Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Le Clandestin Brun, 22 Oct 2021.
What a stupid comment
I'd disagree on that part, though I guess "little knowledge" is a bit subjective. I'd go along with @ianh 's view posted previously.
Yeah, I agree.
Thank you for an actually informative and useful response.
*IF* is the big factor in that, though, and so far it sounds like he is one of three who did not follow the correct procedures. In Baldy's case, it was not ensuring his prop was proven safe by the specialist responsible, and instead taking someone else's word for it... while then handling said prop in the potentially unsafe manner that resulted in the discharge and killing.
And that's why you'd need to start providing full and stringent training on each different firearm, for every person involved in their handling.
It's more than just being shown how to do the checks, or covering the differences in a daily safety brief, or even doing it enough that you could describe it on an internet forum. It must become ingrained habit, so that even when everyone is tired, under pressure and focussed on their actual role, they still remain completely on the ball with their weapons.
As far as I can tell that’s not his responsibility. It the specialist's job to first check the weapon then the AD's job who pass's the weapon onto Baldwin's that’s its safe. It doesn’t appeared to be the actors responsibility on this set.
That just does not work and should not be the case. Every actors does not need and should not have full and stringent training on each different firearm's. The specialist should make the weapon safe so the actor is not needed to have full and stringent training. The practical side of that alone would be a nightmare and the cost factor as well would be to much for many film sets. Then you have the younger actors are you going to put 12 year old's though full and stringent training on a wide range of firearms? You don't need to train someone to the level of ingrained habit for something that is only going to be a 60 second scene in the entire film.
I can sort of see it being done in a gun heavy film for the main actor who is spending large parts of the film with guns. The problem is all the background actors with short 10second or less scenes in the entire film. Take something like John Wick. How many background actors had guns and only apear in short split second scenes for the entire film? Are you saying every single one of them should have full and stringent training on each different firearm? How long do you think that would take and how much would it cost for that many actors all for 10seconds or less per actor on film?
Because Inspectors dowie and Dis from CSI Hindsight arrived at the scene
i would watch that box set
CSI Hindsight is the best term to come for the internet for a while. I shall claim that as my own and pontificate in it's greatness to those who think I invented it.
Which is why in the guidelines they are supposed to be shown as a demonstration the firearm is unloaded and/or should ask to be shown. Obviously there are practical limits.
Something which seems to get lost in this topic as well is the difference between general firearm handling and when pointing in an unsafe direction - being handed a weapon and told it is unloaded while a good idea to check for yourself is one thing if you then treat it like a loaded firearm and keep it pointed in a safe direction - but at the point where you are having to use it in a manner which isn't safe another story again.
Under US law there is going to be a lot hinging on whether it was reasonable for the shooter to believe the weapon was unloaded, I suspect that is going to shift in a context like this back to the prop department, though more complicated in this situation as it sounds like normal procedures broke down potentially shifting that to the AD but depending on specifics of the circumstances that could also put the responsibility on Baldwin.
Definitely seems to be quite a bit of that going on. Some versions of events from certain people are a bit too massaged with emphasis on certain points which people never really pay attention to, etc.
There seems to be quite a bit of PR like effort as well to keep Baldwin clear regardless of the facts and/or how that plays out for anyone else involved.
And I would watch you watching that movie.
This thread had taken some strange turns - but it is nothing on the threads I'm seeing elsewhere - especially the ones with some quite dark memes which are both hilarious and so **** inappropriate given someone died.
Yeah basic weapons safety after two previous ND's on the same set is "hindsight" - who could have ever predicted that firearms are dangerous and should be treated as such?
No one in the history of firearms has ever had any accidents with them before and it's totally just with "hindsight" that people might criticise lax weapons safety.
It seems a bit slack if the production company was happy with that sort of thing, perhaps it's their fault to some extent... oh but wait, guess who is in charge of the production company too?
You can't just pass this off as him just being an actor following some process when he's the co-creator of the film + the EP + owns the production company.
Also, it's not clear at all if they were following any given standard-ish process here - where was the armourer when all this happened for example?
Not sure why they use blanks, they just need a gun to make a noise when trigger pulled.
Even just a click, the rest done in post production
I reckon everyone would have been infinitely happier if it was a blank.
Everyone on set would have **** themselves as the "safe" gun fired and there would have been some angry shouting.
But since a live round appears to have been recovered from the second victim we can speculate that theatrical use of blanks didn't do that.
Anyone holding a weapon, be that a gun or a knife or whatever, has the responsibility to keep and use it in a safe manner, even if that's all they know about it.
Which, if you've read the thread, is exactly what I have been saying.
I did specifically restrict my statement to, "every person involved in their handling"... So unless you have a bunch of 12-year-olds handling guns (and why would you do that?), then obviously they are no more included in this than the guys in the lighting department.
You do if they're going to be doing their own NSPs, which is what I argued against.
For the one model of firearm they will be using in their one scene? No idea of actual cost, but it takes a competent instructor about 5 days to properly train a group of armed extras, based on both my military background and my time as just such an extra.
So yes, anyone who has to handle a weapon, even briefly, should have proper training. Obviously it doesn't always happen, for the reasons already given, which is why you have armourers and the like on set along with stringent safety procedures.
Blanks create noise, light and often physical recoil.
The first two are usually very intensive work to correctly duplicate through effects or CGI, while the third requires a mechanical prop modification which is not always possible. Even then, it still doesn't always look right.
Blanks are cheaper, easier, far more effective and, when handled properly, perfectly safe.
It's funny how the people who are most "anti-gun" also seem to be the one's defending the seemingly lax attitude taken towards firearms on set, it's almost as if they have no clue about firearms in general and form opinions out of ignorance and lack of education.
No one in this thread has defended a lax attitude towards firearms.
Some of us have the capability to recognise how the set up of a movie set has different rules and protocols in relation to firearms, instead of making hilarious comments that have no place in the context of a film set, like: "you never point a gun at anyone ever!" because that's what they were taught at the first day of gun camp.
Separate names with a comma.