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

[dirtywick]

Is guns don’t people kill people, people kill people an anti-gun phrase? It seems not to me

[Steve]

Originally Posted by plague311

Well, this has certainly taken a header off a cliff.

All of the civil war, and gun fighting aside, I don't think there has to be any drastic changes, but I do think using some form of airsoft or mechanical gun that can't shoot or be loaded would be easier for all involved

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Is guns don’t people kill people, people kill people an anti-gun phrase? It seems not to me

Its not. A pooch was screwed somewhere in there

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Is guns don’t people kill people, people kill people an anti-gun phrase? It seems not to me

It is rather ambiguous, isn't it? I think it depends on how vested a person is in their particular side of the debate.

[xjx388]

If you need a totally realistic gunshot in your movie . . . Maybe you need to rethink your movie. I can only speak as a moviegoer who has watched a lot of action movies with a lot of gunplay: Not once have I ever looked at a gunplay scene and thought, “no way are they firing real guns…their arms and bodies aren’t reacting like they would to real gunfire!” I KNOW THAT! It’s fake! It’s a frickin’ movie!

To me, this is the fault of whoever conceived of a scene in which a gun would be fired directly at the DP and director in the first place. The writer, the director, the armorer, the stunt coordinator…and ultimately, legally, it’s the responsibility of the producers that hired these people.


As a movie fan, trust me, I know all this is fake. Don’t go for realism when lives are at stake. And yes, that goes for all those stunt people needlessly dying or becoming disabled for “the scene.”

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You have to admit that the tweets are pretty ironic when looking at the current situation. People are just as justified as he was in rushing to condemnation, imo.

We need to see a full investigation to know what really happened. Right now a whole lot is just speculation.

Irony is a Trump impersonator shooting two people in the middle of a movie set and not losing any supporters.

(yes, that's in poor taste, sorry)

[dirtywick]

It seems the procedures to safely make a film using firearms are effective but here the people responsible for following those procedures didn’t do their jobs. I don’t think that’s a strong case that it can’t be done safely.

[JoeMorgue]

If literally nothing else I'd like see a law/union reg/industry standard/whatever that any actor/crew member involved in a scene has a right to request the scene be done with a totally non-operation firearm.

[deverett]

Originally Posted by Steve

Quite the over reaction there son . How about you reply to what I wrote instead of what you imagined.

Prop guns are a necessity on many sets. I have no issue with that. Those guns should be rendered completely inert. And actors worthy of the name should be able to portray a convincing gun shot without actually having the prop do the job for them.

And acting ability has little to do with many things that so called actors actually do on screen.

My day job is Theatrical Armourer. No actor can accurately portray the motion of a gun being fired, it's just not physically possible. I will teach an actor from time to time how to make it look as realistic as possible if the production intends to add VFX later on. But it always looks odd. The actors are busy acting while trying to do this.



Someone said that the Brandon Lee case involved a piece of a blank stuck in the barrel, this was not what happened. The revolver had been taken to a range some time prior to filming (shooting) and live rounds were used. A piece of lead bullet was still in the barrel. The gun had not been cleaned and inspected, so when the blank fired, the energy propelled the lead out.


Only a few years ago an Australian stunt trainee was killed on set by a shotgun blast at 50cm range. This production had no safety officer and the armourer was inexperienced. The inquest is not yet complete, but it appears that the armourer made his own blanks. I think he took regular shotgun shells, removed the projectiles and left it like that. Behind the balls there is a plastic disc that retains the gunpowder, it's likely these were what killed the stunty.



It has been said that it might have contained a live round. As it was likely a revolver, that is possible. Often revolvers are used unmodified as there is no action to cycle to pick up the next blank. By inspection you cannot mistake the difference between a live and blank round, they are very clearly different.


I don't know the procedures on an American set, but here in Australia I have strict protocols that I follow. I have developed them myself through experience.


No firearm is loaded until the slate goes on. That is, we get right up to when the person holding the clapper board holds it up to camera and claps it. I'm holding the firearm and the blanks at this stage with the safety officer watching. It's a magazine based firearm, then I have already had the actor, safety officer and 1st AD watch me load the mag with the required number of blanks. They will also have observed I put a dummy in first, this is to make sure the slide closes at the end of the firing.



The 1st will call for me to arm, I will loudly announce arming (everyone is wearing hearing protection now, so I yell) That I am arming and how many shots will be fired. I hand the gun to the actor facing in the direction of the action. If it is facing the camera (dop, director, focus puller) then a lexan shield is already in place to protect them. Preferably I have them step away from the camera, the director is usually not at the camera anyway, usually in a tent with a video split of what the camera can see, the focus puller is usually remote too nowadays.


If there is any doubt in my mind I call a halt and check everything again. If I do not like the staging, I either have them change it, or scrub the blank fire. No one argues, they accept the safety arrangements.


If I need to give direction to the actor I give it clearly and if I think they are not taking my direction I retrieve the gun until they do. I recently did a movie where the main actor was not handling the pistol in a safe way (no blanks at this stage). I told production I would not allow that actor to do any blank fire, they accepted that with out question.


In general, good or experienced actors are very good at taking direction. From the Director, the safety officer, armourer, stunt coodinator etc.



The initial reports said "Misfire" that means the gun did not fire. It's clear that it in fact did in some way fire.
They also reported "prop gun". We treat all guns, prop or otherwise as real as a matter of course. I can only imagine production was trying to spin this at this stage with these words.


Dave Everett

[Delphic Oracle]

When weapons are called for, a weapons master should be on set and in full control of all dangerous props. It is literally their entire job function (see: everything Deverett just said above).

Past that, final responsibility for crew safety lies with the 1AD, which I have long taken issue with. They share the same union as directors and production managers, thus can expect no backing if they object in a way that diminishes the D's vision or costs more money to the production company.

I would expect the DP to be at a camera and so to have been willingly standing where the gun was pointing almost certainly means a straight on shot, keyed-in. No other firearms likely involved in such a shot, so why a mix-up? Why not put the DP (or any camera operator) in a vest for such a shot?

Going to be watching this one closely.

Set safety is a big, big issue of mine as much as I've worked in independent films. I get frustrated by dumb risks that cost lives, and totally incredulous when it happens on a major professional set.

[alfaniner]

Thanks, Dave. That was an interesting post.

The irony (there's that word again) of making a weapon look like it's firing and reacting realistically is that most people don't even know what that really looks or feels like.

[casebro]

The close up camera shot of a revolver would require lead bullets in the cylinders NOT behind the barrel. If a dunce "armorer" used live rounds there, and put one blank behind the barrel, when the revolver gets cocked the cylinder rotates, a life round comes under the hammer, and....oh no. I wonder is the camera took a pic that shows a start crimped round in the chamber next to the barrel?

I would expect the base of all cartridges on a set to be color coded with a Sharpie. Blanks from inert dummie rounds?

[sarge]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I'm thinking somehow a real gun with real ammo got onto the set. I can't see how you could severely injure/kill two people with blanks. You basically need to hold the barrel against their head for that to be fatal. And it's unlikely the Brandon Lee situation could happen twice.

Real gun, real ammo. There is no chance that a blank round killed one and severely injured another at anything outside point blank range, and there is no chance that he placed the gun against one head, pulled the trigger, placed it against another head and pulled the trigger again. This will be a single shot with a live round with a through and through for the fatality and that round also impacted the injured person.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by casebro

The close up camera shot of a revolver would require lead bullets in the cylinders NOT behind the barrel. If a dunce "armorer" used live rounds there, and put one blank behind the barrel, when the revolver gets cocked the cylinder rotates, a life round comes under the hammer, and....oh no. I wonder is the camera took a pic that shows a start crimped round in the chamber next to the barrel?

I would expect the base of all cartridges on a set to be color coded with a Sharpie. Blanks from inert dummie rounds?

blanks have crimped ends, not bullets, they are easy to tell apart.

When we did drill we had inert rounds that had the primers removed and either a slot or three indented, red painted troughs stamped in to the side of the case.
Or one piece cast aluminium 'snap caps' that look like a live round but are solid and anodised red.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

My dad and I used to refer to shotgun shells as bullets at sporting clays matches. It was just an inside joke, and to see how many anally retentive shooters were present. The answer was many.

I keep hearing people tell me there is no such thing as silencers or that I'm not supposed to call them (firearm sound suppressors) mufflers.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by deverett

My day job is Theatrical Armourer. No actor can accurately portray the motion of a gun being fired, it's just not physically possible. I will teach an actor from time to time how to make it look as realistic as possible if the production intends to add VFX later on. But it always looks odd. The actors are busy acting while trying to do this.



Someone said that the Brandon Lee case involved a piece of a blank stuck in the barrel, this was not what happened. The revolver had been taken to a range some time prior to filming (shooting) and live rounds were used. A piece of lead bullet was still in the barrel. The gun had not been cleaned and inspected, so when the blank fired, the energy propelled the lead out.


Only a few years ago an Australian stunt trainee was killed on set by a shotgun blast at 50cm range. This production had no safety officer and the armourer was inexperienced. The inquest is not yet complete, but it appears that the armourer made his own blanks. I think he took regular shotgun shells, removed the projectiles and left it like that. Behind the balls there is a plastic disc that retains the gunpowder, it's likely these were what killed the stunty.



It has been said that it might have contained a live round. As it was likely a revolver, that is possible. Often revolvers are used unmodified as there is no action to cycle to pick up the next blank. By inspection you cannot mistake the difference between a live and blank round, they are very clearly different.


I don't know the procedures on an American set, but here in Australia I have strict protocols that I follow. I have developed them myself through experience.


No firearm is loaded until the slate goes on. That is, we get right up to when the person holding the clapper board holds it up to camera and claps it. I'm holding the firearm and the blanks at this stage with the safety officer watching. It's a magazine based firearm, then I have already had the actor, safety officer and 1st AD watch me load the mag with the required number of blanks. They will also have observed I put a dummy in first, this is to make sure the slide closes at the end of the firing.



The 1st will call for me to arm, I will loudly announce arming (everyone is wearing hearing protection now, so I yell) That I am arming and how many shots will be fired. I hand the gun to the actor facing in the direction of the action. If it is facing the camera (dop, director, focus puller) then a lexan shield is already in place to protect them. Preferably I have them step away from the camera, the director is usually not at the camera anyway, usually in a tent with a video split of what the camera can see, the focus puller is usually remote too nowadays.


If there is any doubt in my mind I call a halt and check everything again. If I do not like the staging, I either have them change it, or scrub the blank fire. No one argues, they accept the safety arrangements.


If I need to give direction to the actor I give it clearly and if I think they are not taking my direction I retrieve the gun until they do. I recently did a movie where the main actor was not handling the pistol in a safe way (no blanks at this stage). I told production I would not allow that actor to do any blank fire, they accepted that with out question.


In general, good or experienced actors are very good at taking direction. From the Director, the safety officer, armourer, stunt coodinator etc.



The initial reports said "Misfire" that means the gun did not fire. It's clear that it in fact did in some way fire.
They also reported "prop gun". We treat all guns, prop or otherwise as real as a matter of course. I can only imagine production was trying to spin this at this stage with these words.


Dave Everett

I can accept that accurately faking the actual firing of a gun may be beyond most actors. But there appears to be safe technology, some discussed upthread, that can imitate the firing accurately enough for all but the most anal movie goers. For barrel close-ups, actual live firing, face-on shot sand the like there are ranges where actual ammunition can be used and all meat beings are required to be to the rear of the gun being fired. Unlike a movie set where people are all over. There are also remote cameras.

