Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[visibleman]

Citation needed.

"In addition to Baldwin, executive producers include Allen Cheney, Chris M.B. Sharp, Jennifer Lamb and Emily Salveson, according to the film’s call sheet."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...ers-shut-down-production-during-investigation

Already done back on post #593 (https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35195377/) if you had been reading the thread but just for you - IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm) lists Baldwin as producer only.
Screenshot below just in case it changes....

 

[Gerard]

the word firearms has been used quite a lot in this thread

Indeed!

 

[Dis86]

How many more times. I said EPs (not 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.

So just to be clear, the guy heading up the production company, who is also the lead actor, in your opinion will have no clue that an entire production team has just walked off set.

I'll also explain again that EPs have a massive variety of roles. In the context of this film we know for certainty that he wasn't just some remote financier because of his position as lead actor he was on set frequently.

 

[Dis86]

Already done back on post #593 (https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35195377/) if you had been reading the thread but just for you - IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm) lists Baldwin as producer only.
Screenshot below just in case it changes....

I prefer my source to one that can be openly edited tbh.

Another example:

"The Hollywood star could face the charges because of his role as the executive producer of the film, rather than for pulling the trigger"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...sks-prosecuted-involuntary-manslaughter-film/

 

[Mr Badger]

It seems a lot of the comments on here cover what 'should' happen in an ideal world, or what happened when the poster themselves was taught to handle guns, rather than what the actually laws, rules, and conventions are in that industry on set in a foreign country (USA).

Bingo!

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.


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.


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.


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?


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.

Could an actor even make themselves liable if they voluntarily get involved in the checking process and then something goes wrong?

 

[englishpremier]

So just to be clear, the guy heading up the production company, who is also the lead actor, in your opinion will have no clue that an entire production team has just walked off set.

I'll also explain again that EPs have a massive variety of roles. In the context of this film we know for certainty that he wasn't just some remote financier because of his position as lead actor he was on set frequently.

I didn't say that. I said it's not what executive producers do i.e deal with that kind of thing.

As for EPs most descriptions are as per this one

The executive producer is the person who sources and secures the financing for a film production, either through an independent financing company, through a studio, or by financing it themselves. The executive producer’s biggest priority is making sure there is enough money to complete the project.

Executive producers act as the liaison between the film’s financiers and the producers who ultimately run production and oversee post-production. If a studio or production company is financing the film, the executive producer is usually a senior employee or an executive.

• The executive producer does not get involved with the day-to-day of a production like a producer does.

https://www.masterclass.com/article...-executive-producers-do-during-postproduction

 

[visibleman]

I prefer my source to one that can be openly edited tbh.

If you want to believe something different, then go for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit - Just to add, it seems the LA Times can't make it's mind up as they state themselves Baldwin to be a producer (only) in another article - https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...ust-director-joel-souza-alec-baldwin-shooting



But as said, believe what ever you want, free world and all that

 

[Dis86]

If you want to believe something different, then go for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Surely that's applicable to you too?

 

[Dis86]

I didn't say that. I said it's not what executive producers do i.e deal with that kind of thing.

As for EPs most descriptions are as per this one




https://www.masterclass.com/article...-executive-producers-do-during-postproduction

Wikipedia disagrees with your random article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer

https://programdoctor.com/what-is-an-executive-producer/

"Some executive producers have hands-on control over every aspect of production,"

 

[visibleman]

Surely that's applicable to you too?

Of course. Sometimes i like to believe i like olives but when i try one for the umpteen time, i don't...i really don't.

 

[englishpremier]

Wikipedia disagrees with your random article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer

https://programdoctor.com/what-is-an-executive-producer/

"Some executive producers have hands-on control over every aspect of production,"

Then its very convenient that you posted this just a few moments ago

I prefer my source to one that can be openly edited tbh.

 

[Dis86]

Then its very convenient that you posted this just a few moments ago

apart from me posting a second link...

 

[Dis86]

Of course. Sometimes i like to believe i like olives but when i try one for the umpteen time, i don't...i really don't.

No. No you don't. They're foul. They pretend to be a grape, then trick you.

 

[dowie]

Could an actor even make themselves liable if they voluntarily get involved in the checking process and then something goes wrong?

I suspect this particular one and/or his company might well be liable and paying out a large sum here thanks (in part) to not asking or checking!

I didn't say that. I said it's not what executive producers do i.e deal with that kind of thing.

As for EPs most descriptions are as per this one

I don't think it matters too much re: the details of what his day-to-day job was as a producer or as an executive producer - surely the more pertinent point here is that he's in a position of significant influence/control beyond just being an actor.

He co-wrote the thing, he owns or at least part-owns the production company producing it, it seems like it is very much his film.

 

[Pottsey]

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?

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.

As I understand it, it is not his remit to check all props just the stuff like pyrotechnics and firearms. This AD has a history of disregarding safety protocols for weapons and pyrotechnics with official complaints put in about him and he has been fired from jobs before due to how he handled pyrotechnics and firearms.

It’s the AD’s job to sign out, check and announce firearm’s which this AD often skipped. A number of quotes have been provided from people on set saying the AD is directly responsible for firearms and that the AD is the last person in the line of checks for the gun. For example in link I provided before in reference to the AD “She claims he repeatedly failed to announce that firearms were on the show’s set. “ not got time to go back but I have provided direct quotes from staff talking about how the AD is responsible for firearms.

The AD is to blame as he took the firearm without following the correct procedure, didn’t check the firearm as per procedure and then incorrectly shouted out all clear and handed the gun over. He is not the only person to blame but he is the main person as if he did his job correctly this never would have happened.

The way I see it the process didn’t fail. The process would have work if the AD did not disagreed the correct process.

“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?”

Not sure he can override the armourer but he is meant to be in addition to the armourer to precisely to stop this type of accident happening. That’s why the AD is meant to announce all firearms on set and return all firearms back to the armourer. It’s a two-step process to stop precisely this type of accident happening. It’s not the armourer who shouts all clear/cold gun it’s the AD’s job. This AD has a history of breaking the rules with firearms and it seems he has been fired from jobs and had official complaints placed against him regarding this.

I am not saying its all the AD's fault only that a big part of the blame falls on him. Also apparently the armourer wasn't doing the armourer's job full time. They had her doing a completely different job which stopped her being a full time armourer. It seems the producers wanted to save money instead of having a full time armourer.

 

[ttaskmaster]

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?

Not quite - If the armourer isn't there to do teh checks and certify safe, you don't go ahead. End of.
You don't start training extra people up as some kind of junior pseudo armourer-in-lieu, or expecting other people to pick up the slack for the armourer not doing their job.

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".

Since he won't be considered competent in the first place, which is why they have an armourer, what you suggest is what should already be happening. That it didn't and is what led to the incident is something already established as 'bleeding obvious'.

And that is what I'm taking issue with, the lax attitudes/poor approach to safety by several people involved in this.

Which is fine, but you can't start putting the burden of additional rules and responsibilities on everyone else just because a few people don't follow the existing safety regulations.

Could an actor even make themselves liable if they voluntarily get involved in the checking process and then something goes wrong?

Sure can, at least potentially.
Not by simply asking qualified safety staff to check the safety, of course, as that's their job... but by getting directly involved, the actor is assuming a level of responsibility. Kinda the same as someone trying first aid without being completely trained, although intent would be less of a factor in this context.

If they're not actually qualified to undertake the checks, then they're being irresponsible but also making themselves liable if anything happens on the basis of their unqualified assessment. The properly qualified people would then get it in the neck for letting an unqualified person take responsibility, while anyone else could also get it in the neck for taking the word of an unqualified person as a certification of safety. It's a massive can of worms and legal liability mess.

 

[dowie]

Not quite - If the armourer isn't there to do teh checks and certify safe, you don't go ahead. End of.
You don't start training extra people up as some kind of junior pseudo armourer-in-lieu, or expecting other people to pick up the slack for the armourer not doing their job.

Exactly - so like I said it's not some ideal situation we're talking about but it's a basic safety issue potentially.

Which is fine, but you can't start putting the burden of additional rules and responsibilities on everyone else just because a few people don't follow the existing safety regulations.

What additional rules are you referring to? The lead actor/EP noting that an armourer hasn't told him it's safe and just trusting the AD? I'm sticking with good to trust but better to check there tbh..

He's not some inexperienced novice actor - if the armourer is supposed to be present etc.. and isn't then that's something he and the AD both know isn't right.

 

[Tefal]

Got to be option one hasn't it? Armourer's and AD's fault any way.....

One vote for 1

 

[Dis86]

I would have thought common sense would dictate that any gun left unattended should be checked again before the afternoon session began?

They should never be left unattended but definitely!

 

[Hades]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59055138

The assistant director of Rust, Dave Halls, had been sacked from a previous production over gun safety violations.

The producers of Freedom's Path confirmed to press agency AFP on Monday that Halls had been dismissed in 2019.

It came after a crew member "incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged", the statement said.