot. Until that moment, weapons are fine at home or on the range, not on the street, allowing for wannabe freedom fighters to retain their fevered dreams.

Those who favor lethal weapons on public streets have no reasonable argument, and must rely on existing 18th century law, flawed when written, even more flawed today. Not unless we, say, assume gun-totting White übermensch are divinely and uniquely enlightened creatures, unlike what is known of humans otherwise.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

FInd a ex Marine Corp or US Army Rifle Range instructior and put them in charge of gun safety instuction, I guarantee you, people would pay attention.They have interesting ways of making sure you follow safety procedure......

And what would the changes in policy be other than slowing production by making the actors load all their own magazines and so forth?

At a rifle range you are focusing on the shooting, actors have a lot of concerns in addition to handling the firearms. I guess we can have them stop acting when they are holding a gun but that would make movies very uneven.

The policies were not followed including by all the gun enthusiasts who are not held responsible for their breaking of basic safety procedures of course.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

From TMZ:

Hudson says the other, more experienced actors checked their weapons 2 or 3 times after they received them from the armorer, and it didn't matter whether they were told the gun was "cold" or "hot." Baldwin did not check the weapon, but rather relied on the assistant director who assured him the gun was "cold."

https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-...-alec-baldwin/

I am pleased to read that there are actors who know and perform the proper procedures for handling guns. Maybe this is something that could be added to the current on set protocols that some here claim are fine and need no improvement.