Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
In this case it was not... which is why I said it should be, and why on most sets it still is.

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

But the extent of that knowing stops at being told the condition by the expert whose specific job it is to know and ensure.

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Mar 2005
Posts
7,632
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 )
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,357
Location
Surrey
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...............................................

Exactly. Its absurd.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
Once again, you must realise that people can read the previous posts and see how you are trying to twist the narrative. Are you really unable to grasp (after already being told) that the analogies I put forward were deliberately daft and in direct response to your reply to me using analogies to argue that actors need real life skills to do pretend to do something on a movie set?

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.

It seems more likely that this is typical dowie, deliberately ignoring the main point and getting pathologically literal about a throw away comment as that's where you think you can win/wear down the other poster.

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.

You also don't need a driving license to pretend to drive a car in a movie - you must be aware of the use of doubles, rear projection, low loaders, dual control vehicles and other techniques to make it look as though an actor is driving.

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?

No one disputes that guns and cars are dangerous and that you need skills to use them safely,

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

If we want to be silly and take your analogy to it's conclusion, if someone is killed in a car crash due to mechanical failure whilst filming, you could argue that the actor is responsible because they didn't personally check the brakes.

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?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
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.

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!
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
And Baldwin was on set and/or knew about both before his 'scene' ?

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Mar 2005
Posts
7,632
Location
Clevedon , Bristol
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.

You didn't answer my question - Was Alec Baldwin personally made aware that there had been 2 'misfires' prior to his 'scene ' ?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,484
Location
London, UK
Maybe if Baldwin wasn't so anti 2a and respected what a gun could do he wouldn't have been waiving around a lethal weapon? It's a tragic accident to be sure but I can't see some like Keanu Reeves/Jon Bernthal being so careless on a set. Maybe everyone involved with a film shoot with weapons should be required to go through a basic firearm course every time they sign up.


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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
You didn't answer my question - Was Alec Baldwin personally made aware that there had been 2 'misfires' prior to his 'scene ' ?

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Mar 2005
Posts
7,632
Location
Clevedon , Bristol
He's the executive producer...so he certainly should do.

How much an executive producer remains involved during the production process is completely up to the individual EP. Some executive producers might have zero involvement with the film after writing the check, while others maintain a bird’s-eye view of the project from start to finish. An executive producer will rarely, if ever, get involved in the day-to-day of production and are not required to visit the set.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,279
That is called supposition, so the fact that there were misfires on set is irrelevant in passing judgement on Mr Baldwin.

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.
 
Top