[Merged] Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun - Page 9

plague311 · 25th October 2021, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well those people can just get over it.

"Oh my God that's a Beretta 92FS not a Beretta M9 LOL Movie ruined forever" can go in the corner with the "OMG that person's grip on the Katana is .00000000002 centimeters too high I know while you were partying I studied the blade" and the "Akcusually that's a Panzer Type 345, the actual tank they should have used is a Panzer Type 344 which is identical except for the lugnuts go on counter-clockwise" types.

NCIS:LA, Criminal Minds, or any movie relatively similar that uses a "tech analyst" would be impossible for me to watch, if I had that mindset. Most of the stuff they say is complete IT gibberish but I enjoy all of those shows. I just laugh at the parts that are out of right field, and watch the rest.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Even if you wanted a "to the eye" replica I am sure a 3D printed replica will cost a lot less than a real gun.
And most of these

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6be6417b57.jpg

look like a gun to me and the most expensive is only £13.99, how much is a handgun?

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

Darat · 25th October 2021, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

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

Why ever not? It would look exactly the same.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Airsoft pistols are cheap and accurate reproductions.

And it wouldn't surprise me if they are used for background guns all the time. But hero guns the ones that the camera plays over and say shows them loading or what have you are different and those guns are likely not mechanically accurate enough for that.

There are lots of grades of props, and the gun that an extra gets in a scene is different from the one the a list actor gets that the camera plays over for some time.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 07:51 AM

Again it's been done, Once Upon a Time in Mexico had only static prop guns for most of its shooting and had amazing gun battles.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Even if you wanted a "to the eye" replica I am sure a 3D printed replica will cost a lot less than a real gun.
And most of these

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6be6417b57.jpg

look like a gun to me and the most expensive is only £13.99, how much is a handgun?

Again toys are used when you want a bunch of guns in the background that the camera never focuses on, when it is a gun the actors use you need a different level of prop, and one that is being used to discharge blanks yet a different level of prop.

For the purposes of this accident you need a gun that can discharge blanks

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Why ever not? It would look exactly the same.

This is next-level stuff that someone needs to tell Hollywood, right away. Instead of the current system, they could have been using $20 airsoft guns the whole time. Look at the savings! And it looks "exactly" the same!

Brilliant!

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again it's been done, Once Upon a Time in Mexico had only static prop guns for most of its shooting and had amazing gun battles.

And lord of war bought 3000 real AK-47's because they were cheaper than prop guns.

"New Zealand director Andrew Niccol bought 3000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles for his latest movie, Lord of War, because it was cheaper than using props."

https://archive.ph/20120906102255/ht...887.0-2887.151

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And it wouldn't surprise me if they are used for background guns all the time. But hero guns the ones that the camera plays over and say shows them loading or what have you are different and those guns are likely not mechanically accurate enough for that.

There are lots of grades of props, and the gun that an extra gets in a scene is different from the one the a list actor gets that the camera plays over for some time.

I would defy you to tell the difference with the best ones without stripping them.

Darat · 25th October 2021, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

The choice of gun can be a driving factor how people perceive a movie - for some, the wrong gun a scene just pulls them right our of the suspension of disbelief. Not hard to find people going on endlessly about some character in a period movie using a gun that was not produced until a decade after the movie was made, or a soldier in a movie using a rifle that was not typically issued to whatever military unit that soldier is supposed to be in. It really blows gaskets in some people.

...snip...

But that's not what is being discussed here - it is about replacing real guns with non-working replicas. For instance to my eye the replica guns here: https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html seem to be quite indistinguishable from a real one.

Thinking about this, any movie made in the UK can't be using real handguns and the like and that doesn't seem to hamper movies which feature guns.

Have to say these ideas are fine to discuss but I don't think there is a need to change the current practices as they seem to be working as wanted.

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:04 AM

"We need to use potentially dangerous things because the safe things cost more" is not a compelling argument for me.

Darat · 25th October 2021, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Warp12

This is next-level stuff that someone needs to tell Hollywood, right away. Instead of the current system, they could have been using $20 airsoft guns the whole time. Look at the savings! And it looks "exactly" the same!

