Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Pottsey]

Erm...

Don't play stupid you know what I mean. She has 8 years of expreince with her training by an expert starting 8 years ago. Shadowing experts in the field doing the job. Not that she spent 8 years doing nothing but training. The fact she has 8 years expreince with guns and shadowing expreince of the role as well as multiple jobs in this area proves your narrative as false that she is inexperienced.

“For the film sets, she worked on one other where there was no head armorer. There was no armorer. As far as I'm aware there were no firearms at all. So you're making things up about watching them work. Especially over multiple films. Again.”

Your lying as per official transcript's which others have linked to she was shadowing the head armorer on other film sets in her past to observe how the role worked. She also worked as a armorer at Yellowstone Film Ranch.

It’s a press statement backed up by 2 lawyers which is different to a basic press statement. Your just desperate to discount it as it proves your viewport wrong.

Furthermore to my last post.

In the full interview she says. She caught on by herself and was directly taught it was a combination of both. Another case of you misquoting to misrepresent.

As for her blanks comment that wasn’t for her first role as head armour. That was when she was first starting out.

“HANNAH GUTIERREZ: Dad has taught me everything
GUTIERREZ: I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me, because I was, like, oh, I don't know anything about it. But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go when you want it to, rather than it hitting the empty cylinders and everything.”

She was talking about training from an expert in the field from when she first started out. Not that she didn’t know how to use blanks while being head armour.

Her dad is a legendry gunsmith and started training her from when she was 16 years old. Basically, you are mispresenting her and lying so that you can paint a fake narrative. She is not a veteran but she has more training and expreince then you make out.

 

[Dis86]

Don't play stupid you know what I mean. She has 8 years of expreince with her training by an expert starting 8 years ago. Shadowing experts in the field doing the job. Not that she spent 8 years doing nothing but training. The fact she has 8 years expreince with guns and shadowing expreince of the role as well as multiple jobs in this area proves your narrative as false that she is inexperienced.



Your lying as per official transcript's which others have linked to she was shadowing the head armorer on other film sets in her past to observe how the role worked. She also worked as a armorer at Yellowstone Film Ranch.

It’s a press statement backed up by 2 lawyers which is different to a basic press statement. Your just desperate to discount it as it proves your viewport wrong.

Furthermore to my last post.

In the full interview she says. She caught on by herself and was directly taught it was a combination of both. Another case of you misquoting to misrepresent.

As for her blanks comment that wasn’t for her first role as head armour. That was when she was first starting out.

“HANNAH GUTIERREZ: Dad has taught me everything
GUTIERREZ: I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me, because I was, like, oh, I don't know anything about it. But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go when you want it to, rather than it hitting the empty cylinders and everything.”

She was talking about training from an expert in the field from when she first started out. Not that she didn’t know how to use blanks while being head armour.

Her dad is a legendry gunsmith and started training her from when she was 16 years old. Basically, you are mispresenting her and lying so that you can paint a fake narrative. She is not a veteran but she has more training and expreince then you make out.

I'm not playing stupid, I directly quoted you. It's not my fault you contradicted yourself.

You still haven't shown the multiple jobs in the area, i've posted her IMDB profile showing 1 job, which we knew about, and 1 unrelated.

The interview was on the 11th of September this year, talking about her first armourer role which was when? Please remind us? It wasn't from March to June this year was it? Sooooo much experience.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...win-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html


Just for the record, this is her

https://voicesofthewest.net/armorer-hannah-reed-9-11-21/

I suggest you have a listen. Not confidence inspiring.

 

[Werewolf]

First armourer role...

You're aware that everyone has a "first" whatever role and that most people will if at all honest admit to nerves.

It being "her first" doesn't mean she didn't know how to do it, but it was the first time her name was on the record as being in charge of it, and the first time she was the one responsible specifically for it, anyone in their right mind will be nervous about that responsibility.

Most people will work up from lower roles, often by the time they have their "first" as a named role they'll have effectively been doing it for a while under supervision because that is exactly how progression works.
You don't usually become a director on your first film, you're far more likely to have started as some very low level position (often having done years of training/education on the subject) then worked up through various roles until you might be an assistant director, then second unit director then the main director.

By your logic anyone who ever does the armourer role is not suited for it, as every single person in the industry will have had their first time.

It's like you pointing to her comments about learning by looking, well gosh darn it that's so unusual i mean it's not the way that you pick up a great deal of information and know how in every practical job in the world.
Probably half the work of being an apprentice is watching those more experienced than you and seeing how they do things, so you don't just rely on them explicitly showing and having to explain in extreme detail every thing (which would rapidly cause most trainers to think you're thick as porcine excrement) but having watched them you have an idea of how to do it and they build on that with instruction and correction.
There are who volumes of knowledge in most professions that isn't laid down in any reference manual or teaching material because it's assumed that the person learning is able to absorb at least some things through paying attention to what the person who is training them is doing, as well as listening to the spoken instructions.

It is also worth noting that IMDB is not the be all and end all of movie credits, it's really good for the primary roles, but certainly doesn't list every single person that's worked on a film. John Wick a film that has hundreds of weapons on set and multiple times has them pointed at people has no listed armourer at all on IMDB (and John Wick 2 only has one as "armourer: Italy" so either they didn't have one anywhere else, or they didn't list one, let alone assistants).

The film companies that actually hire people do however have both the persons full CV and the ability to check, usually very easily.

 

[Pottsey]

"I'm not playing stupid."

Yes you are big time. As for my mistake, yes I can admit I made a mistake and was not as clear as I could have been. Correcting my mistake doesnt change anything as the correction still proves you completely wrong. She started her training 8 years ago not that she has trained for 8 years solid. The fact she started 8 years ago proves what you have been saying as wrong.

“Sooooo much experience.”

Only because you are skipping all her other experiences. You are skipping her training by an expert in the field, you are skipping her other jobs like armourer at Yellowstone Film Ranch, you are skipping where she talked about shadowing lead armourer over multiple film sets to observe how the role worked. You are skipping her training by a professional which started 8 years ago and that she has been using guns and has expreince around guns for 8 years. You are skipping that she has had lots of extra training in recent years by a professional taken from your own source you posted.

You seem to be confused about timelines. When she talks about how she learned her trade from one of the best in the field she is talking about her past not her current role. You are acting like her comments about when she was young are from when she was head armourer. Do you even understand the difference?

As for IMDB you are having a joke right? She is not a mainstream actor who has a full profile on IMDB.

I suggest you have a listen. Not confidence inspiring.

Just did and it proves you wrong. So that’s the 2nd time today you posted evidence proving yourself wrong today. Well, done.

In the interviews they even talk about how she worked in the background building up over the years as well as shadowing to learn the role before doing the role directly proving you wrong for a 3rd time. They also talk about how she is hard to find on the internet and it’s almost impossible (at time of interview). As she goes by a different name for jobs. Basically she is no veteran but has way more training and expreince then you make out. She got hired because of her expreince and training. Not due to all the nonsense you are on about.

 

[Pottsey]

First armourer role...

You're aware that everyone has a "first" whatever role and that most people will if at all honest admit to nerves.

It being "her first" doesn't mean she didn't know how to do it, but it was the first time her name was on the record as being in charge of it, and the first time she was the one responsible specifically for it, anyone in their right mind will be nervous about that responsibility.

Most people will work up from lower roles, often by the time they have their "first" as a named role they'll have effectively been doing it for a while under supervision because that is exactly how progression works.
You don't usually become a director on your first film, you're far more likely to have started as some very low level position (often having done years of training/education on the subject) then worked up through various roles until you might be an assistant director, then second unit director then the main director.

By your logic anyone who ever does the armourer role is not suited for it, as every single person in the industry will have had their first time.

It's like you pointing to her comments about learning by looking, well gosh darn it that's so unusual i mean it's not the way that you pick up a great deal of information and know how in every practical job in the world.
Probably half the work of being an apprentice is watching those more experienced than you and seeing how they do things, so you don't just rely on them explicitly showing and having to explain in extreme detail every thing (which would rapidly cause most trainers to think you're thick as porcine excrement) but having watched them you have an idea of how to do it and they build on that with instruction and correction.
There are who volumes of knowledge in most professions that isn't laid down in any reference manual or teaching material because it's assumed that the person learning is able to absorb at least some things through paying attention to what the person who is training them is doing, as well as listening to the spoken instructions.

It is also worth noting that IMDB is not the be all and end all of movie credits, it's really good for the primary roles, but certainly doesn't list every single person that's worked on a film. John Wick a film that has hundreds of weapons on set and multiple times has them pointed at people has no listed armourer at all on IMDB (and John Wick 2 only has one as "armourer: Italy" so either they didn't have one anywhere else, or they didn't list one, let alone assistants).

The film companies that actually hire people do however have both the persons full CV and the ability to check, usually very easily.

+1 you worded what I am trying to say far better then I have said. It is clear from her interviews she has done other roles and by other names.

 

[Greebo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FC10L2pUUAgXxzS?format=jpg&name=large

Confirms she was only part time armour and part time another job.
Confirms the prop master also handled the guns.
Confirms the first misfire was not her but the prop master.
Confirms the 2nd incident was not her fault as she informed the stuntmen the weapon was “hot”.
Confirms she fought for staff training, time to prepare weapons e.c.t but was overruled.

Sighed by two lawyers who would not put there name to a false statement.

You called all this absolutely rubbish and easy to debunk. So go on debunk it.

Plus there are tons of people blaming the AD for this incident the same AD that got fired from another job for breaking the firearm rules and who has a history of complaints against him for dangerous handling of weapons. A guy who says he only looked at 3 of the 5 rounds in the gun. He admits he should have checked all rounds.



As being under apprenticeship for years by a legendary gunsmith who trained many Hollywood stars and who was at the top of his game is a pretty good thing to put on your CV. Its also good proof that you are wrong about her being completely inexperienced. On top of the training from a highly regarded expert we also know she had multiple jobs with guns far more then the 1 you say.



Where she said she has been misrepresented and misquoted by many parts of the media. Her full quote in regards to moving up to head arrumor ““You know, I was really, really nervous about it at first, and I almost didn’t take the job because I wasn’t sure if I was ready but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly." in other word it turned out she was ready and was just nervous about her first time as head role.

She didn’t say she was lacking in experience. She was questioning if she had enough expreince or not like most people do for a promotion. Found one area she was lacking in, got training from an expert then went on to do a really smooth job without problems. Then went onto another armour job which also went really smoothly.

Where is the evidence or her obvious incompetence?

Doesnt deny the AD statement that she handed him the gun and only showed him 3 bulllets in it? I suspect that will be the key point as to where some of the blame lies.

 

[Dis86]

+1 you worded what I am trying to say far better then I have said. It is clear from her interviews she has done other roles and by other names.

Her ranch job was the one from march to june...read the link Einstein.

 

[Dis86]

First armourer role...

You're aware that everyone has a "first" whatever role and that most people will if at all honest admit to nerves.

It being "her first" doesn't mean she didn't know how to do it, but it was the first time her name was on the record as being in charge of it, and the first time she was the one responsible specifically for it, anyone in their right mind will be nervous about that responsibility.

Most people will work up from lower roles, often by the time they have their "first" as a named role they'll have effectively been doing it for a while under supervision because that is exactly how progression works.
You don't usually become a director on your first film, you're far more likely to have started as some very low level position (often having done years of training/education on the subject) then worked up through various roles until you might be an assistant director, then second unit director then the main director.

By your logic anyone who ever does the armourer role is not suited for it, as every single person in the industry will have had their first time.

It's like you pointing to her comments about learning by looking, well gosh darn it that's so unusual i mean it's not the way that you pick up a great deal of information and know how in every practical job in the world.
Probably half the work of being an apprentice is watching those more experienced than you and seeing how they do things, so you don't just rely on them explicitly showing and having to explain in extreme detail every thing (which would rapidly cause most trainers to think you're thick as porcine excrement) but having watched them you have an idea of how to do it and they build on that with instruction and correction.
There are who volumes of knowledge in most professions that isn't laid down in any reference manual or teaching material because it's assumed that the person learning is able to absorb at least some things through paying attention to what the person who is training them is doing, as well as listening to the spoken instructions.

It is also worth noting that IMDB is not the be all and end all of movie credits, it's really good for the primary roles, but certainly doesn't list every single person that's worked on a film. John Wick a film that has hundreds of weapons on set and multiple times has them pointed at people has no listed armourer at all on IMDB (and John Wick 2 only has one as "armourer: Italy" so either they didn't have one anywhere else, or they didn't list one, let alone assistants).

The film companies that actually hire people do however have both the persons full CV and the ability to check, usually very easily.

You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.

I'm all eyes/ears/fingers if you can find any of these other pertinent roles. I've pointed out with a source that literally the only ones she's had are this ranch job that she started in March of this year followed by the 2 films.

No evidence of her apprenticeship. No evidence of this 8 years of training.

So...sources people. Come on. Where are all these "many" jobs she's had?

And just to be clear, you have listened to the interview with her, right?

 

[dowie]

Sighed by two lawyers who would not put there name to a false statement.

OK sorry but that is hilarious - two lawyers have backed their client and would never back a client who has not told the truth??? Wat??

Suuuure, I bet that sort of logic works really well in criminal trials - "well the suspect has put his name to his version of events and his lawyers have signed it and they'd not put their name to a false statement now would they so he must be innocent?"

I'm not saying the statement is incorrect I just find your conclusion there quite amusing, her lawyers don't necessarily know that everything she has told them is true or not, they weren't there!

Plus there are tons of people blaming the AD for this incident the same AD that got fired from another job for breaking the firearm rules and who has a history of complaints against him for dangerous handling of weapons. A guy who says he only looked at 3 of the 5 rounds in the gun. He admits he should have checked all rounds.

Yup, he certainly has some blame too here - though if he should have checked do you know who else should have checked? The armourer who handed him the friearm and only checked half the drum/3 rounds in his presence! It was literally her job to check!

There is other stuff about her being unsafe that has already been quoted in this thread if you scroll back too - both of them are subject to accusations of being unprofessional.

Where is the evidence or her obvious incompetence?

Aside from the fact, someone is now dead and another person injured because she didn't check the firearm (that according to the latest update) she handed over to the AD and showed him it had dummy rounds (albeit not thoroughly and not checking all the rounds)?

 

[Dis86]

Aside from the fact, someone is now dead and another person injured because she didn't check the firearm (that according to the latest update) she handed over to the AD and showed him it had dummy rounds (albeit not thoroughly and not checking all the rounds)?

This is the thing, we can't necessarily believe the AD, he's going to be covering his own backside and yet people seem to think the sun shines out of hers!

They're happy to accept every quote about her being awesome and yet the ones talking about her professionalism (or lack thereof) and the complaints about her previous performance are ignored.

The fact that the clear evidence shows major major screw ups which fall under her remit is again ignored.

 

[Mr Badger]

What is wrong with calling herself a female armorer?

It's got to be better than armouress.

 

[Pottsey]

Her ranch job was the one from march to june...read the link Einstein.

So you admit to being wrong and that she had more then 1 job? At last you get it. She has been working in film for years now. If you have listened to the interview you would know she has been taking jobs under different names and that she is very hard to find on the internet. Did you listen to the interviews?

“ she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”

When she was young and was being trained before she had the job. Her being scared of blanks was when she was training to do the job. She was talking about her time learning by observation and watching the armourer work you know when she shadowed the job to learn to gain expreince. The same point in the interview she was talking about training starting at 16 years old. Straight after saying “I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me” she continued the sentence with “But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go….“ To spell it out for you she was not talking about 2021. She was talking about her past and how she worked her way into the role today. It’s not that she didn’t know how to do blanks and was scared of blanks in 2021 unless you listened to some widely different interview to me. I listened to an interview and read a transcript and from what I can see it proves you wrong on multiple fronts.

 

[Dis86]

So you admit to being wrong and that she had more then 1 job? At last you get it. She has been working in film for years now. If you have listened to the interview you would know she has been taking jobs under different names and that she is very hard to find on the internet. Did you listen to the interviews?



When she was young and was being trained before she had the job. Her being scared of blanks was when she was training to do the job. She was talking about her time learning by observation and watching the armourer work you know when she shadowed the job to learn to gain expreince. The same point in the interview she was talking about training starting at 16 years old. Straight after saying “I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me” she continued the sentence with “But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go….“ To spell it out for you she was not talking about 2021. She was talking about her past and how she worked her way into the role today. It’s not that she didn’t know how to do blanks and was scared of blanks in 2021 unless you listened to some widely different interview to me. I listened to an interview and read a transcript and from what I can see it proves you wrong on multiple fronts.

I did indeed listen to the interview. That job seemingly had nothing to do with working on an active film however it was an armorers job. So we've got history back to March this year. Not many films as you claimed. Still waiting for your magic sources on these many films.

Would you call 6 months of work very experienced? I certainly wouldn't.

I'll await your sources of many films.

Still waiting on that apprenticeship and 8 years training too.

Got the transcript handy? I couldn't find one.

Clearly you're being very selective in your hearing. Although as I've already shown with your own contradictory posts it's to be expected.

Just to add...her previous name seems to be Hannah Gutierrez. This is based on her previous social media profiles that are now also not suspiciously at all shut down.

 

[Hotwired]

You'd have to be the dumbest person on the planet to leave your social media accounts open to the general public if you have a negative spotlight on you.

Would you want to wake up to 5,000 messages telling you to go kill yourself and that you're **** at your job by random degenerates who have selectively read or heard things.

 

[Pottsey]

“Still waiting on that apprenticeship and 8 years training too.”

Why do I need to provide a source when it’s your source? You posted it. You have listened to the interview, right? You have seen all the links posted including the one you posted. Do you even look at your own links and interviews you post?

She is clearly talking about she started training at 16 years old by a legendry gunsmith. Also clear that she was an on multiple sets doing observation with the armorer, then offset under tutor ship by a legendry gunsmith. She also talked about more training up in her 20’s but you must know that as you listened to the interviews right? No I wouldn't call her very experienced as she is not a veteran but she has some experience covering an 8 year timeframe starting from age 16 when her training started along with at least 3 years working for film companies. Which paints a very different picture over the fake narrative you are using.

“Got the transcript handy? I couldn't find one”

Not a full one but I pasted the text in my post earlier on and you can listen to the interview links to cross reference that the text is correct. It shows that you’re the one that made the major mistake.

“Clearly you're being very selective in your hearing. Although as I've already shown with your own contradictory posts it's to be expected.”

So you want to focus on one small typo that was cleared up and corrected instead of looking at your massive mistake that invalidates your argument. Typical. Are you even able to admit your mistake?

As we are talking about selective hearing you’re the one that made this false claim that as head armour she “ she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”” Where is your evidence? Where are your links that show that? Where is your source? If that is not true the everything you are saying based on that fake statement is wrong.

 

[Dis86]

Why do I need to provide a source when it’s your source? You posted it. You have listened to the interview, right? You have seen all the links posted including the one you posted. Do you even look at your own links and interviews you post?

She is clearly talking about she started training at 16 years old by a legendry gunsmith. Also clear that she was an on multiple sets doing observation with the armorer, then offset under tutor ship by a legendry gunsmith. She also talked about more training up in her 20’s but you must know that as you listened to the interviews right? No I wouldn't call her very experienced as she is not a veteran but she has some experience covering an 8 year timeframe starting from age 16 when her training started along with at least 3 years working for film companies. Which paints a very different picture over the fake narrative you are using.




Not a full one but I pasted the text in my post earlier on and you can listen to the interview links to cross reference that the text is correct. It shows that you’re the one that made the major mistake.



So you want to focus on one small typo that was cleared up and corrected instead of looking at your massive mistake that invalidates your argument. Typical. Are you even able to admit your mistake?

As we are talking about selective hearing you’re the one that made this false claim that as head armour she “ she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”” Where is your evidence? Where are your links that show that? Where is your source? If that is not true the everything you are saying based on that fake statement is wrong.

You made the claims. Not me. You contradicted yourself and cleared nothing up. Not me. You have made claims of many films and significant experience. Not me.

I provided multiple sources. You've provided nothing. You claimed there was a transcript now there isn't one.

Basically you're full of crap.

Like I've said for pages, I'm all eyes if you bother to back up what you're saying with a source.

 

[builder22]

is big Ally now in the clear then?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I'm not sure "you're full of crap" is forum friendly. You're very angry seemingly all the time in your need to be right.

e: let's check out who has got the most to say in magnolia's "GUESS WHO CAN'T STOP TYPING!" game. Dis has 15% of the posts in the entire thread. I'm not sure whether to be amused or appalled (it is appalled).

1. 139 Dis86
2. 90 dowie
3. 48 Jono8
4. 46 Tefal
5. 31 - Rroff

 

[Dis86]

I'm not sure "you're full of crap" is forum friendly. You're very angry seemingly all the time in your need to be right.

e: let's check out who has got the most to say in magnolia's "GUESS WHO CAN'T STOP TYPING!" game. Dis has 15% of the posts in the entire thread. I'm not sure whether to be amused or appalled (it is appalled).

1. 139 Dis86
2. 90 dowie
3. 48 Jono8
4. 46 Tefal
5. 31 - Roff

Look guys another mags crappost that doesn't actually have anything to do with a thread!

Imagine if he actually had something to contribute!

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Look guys another mags crappost that doesn't actually have anything to do with a thread!

Imagine if he actually had something to contribute!

I think it has everything to do with the thread, don't you? Perhaps not the content but the thread itself? Hard to argue otherwise. Sometimes - often, actually - I find the stuff around the discussion of threads to be far more interesting than the discussion itself (I'm using the word 'discussion' but in reality, in this case, I mean a few posters trying to brow beat/bore/death by thread hole others into submission). The kids probably call it the 'meta' or maybe that phrase has gone out of fashion but the point is that I'm far more interested in the people posting, their approach to discussions, the way they present themselves, their openess or otherwise to new ideas or ones that seem challenging, than the actual thread detail itself.

I have lots to contribute and the fact that I don't proviude that in a way you find sanitary or appealing is absolutely fine and probably reinforces the bit above. It'd be terribly boring if we were all the same, wouldn't it darling?

 

[Yaayuh!]

I like magsy.