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. bainbridge

    Mobster

    Joined: 9 Dec 2009

    Posts: 4,473

    Location: Bristol

    A car is a mode of transport that is designed to get from a to b. A gun is a weapon that is designed to kill.
     
  2. JBuk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Nov 2002

    Posts: 11,102

    Location: Cumbria

    thanks for clearing that up
     
  3. bainbridge

    Mobster

    Joined: 9 Dec 2009

    Posts: 4,473

    Location: Bristol

    You're welcome, glad I helped you :)
     
  4. Hotwired

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Aug 2009

    Posts: 8,975

    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.
     
  5. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,730

    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.
     
  6. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: 20 May 2007

    Posts: 35,083

    Location: Surrey

    What a hilariously terrible analogy.
     
  7. [FnG]magnolia

    Pancake

    Joined: 29 Aug 2007

    Posts: 27,407

    Location: Auckland

  8. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

  9. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: 20 May 2007

    Posts: 35,083

    Location: Surrey

  10. dowie

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 29 Jan 2008

    Posts: 53,730

    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.
     
  11. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    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.
     
  12. JBuk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Nov 2002

    Posts: 11,102

    Location: Cumbria

    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
     
  13. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    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.
     
  14. Mr Badger

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 27 Dec 2009

    Posts: 9,563

    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.
     
  15. Hotwired

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Aug 2009

    Posts: 8,975

    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.
     
  16. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 13 Oct 2006

    Posts: 78,371

    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.
     
  17. JBuk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Nov 2002

    Posts: 11,102

    Location: Cumbria


    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
     
  18. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 30 Jun 2007

    Posts: 68,372

    Location: Wales



    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?
     
  19. Hotwired

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Aug 2009

    Posts: 8,975

    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.
     
  20. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 13 Oct 2006

    Posts: 78,371

    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.