You wanting in on some 3some action? Lucky Pierre style?
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
You wanting in on some 3some action? Lucky Pierre style?
annual salary, cant see prior mention, of $38K, google is throwing, would have some correlation with the responsibility/training currently required/attributed
(HGV driver discussion aside)
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,489
If you're relying on IMDB for the above assertion, that only details where people have credits for their work - I understand that, with the exception of certain departments like the directorship, apprentices and trainees do not usually get their names in the credits until they have completed their training and become registered members of the various associations.
Well the link has been given to you multiple times, you even posted the link yourself and no one else seems to have problems viewing the source. At this point the fact she was trained by a professional and shadowed that professional in the role of armourer is not in question. Plus we don't have her full job history or even a list of all the names she has worked under. How do you know you haven't missed a bunch of jobs? Given that large sections of her job history are not online. Just what is wrong with years of training and multiple jobs in the field?
I keep pointing out your error in your understanding...
Others have pointed it out as well.
Yet again you're making false and unsupported claims.
Sources pottsey. You can do it. Be a big boy!
I suggest you reread the thread given that the source has been posted 3 times as a link. Once by you, once by me and refenced in over 20 posts. I see no point in going over this again. If you are truly interested in the source go and view it, no one is stopping you. Your statements have already been proven to be false and unsupported while mine have been proven correct by the source provided. There is nothing else to do here but give you space to reread the thread. We are not going to play your silly game of going in circles over multiples posts as its not fair on anyone else in this thread.
I mean multiple people have pointed out you're incorrect. But OK. Sure pottsey. Surrrrre.
Nothing that matters which is why I am not going over it again. My sources have been posted if anyone is interested they can reread the thread. For me its not about winning its about accuracy in statements and facts and making corrections as new information comes to light.Does anyone else even remember what they're arguing about being correct over?
I think it's something about how someone hadn't done something before they trained to do that thing and how they were nervous on their first day in their new job after training with elements of not understanding/caring that you don't find every part of someone's work history online (and that even the most heavily populated imdb entry only covers a fraction of the people in the film credits).Does anyone else even remember what they're arguing about being correct over?
So if "head" portion of the title has very little meaning, then the 3 year training would make sense to me.
In what way would it make sense? Are you implying 3 years is not sufficient to hold that title if it did have some meaning?
I am comparing the title of "head" to other industries, such as heads of departments at schools, head chef etc... I consider the title of "head" to be of a senior nature.
Personally it doesn't make sense to me that someone comes out of training for 3 years and is given the title of "head" of anything. To me once you are out of training you then move onto working in that role with a default title(not necessarily with a junior title that would be for a training position). Once you have proven to be of a competent in that role and can be responsible for the tasks that role entails you may be promoted to a more senior/head role.
I guess it would depend on what is involved in the training and how much hand holding the mentor does.
This is where vanity titling confuses things. I've encountered people at work who are barely out of uni and are 'head of' something. That something is often a one person department consisting only of that person but it probably makes them feel important.
Not a stretch to think a relatively low budget film had people in 'head' roles that were effectively only head of themselves.
I would hazard a guess and say she runs her own company just like her dad would have.
production company calls her company and says we need an armourer for this film for x amount of days, she says ok this is the cost. if you own such a company then shirly you would call yourself head armourer regardless of how many years you have been at it.
production company calls her company and says we need an armourer for this film for x amount of days, she says ok this is the cost. if you own such a company then shirly you would call yourself head armourer regardless of how many years you have been at it.
I guess it all comes down to competency and I would assume one could become easily competent at an armours role within a few years if you are mature , responsible and have a good attitude towards safety from then it’s just getting the opportunity to become a Head armourer, assuming that’s not just a title for the exact same role which I suspect it is
Can't see how this could happen without either a breach of process for the safe handling/storage of arms/ammunition or lack of process and a large dollop of complacency.
Horrendous for those involved and the families.
Live and blank ammunition should be stored separately and a competent person should check all firearms before use by the actor.
Horrendous for those involved and the families.
Live and blank ammunition should be stored separately and a competent person should check all firearms before use by the actor.
I may have worded it a bit badly but a lot of titles in film/tv production are slightly weird as they have can have roots back to before film, but she may have been the only official armourer, but might have also had a couple of prop people who were working as assistants/under her direction hence her title would tell anyone who was specifically in charge of that aspect when on set.
We also don't currently know if there were any assistant armourers/designated seconds on the set as it seems only the head armourer gets any credits when they're given at all on imdb (a bit like stunt men don't always get credited, but often the stunt director will).
It's like IIRC "best boy" and "key grip" where they're both very specific jobs but the people under them may have different titles, best boy is basically second electrician so will be higher than the normal electricians on set, but AFAIK there isn't a "second boy".
Does anyone else even remember what they're arguing about being correct over?
Yes: