Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,228
There is no universal film set rules and regulations. It’s completely different in every state and then can change again if filming outside the US. There might be changes in the law after this, but it will only apply to the state they were filming in.

The unions may say this supports their business of looking out for their members with much wider effect.

On the basis that union members walked out for assorted reasons including disregard for safety shortly beforehand.

May not have changed how it played out but its a decent look for the union angle.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,224
Don't worry dowie we all know that you and dis are gonna go on and on about how you follow every safety procedure to the letter do all your own maintenance perfectly check your fluids, tread, pressures and pads every time you get in the car etc etc

Sure, being overly anal is the right analogy to use to be dismissive re: basic safety checks especially given someone literally died in this case.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,342
Location
Surrey
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,224
Ah man, not even on the podium.

Probably because i had to get out and check the wheel nuts were done up right after my pit crew changed my tyres. Better to be safe than sorry though!

Yeah, that's a really great analogy. Basic safety checks = being overly anal? And again, someone literally died here yet people who are clueless about firearms seem to still not grasp that basic weapons safety isn't some mythical thing nor needs to be overly laborious.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,177
Location
Northern England
Ah man, not even on the podium.

Probably because i had to get out and check the wheel nuts were done up right after my pit crew changed my tyres. Better to be safe than sorry though!

It's not as if the driver isn't right there when it's done. Infact...wasn't one of the many suggestions that could have saved this woman's life was to have the user witness the check? Ah yes, yes it was.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2002
Posts
11,127
Location
Cumbria
It's not as if the driver isn't right there when it's done. Infact...wasn't one of the many suggestions that could have saved this woman's life was to have the user witness the check? Ah yes, yes it was.

the driver can’t verify everything has been done correctly from the very limited view they have from the cockpit so essentially that means nothing , even if there was a way they could then they would have to have some detailed knowledge to confidently say everything was ok

not to mention how could they rely that all the tools used are calibrated and set to the correct torque etc
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,177
Location
Northern England
the driver can’t verify everything has been done correctly from the very limited view they have from the cockpit so essentially that means nothing , even if there was a way they could then they would have to have some detailed knowledge to confidently say everything was ok

not to mention how could they rely that all the tools used are calibrated and set to the correct torque etc

No but he can carry out a basic visual check from the drivers seat. And as has been said literally dozens of times a basic visual check would have verified the status of the firearm.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
No but he can carry out a basic visual check from the drivers seat. And as has been said literally dozens of times a basic visual check would have verified the status of the firearm.

And as has been said a "literally dozens of times" on a movie set actors are employed to act and follow direction, with a professional armourer there as the expert who is explicitly responsible for gun safety.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,228
Hot take from select armchairs of OCUK that the acting talent should be checking for live ammunition on a film set where live ammunition is forbidden and should know what live ammunition looks like as opposed to varieties of blanks or dummy rounds which are allowed on a film set.

That kind of responsibility regarding dangerous devices sounds like it needs a qualification, maybe even a job title like... armourer... or assistant armourer...

There's other hazards the acting talent will be near or operating on set. Assorted pyro, compressed gas devices, face breaking stunts. Is there something especially trivial about firearms that the acting talent should be expected to double check the work of the professional(s) in charge of it.

Lets imagine the blood pressure of the director as the acting talent costing 50,000 a day doubles up as a qualified general safety officer on set.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
81,799
Hot take from select armchairs of OCUK that the acting talent should be checking for live ammunition on a film set where live ammunition is forbidden and should know what live ammunition looks like as opposed to varieties of blanks or dummy rounds which are allowed on a film set.

That kind of responsibility regarding dangerous devices sounds like it needs a qualification, maybe even a job title like... armourer... or assistant armourer...

There's other hazards the acting talent will be near or operating on set. Assorted pyro, compressed gas devices, face breaking stunts. Is there something especially trivial about firearms that the acting talent should be expected to double check the work of the professional(s) in charge of it.

Lets imagine the blood pressure of the director as the acting talent costing 50,000 a day doubles up as a qualified general safety officer on set.

That is taking it to the extremes. There are plenty of actors who have said the armourer or authorised prop person will show them the gun is unloaded for themselves or they will check it themselves. Basic firearms checks aren't that difficult and someone handling a firearm should be familiar with the basic operation. Being under direct supervision slightly changes the equation there but one of the first things you are taught before you are allowed to handle firearms in any kind of professional setting is to not take someone else's word for the status of the weapon and that should be the same on movie production as anywhere else - the only slight exception to that is when under direct supervision where the instructor is always hands on as happens at turn up and shoot places like the ranges at Las Vegas, etc.

Actors generally won't be in the loop for pyro and other stuff like explosives which will be entirely operated by professionals.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2002
Posts
11,127
Location
Cumbria
Hot take from select armchairs of OCUK that the acting talent should be checking for live ammunition on a film set where live ammunition is forbidden and should know what live ammunition looks like as opposed to varieties of blanks or dummy rounds which are allowed on a film set.

That kind of responsibility regarding dangerous devices sounds like it needs a qualification, maybe even a job title like... armourer... or assistant armourer...

There's other hazards the acting talent will be near or operating on set. Assorted pyro, compressed gas devices, face breaking stunts. Is there something especially trivial about firearms that the acting talent should be expected to double check the work of the professional(s) in charge of it.

Lets imagine the blood pressure of the director as the acting talent costing 50,000 a day doubles up as a qualified general safety officer on set.


Of course there is the possibility that Alec Baldwin was testing the weapon for live rounds by aiming it towards the cameras and pressing the trigger
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,615
Location
Wales
No but he can carry out a basic visual check from the drivers seat. And as has been said literally dozens of times a basic visual check would have verified the status of the firearm.


Also should f1 drivers get out of the car while it's fueled?

In case someone screws up and covers them in fuel and they burst into flames?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,228
That is taking it to the extremes. There are plenty of actors who have said the armourer or authorised prop person will show them the gun is unloaded for themselves or they will check it themselves. Basic firearms checks aren't that difficult and someone handling a firearm should be familiar with the basic operation. Being under direct supervision slightly changes the equation there but one of the first things you are taught before you are allowed to handle firearms in any kind of professional setting is to not take someone else's word for the status of the weapon and that should be the same on movie production as anywhere else - the only slight exception to that is when under direct supervision where the instructor is always hands on as happens at turn up and shoot places like the ranges at Las Vegas, etc.

Actors generally won't be in the loop for pyro and other stuff like explosives which will be entirely operated by professionals.

If we can agree that pyro and explosives are far more dangerous yet the actors are expected to perform on trust then we should be able to agree that an actors unqualified approval on smallarms is not actually a meaningful safety check. It may benefit the actors confidence in handling the device for the armourer to go through it with them.

Anything getting to the point of the actor being given an unsafe device is a massive failure by the qualified professionals in the supervised situation of a film set where dangerous objects are handed out, used under supervision and confiscated afterwards.

I doubt Baldwin will get blame as the actor. Might get blamed for part ownership of running a **** show of course.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
81,799
If we can agree that pyro and explosives are far more dangerous yet the actors are expected to perform on trust then we should be able to agree that an actors unqualified approval on smallarms is not actually a meaningful safety check. It may benefit the actors confidence in handling the device for the armourer to go through it with them.

Exceptions aside actors do not operate dangerous pyro and explosives - for a good reason - in some rare exceptions they might be involved in the process but that will be walked through time and time again by everyone to ensure it is safe before the action sequence - there won't be anything on trust. (Normally by that point a qualified stunt double would be used).

There will be cases like jumping over big gaps where a harness is used and they are dependant on the experts that it is all secure, etc. but that is another story again to handling a firearm.
 
Top