Brilliant!

https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html

That doesn't look realistic?

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

The choice of gun can be a driving factor how people perceive a movie - for some, the wrong gun a scene just pulls them right our of the suspension of disbelief. Not hard to find people going on endlessly about some character in a period movie using a gun that was not produced until a decade after the movie was made, or a soldier in a movie using a rifle that was not typically issued to whatever military unit that soldier is supposed to be in. It really blows gaskets in some people.

So for fully-nonfunctional/non-possibly-functional replica prop guns, they would need a whole lot of them, made to look accurate. Some big-budget movies do that - Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers did that, making rubber replicas of many of the guns used by the soldiers portrayed, but a smaller budget movie can't quite do that.

Add to that some level of interactivity with the gun - loading it, cocking the hammer, spinning a revolver cylinder, racking the slide on a semi-auto, cracking open the way some shotguns and revolvers do, any of that kind of stuff. The kind of stuff we've all seen in a million movies.

At that point, you are getting to the point where it gets much, much easier to just use a real gun. Possibly a replica of an older gun, but a full function replica that can shoot real bullets. Possibly a gun that's been modified so it can't fire, but which started its life as a real gun.

I mean, even Han Solo carried a real gun. His "blaster" was a Mauser modified with a bunch of junk added on to make it look futuristic. But the core was a real gun, built to shoot bullets.

"Some few gun nerds can be anal about guns" is not a thing that should override increased safety. We have a few gun enthusiasts contributing to this thread and I have not seen any of them raise this point.

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 08:08 AM

Airsoft replica weapons.
Best ones are full metal or wood where required and field strip able.

Just add the bang in Post

https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-pistol

https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-assault-rifle

https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-submachine-gun

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

"We need to use potentially dangerous things because the safe things cost more" is not a compelling argument for me.

Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many.

It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I would defy you to tell the difference with the best ones without stripping them.

Do they fire blanks? Or would the gun in the actual accident in question not have been airsoft no matter what and it is just a pointless digression?

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many.

It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way.

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

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

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

But that's not what is being discussed here - it is about replacing real guns with non-working replicas. For instance to my eye the replica guns here: https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html seem to be quite indistinguishable from a real one.

Thinking about this, any movie made in the UK can't be using real handguns and the like and that doesn't seem to hamper movies which feature guns.

Have to say these ideas are fine to discuss but I don't think there is a need to change the current practices as they seem to be working as wanted.

Again those are not ones that fire blanks, so scenes of guns being fired would not use them anyway. So really it is a pointless digression as this was a scene that involved a gun being fired, not a gun that was not supposed to be fired going off unintentionally.

Bob001 · 25th October 2021, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And lord of war bought 3000 real AK-47's because they were cheaper than prop guns.

"New Zealand director Andrew Niccol bought 3000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles for his latest movie, Lord of War, because it was cheaper than using props."

https://archive.ph/20120906102255/ht...887.0-2887.151

Also from your link:

Quote:

"We also got some tanks, and the guy said, 'I need them back by December because I'm selling them to Libya'."

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

"Some few gun nerds can be anal about guns" is not a thing that should override increased safety. We have a few gun enthusiasts contributing to this thread and I have not seen any of them raise this point.

And really just have the actor shout bang instead of firing a blank.

Non firing replicas are used but unless you get rid of firing blanks in movies and say add CGI smoke and muzzle flash only you still need blank firing guns on occasion, like for the scene being shot then.

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html

That doesn't look realistic?

It looks realistic to a point, and from a distance. But it has no functionality; meaning no active slide functionality (as in, during "firing"), no recoil, no ability to utilize a blank, etc.. As someone has mentioned, props like this are fine for background scenes and such. But to get a more authentic front-and-center onscreen experience, you will need something engineered differently. Or CGI.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:17 AM

Just like needing a pile of guns to sit there as background props is functionally very different from needing a weapon you will have an actor handle.

SuburbanTurkey · 25th October 2021, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many.

It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way.

It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well.

The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:19 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?

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?

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And really just have the actor shout bang instead of firing a blank.