[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:

Quote:

There were two misfires on the prop gun on Saturday and one the previous week, the person said, adding “there was a serious lack of safety meetings on this set.”

[Steve]

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:

Starting to wonder what made this particular gun a *prop* gun, besides just calling it that.

[Warp12]

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:

Brings me back to my recent, unanswered post:

Originally Posted by Warp12

I fully expect Baldwin will have no culpability in this case.

However, what scenarios (if any) are there that might implicate him? I mean even as being a producer? Is there any scenario where he might be be considered even partially liable for this outcome?

[dudalb]

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:

Heads need to roll over this stupidity.
You expect misfires when using 19th century weapons..they were simply not as reliable as modern fire arms. But if they happen consistently on the same gun, you have a major problem.
And how the hell did they not check it to see if it was loaded? Not exacly rocket science to check to see if a gun is loaded...a 19th century one in particular.
And how did a live round get onto a movie set in the first place?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Steve

Starting to wonder what made this particular gun a *prop* gun, besides just calling it that.

If it can fire, it's not a prop.
Probably a replica of an 19th century revolver;;;they are designed laretly for the reenactment trade, and are fully functional.
Once again, that it wan not fully checked is just plain astounding. And that live round ..one with a bullet..was even allowed on a movie set is incredible.

[dudalb]

It seems to have been established that the round fire was live..it had a projectile. How the hell did that heppn is, to me, the big question.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by dudalb

If it can fire, it's not a prop.
Probably a replica of an 19th century revolver;;;they are designed laretly for the reenactment trade, and are fully functional.
Once again, that it wan not fully checked is just plain astounding. And that live round ..one with a bullet..was even allowed on a movie set is incredible.

Are these sort of weapons typically cap & ball, or sealed cartridge?

I thought a lot from that era were cap & ball.

I guess for this movie, sealed cartridge variety.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dudalb

If it can fire, it's not a prop.
Probably a replica of an 19th century revolver;;;they are designed laretly for the reenactment trade, and are fully functional.
Once again, that it wan not fully checked is just plain astounding. And that live round ..one with a bullet..was even allowed on a movie set is incredible.

This is also what I am thinking.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

If it can fire, it's not a prop.

Probably a replica of an 19th century revolver;;;they are designed laretly for the reenactment trade, and are fully functional.

Once again, that it wan not fully checked is just plain astounding. And that live round ..one with a bullet..was even allowed on a movie set is incredible.

Anything handled by talent in a scene is a "prop." Real, replica, store bought, hand-crafted. If an actor is holding it, it is a prop. Some of the article writers would do well to call it a "working replica." As I said above "prop gun" could mean a rubber gun, a working or non-working replica, a modified firearm, or a just plain gun. It is a vague term.

"Live round" can still refer to a blank. It will fire, it can hurt people, it is "live."

[mgidm86]

There seems to be some question as to whether or not this was a lead bullet. If it was, my question would be why would any movie set ever need live ammo?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Anything handled by talent in a scene is a "prop." Real, replica, store bought, hand-crafted. If an actor is holding it, it is a prop. Some of the article writers would do well to call it a "working replica." As I said above "prop gun" could mean a rubber gun, a working or non-working replica, a modified firearm, or a just plain gun. It is a vague term.

"Live round" can still refer to a blank. It will fire, it can hurt people, it is "live."

I know, i know.
I get nightmares from how some stage actors I know refuse to beleive that a "prop" can be dangerous.
A close friend of mine stages fencing and sword fights for local theater groups, and he can go on for hours about how stupid actors can be when it come to basic safety.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Anything handled by talent in a scene is a "prop." Real, replica, store bought, hand-crafted. If an actor is holding it, it is a prop. Some of the article writers would do well to call it a "working replica." As I said above "prop gun" could mean a rubber gun, a working or non-working replica, a modified firearm, or a just plain gun. It is a vague term.

"Live round" can still refer to a blank. It will fire, it can hurt people, it is "live."

In my ecpereince Live Round is used for a full load;ie that has both propellent and projectile; a blank, thouught certainly dangerous, is not a live round. But suspect this is another term whose useage varies....
And live round in the case we are discussing means the round had a projectile.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Heads need to roll over this stupidity.
You expect misfires when using 19th century weapons..they were simply not as reliable as modern fire arms. But if they happen consistently on the same gun, you have a major problem.

It will have been a repro gun.

Could be a light strike of the hammer due to a weak spring and hard primers.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Are these sort of weapons typically cap & ball, or sealed cartridge?

I thought a lot from that era were cap & ball.

I guess for this movie, sealed cartridge variety.

Nearest to using 'cap and ball' I have seen are all cartridge conversions anyway.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by sarge

Real gun, real ammo. There is no chance that a blank round killed one and severely injured another at anything outside point blank range, and there is no chance that he placed the gun against one head, pulled the trigger, placed it against another head and pulled the trigger again. This will be a single shot with a live round with a through and through for the fatality and that round also impacted the injured person.

Yeah, this, No way a blank charge in a hand gun or rifle could have done that kind of damage

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

It will have been a repro gun.

Could be a light strike of the hammer due to a weak spring and hard primers.

Ir was almost certainly a repro gun, but .repor guns generally behave the same as the original. If it had a weak spring, it was badly made and the armorer should have spotted that and got his money back.
Good repros are not cheap, and they are expected to work just like the orignal, since they are used for target shooitng competions as well as reenactments. They have handle live as well a blank rounds.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

In my ecpereince Live Round is used for a full load;ie that has both propellent and projectile; a blank, thouught certainly dangerous, is not a live round. But suspect this is another term whose useage varies....

And live round in the case we are discussing means the round had a projectile.

Yeah, it's quite confusing as film industry reporters forget over time that public use of terms and the set lingo don't match up.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Yeah, it's quite confusing as film industry reporters forget over time that public use of terms and the set lingo don't match up.

Point made. I guess I have always equated *prop* and *fake*. Seems I was wrong.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I fully expect Baldwin will have no culpability in this case.

However, what scenarios (if any) are there that might implicate him? I mean even as being a producer? Is there any scenario where he might be be considered even partially liable for this outcome?

I can't see him as an actor having any culpability. I'd bet my bottom dollar that's it's rare* for actors to check if the prop gun they are handed is actually loaded with live ammo. However, he's listed as a producer, which can mean many things though. If it was his decision to cut corners and not have a qualified armorer in charge then, yeah he could see civil liability. Unlikely he broke any laws though.

*Except when the actors last name is Selleck or Eastwood

[Graham2001]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I can't see him as an actor having any culpability. I'd bet my bottom dollar that's it's rare* for actors to check if the prop gun they are handed is actually loaded with live ammo. However, he's listed as a producer, which can mean many things though. If it was his decision to cut corners and not have a qualified armorer in charge then, yeah he could see civil liability. Unlikely he broke any laws though.

*Except when the actors last name is Selleck or Eastwood

You can add Christopher Walken to that list, supposedly he checks the guns used on set. The story goes that when Sean Penn's character in At Close Range pulled out a gun during the climax of that film Walken's reaction is only partially acting as the gun pulled was not a weapon that Walken had checked.

[tyr_13]

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:

Initially I was of the belief that Baldwin likely had little blame in this incident. Well I was wrong. Even as just an actor if such issues are happening one has a duty to refuse to film, and Baldwin doesn't have any mitigating factors like being low power/low pay in the industry. As a producer his failure to stop this is certainly at least partly his fault. There is no way as both the lead actor and a producer he was not aware of these issues beforehand.

[kevbo]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If you need a totally realistic gunshot in your movie . . . Maybe you need to rethink your movie. I can only speak as a moviegoer who has watched a lot of action movies with a lot of gunplay: Not once have I ever looked at a gunplay scene and thought, “no way are they firing real guns…their arms and bodies aren’t reacting like they would to real gunfire!” I KNOW THAT! It’s fake! It’s a frickin’ movie!

To me, this is the fault of whoever conceived of a scene in which a gun would be fired directly at the DP and director in the first place. The writer, the director, the armorer, the stunt coordinator…and ultimately, legally, it’s the responsibility of the producers that hired these people.


As a movie fan, trust me, I know all this is fake. Don’t go for realism when lives are at stake. And yes, that goes for all those stunt people needlessly dying or becoming disabled for “the scene.”

Agreed.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I can't see him as an actor having any culpability. I'd bet my bottom dollar that's it's rare* for actors to check if the prop gun they are handed is actually loaded with live ammo. However, he's listed as a producer, which can mean many things though. If it was his decision to cut corners and not have a qualified armorer in charge then, yeah he could see civil liability. Unlikely he broke any laws though.

*Except when the actors last name is Selleck or Eastwood

Producer means "someone who provided (or arranged for provision of) money that made this film happen and demanded some kind of recognition for it."

One may reach a point in their stature that this is reversed and one is paid to attach their name to a project.

The exact nature of the formula for determining associate producers, executive producers, just plain producers, and dudes who show up like 2 times over 4 months wearing an Armani suit (entirely out of place) and everyone keeps whispering "what's his name?" and the transpo department has to draw straws to see who has the dreaded task of impressive small talk while shuttling him back to the airport would make a quantum physics major's head spin. It's also totally different for film vs. TV. Vs. streaming vs ...

Anyways, back on point somewhat. I notice the production company is Rust Productions LLC. When I see the production company is named after the production, that's a red flag. That is not a long term professional outfit, they are running fly-by-night style. It has gotten sadly common for film, many a story out there about crew or even household name actors not realizing they'd agreed to "net" profit at the production company, which did the filming at a tremendous loss, then folded up shop and declared bankruptcy. Usually SAG-AFTRA gets this corrected at the distributor level (the obvious beneficiaries if not orchestrators of such plain financial fraud).

Don't get me wrong, every major production is run on contractors as the crew and nearly every piece of equipment rented or in a crew member's personal kit (in fact having an extensive, itemized kit that you "rent" to the company is a way many in demand crew members get paid competitively despite the union).

But there's a world of difference between that kind of operation and one with a permanent office staff, a stable of seasoned art and tech managers they use frequently, a solid pool of PAs hungry to get sucked into a department, and production coordinators swarming "just off set" to streamline the filming process.

The former don't have the depth of experience necessary to actually save money while shooting and thus never intended to and end up reckless. The latter know how to line a day up and execute it with rolling precision.

There's a lot of talk about the 10 hour standoff (14 hour shooting days) being a big part of the IATSE contract right now. I'm of split opinion on 14 hour days. Some of the tightest, busiest, craziest 14 hour days I've done are my fondest memories. It's the 14 hour days that we only spent 6 hours shooting that made me walk away for a while (and again, means working with those who then push too hard and take stupid risks). Those days were failures because I's weren't dotted and T's weren't crossed sometime 3 months back when the walk-through happened, or 2 weeks ago when we took measurements for the shot list, or yesterday during the lighting test...

[shemp]

Originally Posted by shemp

List of film and television accidents

A search of this list only brings up the three deaths related to prop handguns. But it also backs up your point about numerous stunt deaths. These deaths were completely unnecessary, but they're still happening.

I found a fourth death involving a gun:

Quote:

The Captive (1915). During filming of a scene where soldiers were required to break down a locked door, the extras fired at the door using live ammunition to give the scene more realism. Director Cecil B. DeMille then ordered the extras to reload with blanks in order to film the next shot in which the door is broken down. One of the extras inadvertently left a live round in his rifle which discharged, shooting another extra, Charles Chandler, in the head, killing him instantly.