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

    Yes, I agree and that is what I'm saying.

    No, I'd disagree slightly there there especially after two previous incidents on the same production + crew waling out, in part, over safety issues, on the same production. Good to trust, better to check!

    Why wasn't the armourer and actor present together when either loading or checking that the firearm is safe? If there isn't the expectation that he can't confirm by himself (like in this case with an antique/unusual weapon relative to modern firearms) then why not have the armourer confirm/demonstrate that in his presence?

    "this gun is cold"

    "show me please"

    [armourer proceeds to just take a minute to explain there are no bullets in the drum, no caps (or if dummy ones present they're duds - perhaps demonstrate this too) etc..]

    Instead, he was not told by an expert (the armourer) he was told by the AD. According to the reports so far the AD picked up the weapon (from among three weapons left lying about offset) and assumed it was safe then handed it to Baldwin, told him it was safe and he simply took his word for it then proceeded to practice a scene and in the course of doing so pointed it at someone, the armourer/expert seemingly had no part in that specific part of it. Of course, the armourer did have a part in the apparent negligent aspect of leaving the firearms unattended/unsecured and loaded with live ammunition in the first place and allowing them to be used for mucking about with live ammunition off set.
     
  2. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    Blaming Baldwin is getting ridiculous, so much hindsight in this.

    Armourer prepares the 'prop' - Actor uses the 'prop'

    If the prop fails, it is the Armourers fault.

    As for some analogies put forward about basic knowledge etc.

    Basic knowledge for an actor would be how to handle and use the prop in a realistic way - In this case how the hold the prop, which way to point it, how the activate the prop, how to react when the prop activates.

    Not to ask for the weapon to be stripped down and shown each bullet, and have the knowledge of how to identify every type of blank/dummy from a live rounds.

    That is down to the Armourer/Prop master whoever.

    How does the 'show me' thing work then ?

    Armourer : ' This is a live round and this is a dummy round - see the difference ? '
    Actor : ' Yes '
    Producer : 'OK, action'
    Actor ' Hold on, how do i know that the armourer put the dummy back in and not the live round ? '
    Producer : 'Cut'

    Repeat above process forever...............................................


    The Driving analogy - Yes you would expect the actor to be able to drive if required, that is the acting part - but you would not expect them to check that all aspects of the 'prop' are fully working - does the actor request a full MOT be carried out in front of them by a certified mechanic before using the 'prop' incase the brakes fail and they kill a crew member ?

    Hindsight is wonderful, and has saved millions of lives ( afterwards )
     
  3. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: 20 May 2007

    Posts: 35,087

    Location: Surrey

    Exactly. Its absurd.
     
  4. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    What are you even trying to add then, you're just trolling with some as oyu've pointed out deliberately dumb analogies which added nothing.

    No that's what you did - you ignored the pointe actually made and then threw in some silly, sarcastic analogies. Are you not capable of discussing anything serious?

    Then when you get called out for posting silly analogies that just don't apply/don't add anything you're arguing that they were deliberately dumb? So what?

    It's still not clear what point you're trying to make here in response to my post the first place as you ignored most of it.

    Again, you're not paying attention, in this scenario they're firing an actual firearm, the analogy is driving an actual car... pointing out that they could avoid driving an actual car if unable to drive a real one is missing the point completely, that more equivalent to holding a fake/plastic gun incapable of firing!

    You've tried to change the analogy in order to argue against it and better fit in your silly ones about flying a spacecraft or operating on a patient... which you're simultaneously trying to argue were just dumb comments thrown in for... whatever reason? Trolling?

    So it's not clear what you were disputing re: my post then... as that was the point!

    No, that doens't follow here and I'm not sure why you're again trying to be silly - why not just address points I've made with a clear argument if you're capable of it. Spending repeated posts crying about "dowie holes" after you repeatedly make obviously flawed points. Throwing in (apparently) deliberately dumb analogies then popping back to say they were deliberately silly seems rather unconstructive, why not just put forth a clear argument instead of all this other nonsense you regularly throw in?
     
  5. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    Nope, doesn't require hindsight when there were two previous negligent discharges on the same set with the same armourer and AD.

    Also, how do you know the armourer did prepare or check the prop here? Your example involves some conversation involving the armourer but this incident involved an unattended firearm being picked up by the AD off set and that any number of crew who were using the things for shooting live rounds off set could have loaded.

    Seems more than likely that a conversation with the armourer, "show me it's safe" etc.. would have avoided this. In fact even a simple question to the armourer of "did you check this firearm" "no!" could have prevented it!
     
  6. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    And Baldwin was on set and/or knew about both before his 'scene' ?
     
  7. Pottsey

    Mobster

    Joined: 29 May 2006

    Posts: 4,694

  8. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    Baldwin was the EP/owns the production company and literally had his film crew walk off set before this incident citing safety issues...

    Two previous NDs on the same production then he accepts a firearm from the (apparently bit of a cowboy) AD and just accepts that it's safe because the AD (not the armourer/expert) said so.
     
  9. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    You didn't answer my question - Was Alec Baldwin personally made aware that there had been 2 'misfires' prior to his 'scene ' ?
     
  10. Colonel_Klinck

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 Oct 2007

    Posts: 6,491

    Location: London, UK


    Imagine having concerns of people being able to walk into a shop, buy a gun and ammo and then walk out with zero proof of any training with said gun. Having concerns about the public being able to purchase guns and even weapons of war is fairly logical. If you could do it in the UK I'd be concerned.

    Where is the budget coming from for all this training? By the sounds of it this shoot was B/straight to DVD movie at best and there will be movies with even lower budgets. Not every movie has the professionalism and budget of John Wick.
     
  11. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 Jun 2005

    Posts: 7,452

    Gun safety 101: Always act like the gun is pointed at your dick.
     
  12. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    He's the executive producer...so he certainly should do.
     
  13. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    Seem likely that he was aware, but I don't know for sure, would be odd if he wasn't though given that he's the EP/running the production no? He was certainly aware that his crew had walked off!

    He's also aware of who the AD is and that the AD isn't the armourer... so your point example that involves a conversation with an armourer doens't even necessarily apply here, it seems that even a basic question asked of the armourer could have prevented this.
     
  14. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

     
  15. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    That's great except we know he was also the main star of the film so was on set constantly.
     
  16. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    That is called supposition, so the fact that there were misfires on set is irrelevant in passing judgement on Mr Baldwin.
     
  17. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    Or in make-up, or away rereading lines, eating, resting a whole list of things, none of which includes being on set constantly
     
  18. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,742

    No, certainly not irrelevant! Seems rather unlikely the EP wasn't aware of prior safety issues given his film crew had walked out in part over safety issues!

    That's reaching a bit at best especially as you seem to be ignoring the other points raised re: the point you were making re: a conversation with an armourer - notably that it was the AD who handed the firearm over not the armourer.
     
  19. Brizzles

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Mar 2005

    Posts: 7,563

    Location: Clevedon , Bristol

    Again supposition
     
  20. 200sols

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 14 Jan 2018

    Posts: 9,140

    Location: Hampshire

    He said 'seems rather unlikely', he isn't making a statement of fact but a logical observation. Stop saying supposition.