Non firing replicas are used but unless you get rid of firing blanks in movies and say add CGI smoke and muzzle flash only you still need blank firing guns on occasion, like for the scene being shot then.

No.

Darat · 25th October 2021, 08:20 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?

We allow people to take part in a lot more seriously risky activities, from climbing to fell walking to rugby to horse-riding and so on. We can never make anything 100% safe 100% of the time.

Given the current procedures the risks seem very minimal, as JoeM said probably more people killed by food poisoning by the caterers over 40 years!

Warp12 · 25th October 2021, 08:21 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?

Of course we don't want deaths. But, realistically, I am pretty sure that the number of gun deaths and injuries on set is a lot less than the totality of those caused by other stunt operations.

To a very, very large extent I think we can say that the current safety protocols have been effective. This doesn't mean we can't improve things, but it doesn't mean we have to start using water pistols, either.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

No.

Why not? it is much safer and gets rid of the firing of blanks which was the common element in those 3 deaths.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well.

The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here.

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.

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

We allow people to take part in a lot more seriously risky activities, from climbing to fell walking to rugby to horse-riding and so on. We can never make anything 100% safe 100% of the time.

Given the current procedures the risks seem very minimal, as JoeM said probably more people killed by food poisoning by the caterers over 40 years!

Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on.

Darat · 25th October 2021, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well.

The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here.

This.

It would seem from the minimal information so far that this happened because the safety procedures weren't being followed, not that the safety procedures failed.

Steve · 25th October 2021, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why not? it is much safer and gets rid of the firing of blanks which was the common element in those 3 deaths.

Dome times ludicrous comments can be amusing. Here, not so much.

I will consider the evidence you will be providing that the gun fired by Baldwin contained blanks

Darat · 25th October 2021, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on.

Nope. At least one of those we know was because safety procedures weren't followed and this one seems to be another one of those.

Had a quick look at deaths of stunt actors - https://www.thewrap.com/10-stuntmen-who-died-on-set/ that's 12 in the same period and I don't know how comprehensive that list is.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on.

You make that sound all sinister and evil but that's literally how risk/reward happens in literally everything and we do with a lot more than 3 deaths balanced against things a lot less important than movies all the time.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on.

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.

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:29 AM

Also we aren't just "LOL it happens"ing.

There were consequences and changes to the industry after the death of Brandon Lee. There will almost certainly be consequences and changes to the industry after the death of Halyna Hutchins.

(Again I sort of acknowledge but don't really count the death of Jon-Erik Hexum as that was functionally a very different scenario. There are some troubling aspects of it, as in why the gun was just left out between filming, but it's a very different beast from the Lee and Hutchins incidents)

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Dome times ludicrous comments can be amusing. Here, not so much.

I will consider the evidence you will be providing that the gun fired by Baldwin contained blanks

No it had a live round when it was supposed to have a blank. We don't know how the live round even got onto set. But if you are going with blank firing as an acceptable practice then you need to look at the specifics of this specific accident as to how it happened and why, which we don't know.

ponderingturtle · 25th October 2021, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Also we aren't just "LOL it happens"ing.

There were consequences and changes to the industry after the death of Brandon Lee. There will almost certainly be consequences and changes to the industry after the death of Halyna Hutchins.

(Again I sort of acknowledge but don't really count the death of Jon-Erik Hexum as that was functionally a very different scenario. There are some troubling aspects of it, as in why the gun was just left out between filming, but it's a very different beast from the Lee and Hutchins incidents)

I do kind of wonder about injuries on sets during that time from firearms that did not result in death, but the only one that I am aware of is Bruce Willis losing his hearing in one ear firing the gun under the table in Die Hard.

Captain_Swoop · 25th October 2021, 08:32 AM

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

JoeMorgue · 25th October 2021, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I do kind of wonder about injuries on sets during that time from firearms that did not result in death, but the only one that I am aware of is Bruce Willis losing his hearing in one ear firing the gun under the table in Die Hard.

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.

25th October 2021, 07:37 AM	#321
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 13,789	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Well those people can just get over it. "Oh my God that's a Beretta 92FS not a Beretta M9 LOL Movie ruined forever" can go in the corner with the "OMG that person's grip on the Katana is .00000000002 centimeters too high I know while you were partying I studied the blade" and the "Akcusually that's a Panzer Type 345, the actual tank they should have used is a Panzer Type 344 which is identical except for the lugnuts go on counter-clockwise" types. NCIS:LA, Criminal Minds, or any movie relatively similar that uses a "tech analyst" would be impossible for me to watch, if I had that mindset. Most of the stuff they say is complete IT gibberish but I enjoy all of those shows. I just laugh at the parts that are out of right field, and watch the rest.
	__________________ “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

25th October 2021, 07:49 AM	#323
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	Originally Posted by Warp12 I don't want to see your version of John Wick. Why ever not? It would look exactly the same.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 07:50 AM	#324
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Airsoft pistols are cheap and accurate reproductions. And it wouldn't surprise me if they are used for background guns all the time. But hero guns the ones that the camera plays over and say shows them loading or what have you are different and those guns are likely not mechanically accurate enough for that. There are lots of grades of props, and the gun that an extra gets in a scene is different from the one the a list actor gets that the camera plays over for some time.
	__________________ 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, 07:51 AM	#325
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,031	Again it's been done, Once Upon a Time in Mexico had only static prop guns for most of its shooting and had amazing gun battles.
	__________________ "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, 07:54 AM	#326
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Darat Even if you wanted a "to the eye" replica I am sure a 3D printed replica will cost a lot less than a real gun. And most of these http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6be6417b57.jpg look like a gun to me and the most expensive is only £13.99, how much is a handgun? Again toys are used when you want a bunch of guns in the background that the camera never focuses on, when it is a gun the actors use you need a different level of prop, and one that is being used to discharge blanks yet a different level of prop. For the purposes of this accident you need a gun that can discharge blanks
	__________________ 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, 07:40 AM	#322
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Darat Even if you wanted a "to the eye" replica I am sure a 3D printed replica will cost a lot less than a real gun. And most of these http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6be6417b57.jpg look like a gun to me and the most expensive is only £13.99, how much is a handgun? I don't want to see your version of John Wick.

25th October 2021, 07:54 AM	#327
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Darat Why ever not? It would look exactly the same. This is next-level stuff that someone needs to tell Hollywood, right away. Instead of the current system, they could have been using $20 airsoft guns the whole time. Look at the savings! And it looks "exactly" the same! Brilliant!

25th October 2021, 07:57 AM	#328
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again it's been done, Once Upon a Time in Mexico had only static prop guns for most of its shooting and had amazing gun battles. And lord of war bought 3000 real AK-47's because they were cheaper than prop guns. "New Zealand director Andrew Niccol bought 3000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles for his latest movie, Lord of War, because it was cheaper than using props." https://archive.ph/20120906102255/ht...887.0-2887.151
	__________________ 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, 08:02 AM	#329
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle And it wouldn't surprise me if they are used for background guns all the time. But hero guns the ones that the camera plays over and say shows them loading or what have you are different and those guns are likely not mechanically accurate enough for that. There are lots of grades of props, and the gun that an extra gets in a scene is different from the one the a list actor gets that the camera plays over for some time. I would defy you to tell the difference with the best ones without stripping them.

