Caporegime
The link I posted says the opposite.
You talk about not posting a single valid source? You've not posted a source at all. C'mon, where's this transcript you have?
C'mon Pottsey, start posting those sources sunshine!
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
The link I posted says the opposite.
You talk about not posting a single valid source? You've not posted a source at all. C'mon, where's this transcript you have?
C'mon Pottsey, start posting those sources sunshine!
Commissario
Yup a prop in it's most basic terms is anything that is used on the set in view of the camera.
It can be a fully functional car, a mocked up packet of breakfast cereal or the alarm clock by the bed that the actor hits repeatedly when it starts playing "I got you babe" every morning.
Weapons on sets are props by default regardless of if it's a wooden/rubber/solid plastic gun, a foam latex sword or a real gun that may or may not have been modified and may or may not have been able to fire blanks.
The armourer is there to take care of those specific "props" but as I understand it may be a specific person in the "prop department" rather than having their name listed separately especially if there are a limited number of weapon props (and thus they might be doing non weapons as well).
They all need to stop talking to the press whilst the investigation is ongoing, I've seen several lawyers who are fairly horrified by not just what happened on set, but the fact that the people involved are giving interviews (and even more horrified by the statements that some of the involved lawyers have put out for the press on behalf of the people involved), as the most basic rule when dealing with an active investigation is that you shouldn't say anything other than the most basic things to anyone other than the investigators, and then you should only be doing it with your lawyer present. Not because the people may have done anything wrong, but because if someone is looking for a scapegoat the wrong word can result in either a prosecution or civil action taking it out of context (as we appear to have seen in this thread).
The threads 93 pages, lol if you think I’m following it.
Edit- hahahahahaa dude you’ve posted almost 150 times in this thread alone, that’s more than I have in a month! The state of you.
Caporegime
Well you're clearly following it enough to give him a reach-around on his post that is demonstrably wrong.
hahahahahaa dude you’ve posted almost 150 times in this thread alone, that’s more than I have in a month! The state of you.
If I can peek in, understand his point clearly, and what he’s replying to, he’s clearly posting well enough.
Please go and touch some grass.
Caporegime
Except that his point is wrong...again, demonstrably so.
A legendary gunsmith started training her at age 16. That same legendary gunsmith was still having training with her at age 23/24 and in the intervening years. At unknown points over that 8 years she was shadowing that legendary gunsmith on the job over multiple film sets as per your source that you posted from the full interview from your link.
So basically, you managed to prove yourself wrong. Now onto your false statements about her not knowing how to load blanks on the job. Are you going to admit your mistake or provided some evidence?
Well since copying and pasting seems to be too hard for you to handle. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2021-10-23/segment/05 yet more evidence your made a mistake. In the middle ish is the transcript of the Q&A from the interview questions that you quoted before. The same quotes that you misrepresented and falsely used to say she could not load blanks as part of her job.
Then give me the timestamp in the interview. I listen to it and it doesn’t say what you said it does. I read the transcript which again shows you are wrong. Give me the text quote that proves you correct or the timestamp. Or admit you made a major mistake and based your opinion off something that is not true.
Why do I need to? I never claimed she has extensive expreince. That lie came from you. She has 3 years working in the industry which was proven before and years of training again proven by your source, shadowing on the job again proven by your source but she is no veteran.
Without even checking, I’m going to trust his presentation of the facts over your poorly written, bitter attempts at point scoring.
Almost 150 posts and some of them are essay length. Please take a hard look at yourself and your life bro. That’s not normal or healthy.
Caporegime
That's not the transcript of the interview for a start
Seriously, do you have some form of memory loss?
I've never disputed she started learning at age 16 however you stated she had 8 years training. I've just shown where you said that (again).
From your own source...
"We understand based on this podcast that she worked previously in another production with Nicolas Cage, a movie called "The Old Way" where she served for the first time in her career as head armorer. And she shared doubts she had about her ability to do a job in that production. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANNAH GUTIERREZ: Dad has taught me everything, but a lot of things I kind of just caught on by myself and everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Observation?
GUTIERREZ: Yes, just observation, watching him do things or just knowing how the firearms work. I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me, because I was, like, oh, I don't know anything about it. But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go when you want it to, rather than it hitting the empty cylinders and everything."
See, the interview is about her doubts around The Old Way.
Where are these 3 years working in the industry? You've still not provided a source for this 3 years. Also 3 years in the industry is meaningless. Am I an experienced Doctor just because I emptied the bins in a hospital? No!
Caporegime
Perhaps you should check because he's not presented any facts. Showing your big brain there again Hurf. You mega success.
I'd assume that perhaps, unlike a regular incident involving criminal or civil action, that reputation damage is deemed to be way more important here and so perhaps they've assumed that risk of (or indeed consequences of) criminal prosecution is/are low and that they/the production company are going to be paying out anyway so they're more concerned with the PR side...
For a movie start the negative cost to reputation/future projects/star value is probably way more than the possible negative impact of saying stuff right now & the It's not like he doesn't have lots of reassuringly expensive lawyers, managers/agents, PR people on this.
Seems like the AD has had way more critical coverage whereas big stars employ publicists with lots of media contacts to try and negate some of this stuff.
Training over an 8-year time frame which that interview confirms. You did listen to the full podcast interview, right?
She had 2 years at Synthfire media on top of all the other jobs. Plus all the none credited roles like when she shadowed the gunsmith on other sets to learn the role of armorer. As per the full interview. Plus if you listened to the full interview you know she had other jobs under other names.
What a joke, yes it is, word for word 100% the same. So is this evidence that you never listened to the full pod cast interview? All this time shouting about lack of sources and evidence from me is all because you never really listened to the full interview? There we have it for everyone to see Dis86 has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.“That's not the transcript of the interview for a start”
You do realize we can all listen to the podcast link posted and match it up word for word with the transcript. Like I said before not a full transcript you have to listen to the full interview for the rest. Plus you lied about there being no transcript and you said the transcript was only really 1 line. Pretty sure most people would agree this transcript is more then one line.
The text in that transcript matches what was said in the podcast interview word for word, 100% the same. The quote you used also matches the quote in the transcript.
You used from the sources you posted “I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me, because I was, like, oh, I don't know anything about it.”
Only the full quote was
“GUTIERREZ: Yes, just observation, watching him do things or just knowing how the firearms work. I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me, because I was, like, oh, I don't know anything about it. But he taught me that. And eventually by the time I was trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go when you want it to, rather than it hitting the empty cylinders and everything.”
Seems pretty much 100% identical to me. This is the quote you used to say she couldn’t do a core part of her job and didn’t know how to use blanks on the job. Only she was talking about her training days back before she was taught about blanks. Then the next line the bit missing completely changes the context of the quote. Meaning she was taught how to use blanks. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times.
The line about not knowing how to use blanks was a big part of your argument that she didn’t know how to do a core part of her job. Dis86 said in regards to doing her job “You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.” only as we can all see you misquoted and misrepresented.
Caporegime
That's the transcript of a CNN news article...not the transcript of the podcast which is what I've asked you to produce multiple times.
Tell me, what do Synthfire media do? I'll give you a clue, they don't produce movies.
Still waiting on your source for all the other jobs and the none credited roles. C'mon...how many posts ago did I start asking you for these?
Are you...unwell in some way? Why can't you comply with very simple and basic requests? PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE.
I started learning to play the guitar 20 years ago...does that mean i'm an experienced guitarist?
More proof you never listened to the podcast. CNN played the middle part of the podcast and that is the transcript of that middle part. Its 100% the same. The words in the podcast didn’t change just because CNN replayed the podcast. It is very much is a transcript of the podcast. As I said before its identical to the podcast word for word.
In the full podcast which you clearly never listened to. She clearly talks about being on other film sets and working under different names. She clearly talks about apprenticing under an expert in the field to learn the role.
This isn’t the first time I gave you the content. It’s been given to you at least half a dozen times by me. Another person posted the podcast timestamp for you to check yourself. Which matches up with the transcript 100%.
The evidence was produced. You had the live podcast, you had the timestamp in the podcast so you didn’t need to listen to the entire thing, you had the quotes of the transcript, you had the quotes of the podcast. You had a link as you couldn't cope with copy and pasting. Yet still you seem to be confused.
If you added that you trained under a master in the field and was apprenticing under him for years and that you shadowed him on tours as well as trained then yes one would expect you to be an experienced guitarist. Perhaps not extensive experience, perhaps not a veteran but past the point of newbie. Past the point of not knowing what you are doing.
Need I remind you Dis86 said in regards to doing her job “You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”
Where is your evidence, it’s a very simple and basic request. How many pages of asking is it going to take for you to produce evidence? Can you comply with a very simple request to give the timestamp in the podcast interview where she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job as head armorer?
Caporegime
So Pottsey, still no sources. @dowie completely spot on in your evaluation of the guy.
Commissario
He's giving the source, the original podcase that the quote is taken from.
Caporegime
No I gave that source. He's taking a part of it differently and earlier said he had a transcript of the podcast to illustrate that.
I've asked repeatedly for the transcript which he still hasn't provided.
What he has provided is the transcript of a cnn interview discussing her lack of experience when working on the old way and playing that section of the podcast in support of that. Something that contradicts his point and supports mine.
My source is the full podcast interview and the transcript both links which have been provided to you time and time again. https://voicesofthewest.net/armorer-hannah-reed-9-11-21/
Why would I care what someone like Dowie thinks given his reputation is even worse then yours. Didn't even know he was posting here.
Still no sources from you I see. I guess like Dowie you are one big hypocrite.
Need I remind you Dis86 said in regards to doing her job “You're negating the fact that she didn't say she was just nervous, she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job - handling blanks.”
Where is your evidence, it’s a very simple and basic request. How many pages of asking is it going to take for you to produce evidence? Can you comply with a very simple request to give the timestamp in the podcast interview where she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job as head armorer?
Soldato
So is Baldwin culpable in any way? I would assume that if someone handed you a gun and said it was unloaded you would still be in a certain amout of **** if you then pointed it at someone without checking it yourself and shot them.
The CNN interview is the podcast. They are one and the same thing. CNN replayed part of the podcast interview and then made a transcript of it. As has been pointed out to you time and time again. I even showed you the precise words from the podcast that match the transcript. They are 100% the same and as demonstrated prove you wrong and don't remotely back what you said.
Why is such a simple concept so hard for you to understand? Why is it so hard for you to provide a source to backup your statement which at this point seems to be a flat out lie by you.
EDIT: Where in the podcast or transcript does it show that "she literally said she didn't know how to do a significant part of the job" while doing the job? That is what you said. Give us a timestamp or quote some text.
Last edited: