Movies Kill People Ban All Movie Production

[Magdump]

WHOOOA!!
500 rounds found on movie set? Including live rounds.
Gosh damn
The vid starts by explaining that a piece of the jacket or possibly a lead fragment injuring the director.

https://youtu.be/uYFewTzOY20

 

[dantheman]

The Armorer is getting pissed that she is being blamed . She's starting to speak out . Said that nobody was plinking with that gun earlier and she has no idea where the live rounds came from .

 

[Old School]

Wonder if the camera was rolling. That would tell the tale

 

[AustinBR]

I guess I must be jaded as well because I agree.
Also, there are literally too many movie scenes to count that show point blank firing of some type of gun (prop or blank or whatever) being pointed directly at another actor or person in the movie. The primary reason there are people on set to ensure all guns being used are harmless is so nobody gets shot because they know guns will be pointed at people and fired. Because it’s make believe. It’s the movies. It’s not real so they portray things in as realistic a way as possible (or try at least). While Alec Baldwin ain’t no John Wick (and definitely not Keanu Reeves) he’s likely been conditioned into comfortably pointing and pulling the trigger on these prop guns for years with zero consequence. He’s likely done so every time as DIRECTED. By the DIRECTOR. I can imagine the director saying something like, ‘ok Alec, in this scene you’ll spit a wad of tobacco juice, wipe your chin and then draw your weapon and point it at the camera and shoot, then give a loud YEE-HAA!’ So, it’s actually possible that one or both persons shot called in the shot on their position.
The most likely scenario: somebody on set handed Baldwin a ‘gun’ for a scene, likely just as has happened many times over his career. Only this time it was a loaded firearm. Whoever handled that firearm just prior to the handoff would have been tasked with the inspection and assertion that it was not loaded with live ammo. Whomever bore that responsibility failed and if any charges are filed, I’m thinking they’ll be filed against the person employed in that position. I don’t believe the DA will pursue any charges against Baldwin and I don’t think he’s responsible. He was being directed and was handed the gun by staff who were supposed to assure a safe environment. Baldwin’s job was to act out the scene. His job does not include being the armorer or safety person. You can’t charge him with negligence when it was not his job to ensure a safe environment.
I don’t even believe the wrongful death lawsuit will include Baldwin as a defendant.

Agree with everything you said.

At the end of the day the actor's job is to utilize props to make a movie scene. If someone hands him a "fake crowbar" that is supposed to look and feel like a real crowbar but break upon impact, the burden should be on a safety person or someone else to ensure that the movie equipment is functioning as intended. If he hits them with the "fake crowbar" and it doesn't break and causes them harm, who is that on? I'd argue not the actor who was just following his script.

In this case, Baldwin did what he's done hundreds of times.

 

[T-boy]

Agree with everything you said.

At the end of the day the actor's job is to utilize props to make a movie scene. If someone hands him a "fake crowbar" that is supposed to look and feel like a real crowbar but break upon impact, the burden should be on a safety person or someone else to ensure that the movie equipment is functioning as intended. If he hits them with the "fake crowbar" and it doesn't break and causes them harm, who is that on? I'd argue not the actor who was just following his script.

In this case, Baldwin did what he's done hundreds of times.

Agree with both of you.

 

[Magdump]

The Armorer is getting pissed that she is being blamed . She's starting to speak out . Said that nobody was plinking with that gun earlier and she has no idea where the live rounds came from .

Oh wow. I’m not employed by any movie company so I don’t know how chain of custody works on set with prop guns, but if there’s anyone who would bear the responsibility for said guns on a set, would it not be the armorer? Also, wouldn’t the armorer be the one responsible for storing and keeping possession of the guns used on the set? Hmmm. I can say this, if it were my responsibility, there would be no one handling any gun used in the movie except who I handed the gun to myself and I could assert for myself and the recipient that the gun is safe or set up for its intended purpose in about 2 seconds. I do this every time I take anyone shooting or show anyone a firearm. It’s like that old Geico commercial. Even a caveman can do it.

 

[Magdump]

Agree with everything you said.

At the end of the day the actor's job is to utilize props to make a movie scene. If someone hands him a "fake crowbar" that is supposed to look and feel like a real crowbar but break upon impact, the burden should be on a safety person or someone else to ensure that the movie equipment is functioning as intended. If he hits them with the "fake crowbar" and it doesn't break and causes them harm, who is that on? I'd argue not the actor who was just following his script.

In this case, Baldwin did what he's done hundreds of times.

Yes. I don’t think it’s a question of right or wrong for the actor, but one of liability. I don’t believe he’s liable. The right or wrong part will fall where the liability does.

Not related to your post:
I’ve heard the question posed about whether or not an actor should be able to tell whether or not a gun placed in his hand is real, lethal, capable of shooting someone and I think that’s a stretch. I’m sure Baldwin has been handed all manner of firearm looking objects on movie sets. Some are likely light as a feather and obviously not a real gun. But many are likely authentic enough in weight and controls. Apparently some are the real deal. Does that apply to any liability on the actor’s part? No. There is no expectation on his part to know that the gun is real or not.
For the actors, the rules of gun safety also do not apply during a scene. I know that people will argue this, but they simply do not.
They are directed to handle the props in unsafe manners over and over which is why there are supposed to be other folks ensuring these guns are incapable of doing harm.

 

[KDerekT83]

So he isn't to be found responsible to verify the "weapon" was not ready to fire, incapable of firing, unloaded, whatever... Sorry. I can't agree with that. Actor or not, it doesn't matter if it's obviously a plastic toy spray painted black, or the real deal. When picking up ANYTHING that resembles a weapon, you "clear" it and make sure it's safe to handle before proceeding. Even/especially on a movie set where there's several people around you in the vicinity. Ignorance/complacency/habits, trust in someone else, etc... Have no place around weapons or anything that resembles/could be mistaken for a weapon. From the limited info I/we have, personally, I find the armorer, individual that handed Alec the weapon, AND Alec himself responsible for this. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for that girl to be dead, and other person to be injured.

Hell, I've watched people clear and even lock the slide/bolt back when handing me a weapon. I still put a finger AND my eyes inside that chamber after taking posession and once again verify it's good to go before doing anything with it.

 

[Magdump]

So he isn't to be found responsible to verify the "weapon" was not ready to fire, incapable of firing, unloaded, whatever... Sorry. I can't agree with that. Actor or not, it doesn't matter if it's obviously a plastic toy spray painted black, or the real deal. When picking up ANYTHING that resembles a weapon, you "clear" it and make sure it's safe to handle before proceeding. Even/especially on a movie set where there's several people around you in the vicinity. Ignorance/complacency/habits, trust in someone else, etc... Have no place around weapons or anything that resembles/could be mistaken for a weapon. From the limited info I/we have, personally, I find the armorer, individual that handed Alec the weapon, AND Alec himself responsible for this. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for that girl to be dead, and other person to be injured.

Hell, I've watched people clear and even lock the slide/bolt back when handing me a weapon. I still put a finger AND my eyes inside that chamber after taking posession and once again verify it's good to go before doing anything with it.

I get where you’re coming from, I honestly do, but it is what it is. Actors, being who they are, can’t be bothered with things like that. Not everyone in the business can be Keanu Reeves. What can be done is proper choices when it comes to props. Do they really need to ever use a gun that’s capable of firing live ammo? Probably not. Especially in this day and age. With all the CGI and other special effects at their disposal and the huge budgets for filming movies they could definitely go another route. There are some very realistic blank firing replicas on the market and even if there weren’t they can be built. If I was an entrepreneur looking for a gig today I might just get on the stick and start a company that caters to that very niche, then get in the mix and let the public know that I have the alternative that’ll keep tragedies like this from happening.
Another consideration is the person or team that was hired for this movie. I wonder what’s going on there. How serious did they take their job? Why did they feel the need to use any actual firearms? Why would they allow them to be used for target practice off set? And WTF were they thinking, having any live ammo anywhere around the set? I’m betting whoever this is will never work in the film industry again.

I personally feel that a movie set is no place for actual firearms. You cannot possibly expect all the usual firearm safety rules to be followed at all times during the filming of a shoot ‘em up anymore than you can in paintball or airsoft battles or nerf wars or water balloon fights. Because you are shooting at people for the sake of make believe. Simulation. An actor is directed to go through the motions of combat and acquire a target and pull a trigger to simulate a kill. Throw an actual firearm into the mix enough times and you can expect an actual kill eventually.
Again, I’ve never been in the industry, never even watched a take on a set. But I’m convinced that only an idiot would want an actual firearm used as a prop and never would have guessed that could happen until the death of Brandon Lee. The story is out there if anyone needs to check, but it was reported that the actual firearm used on set had been used to fire live ammo at some time prior to that fateful day. Blanks were used on set and apparently there was a projectile left in the barrel from a squib load that the blank forced out and hit the actor. I’m assuming that upon investigation of the scene someone uncovered blank casings in the gun and there was a bullet in the victim so they concluded those findings. So, even with no live rounds on set, a real firearm can still kill. So why anyone would use them on a set is beyond me.

 

[DarcMac]

I just read an article about this tragedy and how it compares to standard movie set practices with real guns. Apparently, the guns are cleared and proven to be empty and safe before given to the actors. This is one of several safety procedures practiced before production even begins. The article quotes several veteran actors from action movies that concur on these points. Basically, the industry takes rigorous safety protocols with guns on-set - normally. This time, people on this production set were consistently behaving unsafe to the point that many on the crew complained of the unsafe conditions and six of them even walked off the production because of the ongoing hazards. I mean, logically, live ammunition has no place anywhere near a movie set. Why was it there?
The thrust of the article is that Baldwin, as Executive Producer had a direct responsibility to not only know about the unsafe conditions, but to correct them, making him more culpable in the accident than most of us would think. But you can read the article and draw your own conclusions.

See article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-culpable-EP-chaotic-dangerous-sh-t-show.html

 

[DarcMac]

I personally feel that a movie set is no place for actual firearms...

Somebody (not me) could make the argument that in some cases, only the real weapon will work for a particular camera shot. Fine, but to me; that is all trivial compared to the real problem: live ammunition certainly has no place on a movie set. Why was it there? Absolutely nothing good could come from live ammo being on a movie set. I think this incident is proof of that.

 

[DarcMac]

we absolutely did not use blanks for training or point guns at people when I served. We used blue guns for training and dummies as the *bad guys* I didn’t have toy guns growing up because guns are not toys. I was taught that at a young age

I don't know when you served, but when I served, we did use blanks for training with those crappy laser harnesses. And they only work if you point them at the other soldiers in the training environment. Later, we used Airsoft guns that actually landed projectiles on the OPFOR. They were harmless, but could sting, and were definitely felt. Probably a change of policy between our generations - or services - but in my day, the idea was that actually being shot at in training helped you keep your head down when real bullets are flying.

 

[DarcMac]

Ahh yes it does. Not sure how you were taught but I was taught guns are not toys. Treat every gun as if it’s loaded and do not point it at anything you don’t intend to destroy or kill

I seriously doubt an anti-gun Hollywood wingnut like Alec Baldwin has ever learned the rules of gun safety like you and I did. Maybe heard it once, then immediately forgot that to study his lines for whatever flick he was acting in at the time.

 

[DarcMac]

It was suppose to be a prop gun. Hence not a real gun...

I have to agree with Colion Noir in his recent YT post (I'm paraphrasing him here): if you bring a real gun to a movie set, it is still a real gun. It doesn't magically become a "prop gun". A prop gun would be a fake gun incapable of shooting anything. So the basic rules of gun safety still apply (not that anti-gun Hollywood liberals have any idea what that means).

Moreover; it is now being reported that this gun actually belonged to Alec Baldwin personally, not the production company. So if true, he would know for a fact it was real, not a prop.

 

[Magdump]

I haven’t seen anything about the gun belonging to Baldwin, but I heard an interview with the young female armorer (took place at some point prior to the shooting) and it’s pretty damning. She speaks to her inexperience for one. Heard it reverbed on Hannity this afternoon. Interestingly enough, they keep stating that the assistant director is who actually handed Baldwin the gun.

 

[DBMJR1]

I haven’t seen anything about the gun belonging to Baldwin, but I heard an interview with the young female armorer (took place at some point prior to the shooting) and it’s pretty damning. She speaks to her inexperience for one. Heard it reverbed on Hannity this afternoon. Interestingly enough, they keep stating that the assistant director is who actually handed Baldwin the gun.

It's my understanding she wasn't allowed on set due to Covid protocols.

 

[dantheman]

It's my understanding .......

That's the problem here . WAY too many versions of the story . Many of them completely opposite of another . We really need the facts to come out . The FACTS .

 

[Magdump]

That's the problem here . WAY too many versions of the story . Many of them completely opposite of another . We really need the facts to come out . The FACTS .

You said it Dan, but with the current state of affairs in big media, that’s not gonna happen. This story is prime fodder for big media and they need to weave that web brother. They are busy putting the CNN spin on it so I’m afraid many of the facts will be tainted and there will be a lot of filler and fluff and I’m sure a load or two of complete horse **** designed to demonize guns, ammunition, shooting sports, large caliber revolvers and free speech. Or whatever they think they can. Hopefully someone trustworthy will dig to the truth and get it out there.

 

[KDerekT83]

You said it Dan, but with the current state of affairs in big media, that’s not gonna happen. This story is prime fodder for big media and they need to weave that web brother. They are busy putting the CNN spin on it so I’m afraid many of the facts will be tainted and there will be a lot of filler and fluff and I’m sure a load or two of complete horse **** designed to demonize guns, ammunition, shooting sports, large caliber revolvers and free speech. Or whatever they think they can. Hopefully someone trustworthy will dig to the truth and get it out there.

I agree with this hole heartedly. Now with that being said... Good Luck with it... Unlikely a complete and honest truth will come out publicly.

 

[Abby Normal]

There is someone here that isn’t being faulted for their roll. That’s the cinematographer. She put herself down range of a gun she didn’t know was unloaded. To bad she paid the ultimate price for everyone else’s negligence.
Being a Huge gun hater, what was Baldwin’s message in this movie that was full of guns?
It’s just to bad that no one has figured out how to shot a gun at a movie camera without shooting anybody. Well Justin D. Barnes did it in 1903 in The Great Train Robbery.