Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,605
Location
Northern England
I haven't questioned his role. I just provided a distinction between an exec producer and a producer, then had a paragraph about the comment on the thread. Baldwin may or may not have been on the set all of the time, but that's neither here nor there or anything I have mentioned.

No no but you said you're certain about his specific role as EP and what they do on set. Specifically what he does as an EP. So please, enlighten us.
And enlighten us as to how that would stop him being aware of significant safety failings and crew walk outs.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,745
Location
Norfolk.
and how does he get shown?

Depending on the type of "Colt" revolver (still unknown) then the person handing him the firearm (the AD in this case) either opens the cylinder, which takes less than 1 second, or opens the side gate and rotates the cylinder (takes 2-3 seconds). At that point we can split two ways - if the weapon is "cold" then there should be no rounds viewable so, as there would have been Live round viewable, that would break the chain or - alternatively - upon opening the cylinder if there was supposed to be a blank fitted, the AD removes it (another 1-2 seconds) and shows Baldwin and either person could say "hang on, that's not a blank" and again the chain is broken.

Finally, if it was a very old "cap and ball" revolver i.e musket type, then you can look into the front of the cylinders to see if a "ball" is viewable (the bit which actually shoots out the end of the barrel in a Cap and Ball revolver) and if a ball is seen then the chain is broken once more.

All those actions should take around 10 seconds start to finish and thats how he could have been shown. If however the AD isn't able to do this then he shouldn't have been the person to be handing over firearms (production hiring problem) and instead the Armourer should have done this instead.

Of course he is pulling the trigger, that is the script, he was rehearsing the scene. The whole crew was told the gun wasnt loaded, he had no reason to doubt that.

And now a person is dead.

If YOU are pulling the trigger on any firearm then YOU damn well check - how that check happens I would suggest could vary greatly depending on the actors prior experience levels but YOU always check, that is YOUR personal responsibility as someone about to pull the trigger near people irrespective of whether the gun is empty, loaded with blanks or loaded with live rounds. Now that's Centuries of "firearms" safety based off Millennia of "projectile" safety (bows and arrows etc) speaking, so this isn't some new thing just so we can blame the actor.

As the very last link in the chain Baldwin should have checked (his mistake) but instead he decided to trust someone else to do that check for him (again a mistake) and someone is now dead. There looks to be at least 3 people directly involved in the chain - Armourer, AD and Actor - who all share varying amounts of responsibility as, had any one of them checked before the trigger was pulled, then the accident wouldn't have happened. Just because Baldwin is an actor it doesn't absolve him of all blame in this, he was the very last person involved and his firearm was pointing at two people (his mistake) when it was fired (accidentally or not) directly leading to a death and injury.

I agree with some of what you say but he didnt pull the trigger on purpose while pointing it at two people. He was practicing an cross chest draw when the gun accidently went off as he was drawing it. Where he was intending to aim was maybe away from the two people he ended up shooting.

The issue here is regardless of whether the trigger being pulled was accidental during the draw or intentional, someone is now dead because the gun was fired when it was pointing at them - it's that simple. The hard part in all this will be apportioning the correct amount of blame between those people involved. I don't think Baldwin will get much blame in the end (not enough to see a criminal case in court) but he will get some in whatever civil case happens afterwards.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,745
Location
Norfolk.
I think the biggest difference in opinion here is between those people who have been trained (or educated) in the safe use of firearms whose training tells them that Baldwin bears some responsibility, and those who have no firearms experience and believe that the person pulling the trigger bears absolutely no responsibility if they are told it's OK to do so.

People who've been trained/educated like myself have had it drummed into them that safety is always YOUR responsibility and that is why they have a hard time accepting non-trained people telling them "No, it's not his fault" as this goes against everything they've been taught, hence the "WTF???" style reactions from some of us as, to us, it's like telling us 1+1 is 3 or that the earth is flat etc, it's just absolutely wrong.

Maybe both sides could be a little more civil in their posts and remember that what maybe a "belief" for you isn't necessarily the same for someone else and it's OK to disagree as long as it's kept civil.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,605
Location
Northern England
@ianh you're wasting your time arguing with them. Apparently it's impossible for it to be demonstrated and impossible for an actor to have very basic knowledge of something that isn't purely acting.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Jun 2005
Posts
2,130
Location
The South
If YOU are pulling the trigger on any firearm then YOU damn well check...

Appreciate that you have done firearm training/safety but is it standard procedure for the actor to check to see if the prop is live on a film set?

I get that it probably should be but just wondered if that is the case typically or by default.....
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,401
Location
Europe
No no but you said you're certain about his specific role as EP and what they do on set. Specifically what he does as an EP. So please, enlighten us.
And enlighten us as to how that would stop him being aware of significant safety failings and crew walk outs.

I said "that's not what executive producers do" Since you called him an executive producer.

Others have said he is a producer.

If he was merely an exec producer then it's not his job to be involved in the day to day running of the production that would be handled by the main producer. That was the limit to my point.

Possibly he was aware, possibly he was in another state and heard about the failings later. I don't have an interest in that. The bulk of my thread was about something else.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,605
Location
Northern England
I said "that's not what executive producers do" Since you called him an executive producer.

Others have said he is a producer.

If he was merely an exec producer then it's not his job to be involved in the day to day running of the production that would be handled by the main producer. That was the limit to my point.

Possibly he was aware, possibly he was in another state and heard about the failings later. I don't have an interest in that. The bulk of my thread was about something else.

Again, what is it he doesn't do? You've stated he doesn't do something but not what he doesn't do still. EPs have very varied roles. Are you also aware that just because he has two different roles it doesn't mean that he can't cross knowledge garnered in one over to the other? You certainly seem to be implying that because he was EP that just because he learned about the failures as an actor he couldn't apply that knowledge to being an EP and vice versa.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,725
Given the strict Covid restrictions on filmsets, it's entirely plausible the armourer wasn't in the actors "bubble" and direct contact between the two wasn't possible; therefore the actor would be reliant on "the chain of command" as it were.

Doesn't seem like a very safe process in that case, lots of the reporting/commenting on social media has been about how an armourer should be present etc..

That remains to be seen and I am sure it will come out in the inquest. You would expect the armourer to perhaps check the gun, issue it to the AD who then takes it back inside to hand over to the actor declaring its "cold".


Just having the AD grab an unattended firearm which has been there for several hours is where their "system" broke down,

Well yeah, that's part of my point, if the actor isn't familiar with this type of weapon then surely the armourer should be able to advise/explain it is safe and check in front of them or indeed prepare it in front of them etc..

I don't think covid is a good reason to not have this happen given this is a fairly serious safety issue.

Is he an Executive Producer on the film?
As IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm) lists him as a Producer only*.
And if you're blaming Baldwin due to being an Executive Producer/Producer, then there's (supposedly) eleven other producers that should share that blame as well.

Similar with the production company, El Dorado Pictures; there's more than Baldwin and Casey Bader manning it.

* And like a lot of actors and presenters, he was most likely a producer in name only so he can grab producer fees on top. Same with attaching "his" production company.

Well do you have details on who owns and or controls the production company - if so could you share, please? Most of the reporting seems to refer to it as being Baldwin's production company no?

I mean he's not just some actor he's the lead, he's an A-list star and he's a producer of some sort + has some ownership/control of the production company + is a co-creator/writer of the thing... it very much seems like it's his film from what I've read so far.