25th October 2021, 08:03 AM	#330
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	Originally Posted by crescent The choice of gun can be a driving factor how people perceive a movie - for some, the wrong gun a scene just pulls them right our of the suspension of disbelief. Not hard to find people going on endlessly about some character in a period movie using a gun that was not produced until a decade after the movie was made, or a soldier in a movie using a rifle that was not typically issued to whatever military unit that soldier is supposed to be in. It really blows gaskets in some people. ...snip... But that's not what is being discussed here - it is about replacing real guns with non-working replicas. For instance to my eye the replica guns here: https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html seem to be quite indistinguishable from a real one. Thinking about this, any movie made in the UK can't be using real handguns and the like and that doesn't seem to hamper movies which feature guns. Have to say these ideas are fine to discuss but I don't think there is a need to change the current practices as they seem to be working as wanted.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 08:04 AM	#331
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	"We need to use potentially dangerous things because the safe things cost more" is not a compelling argument for me.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:05 AM	#332
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	Originally Posted by Warp12 This is next-level stuff that someone needs to tell Hollywood, right away. Instead of the current system, they could have been using $20 airsoft guns the whole time. Look at the savings! And it looks "exactly" the same! Brilliant! https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html That doesn't look realistic?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 08:07 AM	#333
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	Originally Posted by crescent The choice of gun can be a driving factor how people perceive a movie - for some, the wrong gun a scene just pulls them right our of the suspension of disbelief. Not hard to find people going on endlessly about some character in a period movie using a gun that was not produced until a decade after the movie was made, or a soldier in a movie using a rifle that was not typically issued to whatever military unit that soldier is supposed to be in. It really blows gaskets in some people. So for fully-nonfunctional/non-possibly-functional replica prop guns, they would need a whole lot of them, made to look accurate. Some big-budget movies do that - Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers did that, making rubber replicas of many of the guns used by the soldiers portrayed, but a smaller budget movie can't quite do that. Add to that some level of interactivity with the gun - loading it, cocking the hammer, spinning a revolver cylinder, racking the slide on a semi-auto, cracking open the way some shotguns and revolvers do, any of that kind of stuff. The kind of stuff we've all seen in a million movies. At that point, you are getting to the point where it gets much, much easier to just use a real gun. Possibly a replica of an older gun, but a full function replica that can shoot real bullets. Possibly a gun that's been modified so it can't fire, but which started its life as a real gun. I mean, even Han Solo carried a real gun. His "blaster" was a Mauser modified with a bunch of junk added on to make it look futuristic. But the core was a real gun, built to shoot bullets. "Some few gun nerds can be anal about guns" is not a thing that should override increased safety. We have a few gun enthusiasts contributing to this thread and I have not seen any of them raise this point.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:08 AM	#334
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Airsoft replica weapons. Best ones are full metal or wood where required and field strip able. Just add the bang in Post https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-pistol https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-assault-rifle https://www.patrolbase.co.uk/airsoft-submachine-gun
	Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 25th October 2021 at 08:10 AM.

25th October 2021, 08:09 AM	#335
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,031	Originally Posted by Steve "We need to use potentially dangerous things because the safe things cost more" is not a compelling argument for me. Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many. It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way.
	__________________ "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, 08:13 AM	#336
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop I would defy you to tell the difference with the best ones without stripping them. Do they fire blanks? Or would the gun in the actual accident in question not have been airsoft no matter what and it is just a pointless digression?
	__________________ 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, 08:13 AM	#337
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many. It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way. Zero deaths would be preferred, and can easily be accomplished. Do you consider 3 deaths to be merely the cost of doing business?
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:14 AM	#338
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Darat But that's not what is being discussed here - it is about replacing real guns with non-working replicas. For instance to my eye the replica guns here: https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html seem to be quite indistinguishable from a real one. Thinking about this, any movie made in the UK can't be using real handguns and the like and that doesn't seem to hamper movies which feature guns. Have to say these ideas are fine to discuss but I don't think there is a need to change the current practices as they seem to be working as wanted. Again those are not ones that fire blanks, so scenes of guns being fired would not use them anyway. So really it is a pointless digression as this was a scene that involved a gun being fired, not a gun that was not supposed to be fired going off unintentionally.
	__________________ 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, 08:16 AM	#339
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,555	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle And lord of war bought 3000 real AK-47's because they were cheaper than prop guns. "New Zealand director Andrew Niccol bought 3000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles for his latest movie, Lord of War, because it was cheaper than using props." https://archive.ph/20120906102255/ht...887.0-2887.151 Also from your link: Quote: "We also got some tanks, and the guy said, 'I need them back by December because I'm selling them to Libya'."

