1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Le Clandestin Brun, 22 Oct 2021.

  1. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    Yeah but he’s still desperate to deflect for whatever reason..
     
  2. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: 27 Dec 2003

    Posts: 12,962

    if the shot requires pointing it at the camera you do

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    So what you're doing is making up a scenario to fit your hopes that doesn't actually tie up with any of the information stated to date.
    If Alec needed to turn and point his gun in a specific direction then you do not stand in that location. Thats stupidity and dangerous. This is evident by the fact a person is now dead.
    Why did the armourer load a weapon on a film set with a live round, or why was she not in control of the weapons thus allowing someone else to load it with a live round?!


    No you don't. I'm not sure if you're aware but you don't need to hold a camera to film...
     
  4. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    Yes apparently they do on some occasions, and extra precautions are taken in those case... but those occasions tend to be other actors in a scene and don't involve firing anything at someone!

    This was a cinematographer not an actor he was in a scene with!

    BS - it is everyone's job to do that.

    That isn't clear at all - what procedure are you citing here? I think you're just making things up - I've seen industry people on twitter claiming that the prop master/armourer should be present too.

    Of course, Alec is a new/inexperienced actor and doesn't have any influence on this production or production company and wouldn't know anything about the procedures.

    Nah all three of them screwed up and/or could have prevented this.
     
  5. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: 27 Dec 2003

    Posts: 12,962

    this just shows you dont know what your talking about

    https://twitter.com/Wazzu0199/status/1451405623409758213?s=20
     
  6. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

  7. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: 27 Dec 2003

    Posts: 12,962

    Do you work in the industry or are you just an armchair expert who knows better
     
  8. Jokester

    Don

    Joined: 7 Aug 2003

    Posts: 42,456

    Location: Aberdeenshire

    That's just a flimsy perspex screen, it's not going to stop a real round. As Dis86 says, there's no need these days for an operator or anyone else to be put in the firing line if you're expecting real ammunition to be used - if you are expecting it.
     
  9. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    That doesn't negate what he said, that someone is holding a camera in that example doens't negate that you don't need to.

    Also, it isn't clear there if they are aiming at the camera person or rather at some point close to but away from them. given they've actually bothered to have a screen in place I'd suspect they're well aware of the state of the firearm and that it was loaded with blanks. In this incident, with Baldwin, the firearm was supposed to be "cold".
     
  10. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    Neither. Take the Jessica Biel example earlier that was a remotely operated camera, thankfully.
    I am very good friends with a guy whose father and grandfather were (fairly) successful players in the industry though.
     
    Last edited: 24 Oct 2021
  11. Pottsey

    Mobster

    Joined: 29 May 2006

    Posts: 4,694

    You’re the one speaking nonsense that doesn’t tie into what little facts we have.

    How do you know the armourer loaded a live round? At this point it’s looking like the armourer wasn’t even on set and might even have been one of the people that left the set in protest due to unsafe conditions. If either one of these is true then the weapon was not meant to be taken and passed onto the actor and its not the armourer fault.

    Hours before this accident happened a large batch of union staff left the site refusing to work due to safety. The director then brought in a load of new none union people with unknown expreince and training. It seems like the director picked up the weapons without the armourer, the director skipped his job to check the weapon. It also seems like some of the crew had been taken some of the weapons and loading live ammo to shoot at targets off set.

    If the armourer wasn’t working at that point in time and the director broke the rules and went ahead without her that how is it her fault? Until we have more information its to early to blame the armourer.

    There was a safety checklist in place what should have happened is the armourer checked the weapon, passed it to the director whom is the last stage of the checklist and checks the weapon. Then the director shouts cold weapon and pass’s the weapon over to the actor. The actor is note required to check the weapon the last official procedural step is the director.

    At the moment everything is pointing towards the director cutting corners which caused this accident.
     
  12. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    The armourer is the one responsible for loading the weapons, whether on site or not. If they were not on site then they are responsible for securing the weapons and ammunition to prevent mishandling by others.
     
  13. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    No this is being conflated, different things - yes camera crew did walk out re: working hours, issues with safety (minus the cinematographer who was sadly killed)... but that doesn't seem to be the cause of the failures here rather it is a response to the environment that allowed this issue to occur. The camera crew isn't responsible for the weapons.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 24 Oct 2021
  14. Longbow

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Jan 2004

    Posts: 9,822

    While it is possible she wasn't on the set, the armourer usually owns the firearms used, if they aren't on set, neither are the firearms.

    Not the way I've seen it done. The armourer deals with the firearms, they are the ones that hand them to the actor. I have no idea why a director would do that.
     
  15. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,110

    Location: UK

    Hmm, how does the camera not manage to pick up perspex glare?
     
  16. Scougar

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jan 2007

    Posts: 13,453

    Location: PA, USA

    I see they are already looking to blame the 24 year old Armouror in the tabloid press. Judge, jury and execution these days by whoever puts their opinion online first.
     
  17. Scougar

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jan 2007

    Posts: 13,453

    Location: PA, USA

    The camera is THROUGH the composite panel :)
     
  18. Pottsey

    Mobster

    Joined: 29 May 2006

    Posts: 4,694

    She could well be and she could well have made a major mistake. But we should wait for all the facts before automatically assuming she is at fault. There are any number of possibilities where she didn't do anything wrong. Like she could have secure the weapons and Dave Halls bypassed that. Or she was one of the group that left that site under protest due to unsafe conditions and Dave Halls decided to go ahead without her. There is so much missing and conflicting information we need more hardcore facts before judging her as guilty.

    The people on set seems to be blaming Dave Halls not Hannah. AD below refers to Dave Halls.

    "AD yelled at me at lunch talking about revisions,” she said. “These motherf**kers … did you see him come up to my desk and yell at me? He’s supposed to check the guns. He’s responsible for what happened.”"
     
  19. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,110

    Location: UK

    Oh, I couldn't tell with it being that blurry.
     
  20. Scougar

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jan 2007

    Posts: 13,453

    Location: PA, USA

    With respect to everyone here: An actor/actress is normally focussed on trying to play the part, and not whether stuff is safe. When you have multiple people in dedicated roles to check safety, re-check safety etc, you have to put some trust in them.

    It's great if you are like Will Smith or Keanu Reeves where you have gun experience, but I can only assume that a lot of actors/actresses do not.

    I'm interested to know the circumstances of what actually happened. Will wait till it all comes out rather than casting judgement.