I mean let's not pretend that a-list stars don't have significant clout/soft power when it comes to movies anyway, though in this case he's not just got that status/clout but he's got direct power it seems as the co-creator of the film, owner (or part-owner as you're suggesting) of the company producing the film and as a producer or EP on the film too.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
15,490
Location
London
The AD’s job is to check the gun its part of his core responsibility, the AD is meant to be the last stage of the checks.
Where are you getting this from? Have you ever seen a 1st AD working on a set? It might give a good idea of what a cluster**** this production was but a 1st AD is the guy/girl controlling absolutely everything . They are the directors voice, they are in charge of keeping everyone on time which is arguably the most stressful part of running a set. I doubt very much that checking a prop is part of their remit. If it is then that's probably a failure of process rather than the individual. And besides everyone laying blame on him, no one seems to be asking who actually put the live rounds in the gun? :confused:
The problem here seems to be the AD broke all the rules. He took the gun without checking with the armourer and then he skipped his finial check.
As above, I doubt it's his job to check a prop, but you're correct in that he shouldn't have been taking it at all.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,401
Location
Europe
Again, what is it he doesn't do? You've stated he doesn't do something but not what he doesn't do still. EPs have very varied roles. Are you also aware that just because he has two different roles it doesn't mean that he can't cross knowledge garnered in one over to the other? You certainly seem to be implying that because he was EP that just because he learned about the failures as an actor he couldn't apply that knowledge to being an EP and vice versa.

Neither us known what his exact role is. I was saying EP don't handle day to day running of the production. Many are money only. In fact many producers (non-exec) are people who have provided money too.

I've not seen any reports that he walked off set with the other protests. So can't say if or when he learned of the failures.

In terms of being an actor, some do just show up for their roles and bugger off again. It is feasible he for he has turn up for his role one day. Ask's how the shoot is going and someone says "oh we had a bit of drama on set yesterday, but it's all sorted now", and then he goes about his acting and goes back to his hotel, or flies off for an event. There's likely a good few degrees of separation between him and the running of his production company, with people there to smooth things over or sugar coat any issues.

Until more details are released we don't know. We don't even need to know, there's an official investigation.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Jun 2005
Posts
2,130
Location
The South
Doesn't seem like a very safe process in that case, lots of the reporting/commenting on social media has been about how an armourer should be present etc..

Agreed.

Well do you have details on who owns and or controls the production company - if so could you share, please?

Information seems fairly thin (might find more on LinkedIn), especially on control and ownership, but it appears Baldwin is EP of the production company 'El Dorado Pictures', if you go by this - https://productionlist.com/production-contact/el-dorado-pictures/.

Most of the reporting seems to refer to it as being Baldwin's production company no?

Sure but reporters get it wrong, just like you reported Baldwin as being an Executive Producer on the Rust film when he wasn't.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,605
Location
Northern England
Neither us known what his exact role is. I was saying EP don't handle day to day running of the production. Many are money only. In fact many producers (non-exec) are people who have provided money too.

I've not seen any reports that he walked off set with the other protests. So can't say if or when he learned of the failures.

In terms of being an actor, some do just show up for their roles and bugger off again. It is feasible he for he has turn up for his role one day. Ask's how the shoot is going and someone says "oh we had a bit of drama on set yesterday, but it's all sorted now", and then he goes about his acting and goes back to his hotel, or flies off for an event. There's likely a good few degrees of separation between him and the running of his production company, with people there to smooth things over or sugar coat any issues.

Until more details are released we don't know. We don't even need to know, there's an official investigation.

As has been stated multiple times in thread EPs have a hige variety of roles. Some deal with finance. Some deal with the creative side. Some deal with the production side.
It is Alec Baldwins production company. You've stated definitively it wasn't his job to do...something (not sure what still). You then say we can't know for certain. So which is it? It wasn't his job or you don't actually know what his full role was?
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
11,609
An armourer is though! Why can't he ask the armourer? Is the armourer not qualified?
I'm not sure if the armourer was even present as reports on that seem to conflict... but she should have been.
Again, not about what ideal situations we can dream up, but about what did happen in violation of safety protocols that otherwise work perfectly well.

But no one is arguing they should be trained up to Navy SEAL standards, the point was just about basic competency (like does the firearm really need to be pointed at someone, not in a scene, during a rehearsal? Wouldn't it be useful if an actor had at least some basic familiarity with the weapon used despite the responsibilities of others?
Yes, but that basic competency does not always extend to knowing things like the differences between live wadded ammo and blank wadded ammo. That's why you're supposed to have the armourer doing it, with the actor having the right to watch if they feel the need for extra peace of mind.
So again, down to people on this set not doing their jobs and violating adequate safety protocols.

They could load the weapon in the presence of the actor no?
And indeed should, if safety is that much of a concern. But again, we've already established some lax attitudes in that regard on this set.

Surely if firearms are being used on set then the armourer is one of the people who should be present and indeed should be in charge of those firearms - not leaving them unattended for the AD to simply grab and walk onto set with?
Should be, yes... but as with all the 'shoulds' above, people did not follow safety rules and this is the result.

The AD’s job is to check the gun its part of his core responsibility, the AD is meant to be the last stage of the checks. Not only did the AD bypass the first check by skipping the armorer but the AD is directly responsible for checking the gun in the last stage checks before the gun is passed onto the actor.
I know the AD is responsible for general health & safety on set, but I wasn't aware they had responsibility for specific safety elements over and above the dedicated specialists... ie the armourer or electrician or something could overrule the AD on matters within their specialist area?

I think the biggest difference in opinion here is between those people who have been trained (or educated) in the safe use of firearms whose training tells them that Baldwin bears some responsibility, and those who have no firearms experience and believe that the person pulling the trigger bears absolutely no responsibility if they are told it's OK to do so.
Well, with several decades of military experience behind me, I can quite readily recall numerous exercises where we were issued magazines already loaded with blanks, wherein we were expected to fire without first unloading and reloading upwards of 300 rounds to verify for our own personal peace of mind. Same for live rounds on the range. It was rare we'd get stripper-clipped rounds and even rarer we'd get handed boxed rounds. The only concession is that a couple of guys from your company would have been detailed to do the loading, so as long as you trusted them (or better yet, had been the one detailed yourself that day) it was all good.

While I would generally put the responsibility on the one pulling the trigger, things often work differently on a film set. Some things are off limits to everyone but the specific individuals responsible. You also do some things that are inherrently dangerous, often in front of the camera to help them prep the shot. I'd like to think that's what was happening here, but my cynicism is highly doubtful.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,605
Location
Northern England
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,401
Location
Europe
As has been stated multiple times in thread EPs have a hige variety of roles. Some deal with finance. Some deal with the creative side. Some deal with the production side.
It is Alec Baldwins production company. You've stated definitively it wasn't his job to do...something (not sure what still). You then say we can't know for certain. So which is it? It wasn't his job or you don't actually know what his full role was?

I said dealing with day to stuff isn't an EPs job. At least it isn't widely common for them too.

We can't know for certain, but you seem to believe so.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,725
I'm not sure if the armourer was even present as reports on that seem to conflict... but she should have been.
Again, not about what ideal situations we can dream up, but about what did happen in violation of safety protocols that otherwise work perfectly well.

Surely that isn't some far fetched "ideal situation" but really just a basic safety issue if the armourer wasn't present/didn't check the firearm no?

Yes, but that basic competency does not always extend to knowing things like the differences between live wadded ammo and blank wadded ammo. That's why you're supposed to have the armourer doing it, with the actor having the right to watch if they feel the need for extra peace of mind.
So again, down to people on this set not doing their jobs and violating adequate safety protocols.

Exactly that's my point, if he's not competent enough to check himself then surely checking can involve having the armourer show/tell etc.. not just rely on the AD simply passing him a weapon and saying it's "cold".

And indeed should, if safety is that much of a concern. But again, we've already established some lax attitudes in that regard on this set.

Should be, yes... but as with all the 'shoulds' above, people did not follow safety rules and this is the result.

And that is what I'm taking issue with, the lax attitudes/poor approach to safety by several people involved in this.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,401
Location
Europe
Define 'day to stuff'.

And again you say we can't know for certain but you definitively declared he doesn't do something.

How many more times. I said EPs (note the s at the end, that makes it general) don't deal with the day to stuff.

Day to day work will involve managing the various staff since the producer usually overseeing the various staff, and general project management.

You are the one that definitely declared Baldwin knew of safety problems on set.
 
Top Bottom