25th October 2021, 08:17 AM	#340
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Steve "Some few gun nerds can be anal about guns" is not a thing that should override increased safety. We have a few gun enthusiasts contributing to this thread and I have not seen any of them raise this point. And really just have the actor shout bang instead of firing a blank. Non firing replicas are used but unless you get rid of firing blanks in movies and say add CGI smoke and muzzle flash only you still need blank firing guns on occasion, like for the scene being shot then.
	__________________ 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, 08:17 AM	#341
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Darat https://www.real-gun.com/replica-desert-eagle.html That doesn't look realistic? It looks realistic to a point, and from a distance. But it has no functionality; meaning no active slide functionality (as in, during "firing"), no recoil, no ability to utilize a blank, etc.. As someone has mentioned, props like this are fine for background scenes and such. But to get a more authentic front-and-center onscreen experience, you will need something engineered differently. Or CGI.

25th October 2021, 08:17 AM	#342
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,031	Just like needing a pile of guns to sit there as background props is functionally very different from needing a weapon you will have an actor handle.
	__________________ "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, 08:17 AM	#343
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again 3 deaths in 40 years. I'd bet my next mortgage payment food poisoning from the catering table has probably killed as many. It IS safe. They are already doing it the safe way. It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well. The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here.

25th October 2021, 08:19 AM	#344
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	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? 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?
	__________________ 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, 08:20 AM	#345
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle And really just have the actor shout bang instead of firing a blank. Non firing replicas are used but unless you get rid of firing blanks in movies and say add CGI smoke and muzzle flash only you still need blank firing guns on occasion, like for the scene being shot then. No.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:20 AM	#346
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	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? We allow people to take part in a lot more seriously risky activities, from climbing to fell walking to rugby to horse-riding and so on. We can never make anything 100% safe 100% of the time. Given the current procedures the risks seem very minimal, as JoeM said probably more people killed by food poisoning by the caterers over 40 years!
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 08:21 AM	#347
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	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? Of course we don't want deaths. But, realistically, I am pretty sure that the number of gun deaths and injuries on set is a lot less than the totality of those caused by other stunt operations. To a very, very large extent I think we can say that the current safety protocols have been effective. This doesn't mean we can't improve things, but it doesn't mean we have to start using water pistols, either.

25th October 2021, 08:22 AM	#348
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Steve No. Why not? it is much safer and gets rid of the firing of blanks which was the common element in those 3 deaths.
	__________________ 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, 08:22 AM	#349
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,031	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well. The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here. 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.
	__________________ "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, 08:22 AM	#350
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	Originally Posted by Darat We allow people to take part in a lot more seriously risky activities, from climbing to fell walking to rugby to horse-riding and so on. We can never make anything 100% safe 100% of the time. Given the current procedures the risks seem very minimal, as JoeM said probably more people killed by food poisoning by the caterers over 40 years! Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:23 AM	#351
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey It's hard to argue with the track record. These kinds of scenes can be done safely, the real question is why this one diverged from these best practices that clearly work so well. The reporting indicates two prior misfires of the same stage gun, so obviously they weren't running a tight ship here. This. It would seem from the minimal information so far that this happened because the safety procedures weren't being followed, not that the safety procedures failed.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 08:25 AM	#352
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,187	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Why not? it is much safer and gets rid of the firing of blanks which was the common element in those 3 deaths. Dome times ludicrous comments can be amusing. Here, not so much. I will consider the evidence you will be providing that the gun fired by Baldwin contained blanks
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

25th October 2021, 08:26 AM	#353
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,092	Originally Posted by Steve Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on. Nope. At least one of those we know was because safety procedures weren't followed and this one seems to be another one of those. Had a quick look at deaths of stunt actors - https://www.thewrap.com/10-stuntmen-who-died-on-set/ that's 12 in the same period and I don't know how comprehensive that list is.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th October 2021, 08:26 AM	#354
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,031	Originally Posted by Steve Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on. You make that sound all sinister and evil but that's literally how risk/reward happens in literally everything and we do with a lot more than 3 deaths balanced against things a lot less important than movies all the time.
	__________________ "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, 08:27 AM	#355
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by Steve Ok so no more safety needed. We have determined that a shooting death every 13 years is the cost of making movies. Carry on. 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin