well-temperedforum.groupee.net    The Well-Tempered Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Off Key    This Whole Alec Baldwin Thing Shows That We're All Doomed As A Country
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: QuirtEvans, pianojuggler, wtg
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
This Whole Alec Baldwin Thing Shows That We're All Doomed As A Country
 Login/Join
 
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of CHAS
posted Hide Post
Have known that blanks can kill since childhood. Don't recall how or why
I learned that.
Had a .410 gauge single shot at a very young age.
Got a 16 gauge years later.
Guns and hunting were part of life.
I was a good shot. I learned how to hit flying birds and clay pigeons by listening
to what I heard people say would work.
I bought a quality over/under shotgun a few years ago. Have never shot it.


--------------------------------
Several people have eaten my cooking and survived.

 
Posts: 25850 | Location: Still living at 9000 feet in the High Rockies of Colorado | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wtg:

edit: And I read somewhere that there is something in the standard safety protocols for movie productions that says that there should never be any live ammunition on a set. Period. No exceptions.

Here's the protocol:

https://www.csatf.org/wp-conte...18/05/01FIREARMS.pdf


I read the same thing, although it was a quote from a "former filmmaker" and U.S. shooting team member, so I don't know whether that qualifies someone as a film safety expert.
 
Posts: 45838 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of wtg
posted Hide Post
I've seen interviews with three people who work in the industry as weapons handlers and they all made the same observation, that they had never seen so many mistakes made in how the prop guns were handled as happened on the set of 'Rust'.


--------------------------------
When the world wearies and society ceases to satisfy, there is always the garden - Minnie Aumônier

 
Posts: 38222 | Location: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: 19 January 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
(self-titled) semi-posting lurker
Minor Deity
Picture of ShiroKuro
posted Hide Post
And I read a snippet that said it looks like Alec Baldwin could be held criminally responsible, not for pulling the trigger but because he's in a position of authority as the producer.


--------------------------------
My piano recordings at Box.Net: https://app.box.com/s/j4rgyhn72uvluemg1m6u

 
Posts: 18860 | Location: not in Japan any more | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
There's a saying in compliance ... tone from the top. The people at the top of the organization are responsible for establishing a culture of compliance and a respect for compliance.

I feel sorry for the man, but he was in charge. If you want to be in charge, then you have to live with the responsibility.

And, if this results in fewer actors wanting to be the person in charge of absolutely everything because of the potential consequences ... that's not a bad thing.
 
Posts: 45838 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big?

Minor Deity
Picture of Cindysphinx
posted Hide Post
Mmmm, maybe Baldwin was culpable.

But I thought in movies that everybody and anybody who wants it can have the title "producer." If in this case "producer" meant he put up some money and helped hire people, I don't see any criminal liability.

If he had any role in pushing production or encouraging lax safety, there could be a problem.
 
Posts: 19833 | Location: A cluttered house in Metro D.C. | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unrepentant Dork
Gadfly
Picture of dolmansaxlil
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Mmmm, maybe Baldwin was culpable.

But I thought in movies that everybody and anybody who wants it can have the title "producer." If in this case "producer" meant he put up some money and helped hire people, I don't see any criminal liability.

If he had any role in pushing production or encouraging lax safety, there could be a problem.


Producer is usually the money. Executive Producer is a title bump in lieu of not giving you more money.

Producers usually do have say because they do the budget. As in “you have 6 days to film something that really needs 12 days”. And that’s where a lot of corners get cut.


--------------------------------
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

 
Posts: 4103 | Location: Ontario, Canada | Registered: 29 June 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Serial origamist
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of pianojuggler
posted Hide Post
The term "producer" sounds to me like he is the CEO of the movie. As Bush the Younger said, "the decider". So, he would be the one person ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the course of making the movie.

Further, he was on the set, at least during the shooting (ooh, sorry about the very tasteless choice of words), so he cannot convincingly claim he had no idea what was going on.

If I were Alec Baldwin, I would not be sleeping very well these days. I think he is in deep yogurt. (I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV.)


--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

All types of erorrs fixed while you wait.

 
Posts: 30040 | Registered: 27 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Does This Avatar Make My Butt Look Big?

Minor Deity
Picture of Cindysphinx
posted Hide Post
I'm thinking the bar is pretty high for criminal liability for an actor/producer like Baldwin. The investigation will tell all, of course, and there could be some damning emails. If I had to bet, I bet he won't be charged, although someone else might be.

There have been a lot of serious accidents in movie production. How many people have been charged criminally? And how often is it the producer instead of the director?

When that helicoper accident killed the actor and two kids, everyone charged was acquitted.

When a person was killed by a train on a set, the director pled and served a year in jail.

It can happen, but I wouldn't charge based on what we know so far.
 
Posts: 19833 | Location: A cluttered house in Metro D.C. | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
"I've got morons on my team."

Mitt Romney
Minor Deity
Picture of Piano*Dad
posted Hide Post
I'm still waiting for some evidence about live ammo. Was live ammo used during the filming at some points? If so, we're in a very different world of expected care and precaution (and professional management). If not, just how did a live bullet come to be in the chamber?
 
Posts: 12759 | Location: Williamsburg, VA | Registered: 19 July 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
quote:
It remains unclear what was in the gun that Baldwin fired. Detectives learned the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, had laid three prop guns on the cart before Halls, the assistant director, grabbed one and handed it to Baldwin. Souza, the film's director, told investigators he believed the gun was unloaded and safe.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26...olded-cec/index.html
 
Posts: 45838 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gadfly
Picture of Lisa
posted Hide Post
I don't really understand it all exactly, but I did read somewhere that blanks basically have the gunpowder and explode just like real bullets, they just don't have the corresponding projectile that flies out of the barrel that real bullets have. But if something happens to be in the gun's barrel - a small pebble, a remnant of the previous blank, whatever -- it will be pushed out from the explosive force just like it was part of an actual live round. The armorer person in charge on the Rust set was a young woman who had apparently been fired before for loading blanks into a gun while sitting on a gravel surface - she failed to look into the barrel to see if any of the tiny stones had gotten in there while she was loading the blank rounds and then just handed the gun to a child. So I agree that it is just crazy to have real live bullets on a movie set but perhaps it was more this scenario where the blank round explosion pushed something that didn't belong in the barrel out of it.
 
Posts: 4422 | Location: Suburban Philly, PA | Registered: 30 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
There's also a rumor going around that, for amusement during time off, the crew was using the old-time guns for "plinking" ... essentially, goofing around by shooting at cans. If someone wasn't careful, a live round could accidentally have been left in the gun after the "plinking".

I've also read that there were multiple different kinds of ammunition all around the set, and that the head armorer was young and relatively new (although her father had been an armorer ... she'd only been armorer for one other film. They hired her because they were only offering low pay for the armorer and more experienced people rejected the job for that reason.
 
Posts: 45838 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Minor Deity
Picture of Mary Anna
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
But if something happens to be in the gun's barrel - a small pebble, a remnant of the previous blank, whatever -- it will be pushed out from the explosive force just like it was part of an actual live round.


This is really interesting, and so is the rumor that the crew had been practice-shooting with the old-fashioned guns. The possibility that it could have been a pebble or some other non-bullet seems to me as a non-gun-person somewhat less likely, since the projectile went through one person and into another one at some distance. Would a pebble do that? I don't know.


--------------------------------
Mary Anna Evans
http://www.maryannaevans.com
MaryAnna@ermosworld.com

 
Posts: 15565 | Location: Florida | Registered: 22 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
From the WSJ:

quote:
Do Movies Need Real Guns? Tragedy on Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Set Stirs Debate
Some productions have vowed to stop using actual guns, while some armorers say there is no substitute for the real thing


https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...11635337800?mod=e2tw

The article says that the time and delays involved in using real guns (safety checks, warning neighbors, clearing the sets) are more expensive than CGI. And this is also in response to Dol's point:

quote:
Mr. Fleet says that advancements in visual-effects technology help make fabricated gunfire look more realistic than old postproduction methods that ended with superimposing some explosive fire on the gun’s muzzle. When actors use fake weapons in close quarters, for example, he adds everything after the fact on a computer, including the guns’ moving parts and the flashes they throw off. Smoke is one of the trickiest elements to get right, he says.

Mr. Fleet says much of the gunfire that viewers see on screen has been enhanced anyway, because digital cameras often fail to completely capture split-second muzzle flashes.


“We‘ve become so used to seeing these computer-generated muzzle flashes. The real stuff can look kind of wimpy,” he says.
 
Posts: 45838 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

    well-temperedforum.groupee.net    The Well-Tempered Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Off Key    This Whole Alec Baldwin Thing Shows That We're All Doomed As A Country