Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Werewolf]

Re the credits thing, I noticed last night that IMBD seems to be populating them more than they used to.
I'm wondering if maybe where Amazon IIRC own IMDB they've been improving/increasing the amount of info on things, possibly sharing data from the Prime Video unit given how Amazon Video can display information about the current scene when paused (actors/music etc), and they're linking to the videos on Amazon when you look at listings.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

So there are three areas, the credits at the end of the film, IMDP and IMDB.

Generally the credits at the end of the film and on IMDP include the people who directly worked on the film apart for certain instances like hotwired mentioned. IMDB is fan populated, so is good for big named actors.

I think I got it.

 

[Pottsey]

Some of the lawyers are now pushing the theory of Sabotage and while I did mention that possibility early on there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of evidence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...lawyers-armorer-raise-theory/?sh=9905ec211f0b

 

[GreatAuk]

Some of the lawyers are now pushing the theory of Sabotage and while I did mention that possibility early on there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of evidence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...lawyers-armorer-raise-theory/?sh=9905ec211f0b

Tbf I guess sabotage might be the only way out if they don't want to admit any fault on the part of the armourer. She says no live rounds were used in the guns and that she had them appropriately secured, checked the gun properly before handing it over etc. If all that is true then I guess it kind of has to be some kind of sabotage that resulted in a live round either getting in the gun or getting mixed in the box of dummy rounds. Either that or admit she mixed up some live rounds in her dummy rounds accidentally somehow.

It still seems kind of negligent to me that the dummy rounds were left unattended for a couple of hours - would have thought both the guns and rounds should have been under the same level of security and supervision, to avoid a scenario precisely like this one from happening. Therefore in my books even if everything the armourer is saying is true it still seems like she was negligent not securing the ammunition,or that the production's risk assessment was not sufficient if it was their decision rather than hers for some reason.

 

[Nasher]

Sabotage is unlikely. It's way to random.

 

[Pottsey]

Not completely random as there was mass walkouts and mass complaints that got the unions involved. Saying that I agree with you its unlikely and far more likely some of the crew unofficially took the old fashioned gun's for some "fun" out back, off set.

 

[dowie]

Some of the lawyers are now pushing the theory of Sabotage and while I did mention that possibility early on there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of evidence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...lawyers-armorer-raise-theory/?sh=9905ec211f0b

Not surprising, it would be the go-to deflection given the apparent conditions on set.

Sounds like the ammunition wasn't secured though and there were several people handling the firearm - did the prop master or armourer pick up some ammunition carelessly?

Did some dopey crew member, after plinking stuff in the desert say, drop a few live rounds among the dummies or blanks?

I guess that is where sabotage could come in - obvious unrest on set, people walking off unhappy with conditions etc.. so they can at least point at a motive... it does seem a bit of a reach still how does the saboteur (assuming it is some uninvolved crew member) know the armourer and AD would be sloppy - the DID (it's claimed) check the firearm, they just didn't do it as thoroughly as they should - AD says he only saw 3 dummy rounds... an observer doesn't know that though, can't know that a sabotage attempt with a live round wouldn't be futile. Doesn't seem too plausible at the moment.

 

[Scam]

Everyone on set with an Equity card (or SAG equivalent), at least, and still then only certain roles. There will be all manner of extras, even with creditable roles, who are not entitled to a credit on screen, along with various cameo roles from 'name' actors who still go uncredited... although these do sometimes surface on IMDB, oddly enough.

I think you're agreeing with me, but still. Yes there are hundreds of people who could be on set who do not get a credit. Mainly extras etc. Plus a lot of people in post production who work on many titles per year but do not get a credit (trust me, I used to be one of these people!)

So there are three areas, the credits at the end of the film, IMDP and IMDB.

Do you mean IMDB Pro? If so, I dont think it actually offers any more data when it comes to credits. More contact info, page management etc. Probably tools for executive assistants to keep their boss's page up-to-date. I don't know anyone in the industry that has that, personally. https://help.imdb.com/article/imdbp...-with-an-imdbpro-membership/G6EFQ2AYEG3NKTM2#

 

[Hotwired]

Aliens sabotage theory sounds like they've looked at everything, realised no one is obviously guilty so it will come down to blaming people on responsibilities and they might as well muddy the water.

 

[Angilion]

I'm not sold on the sabotage idea. It's possible that some psycho got some jollies from the possibility of a random person being killed, but it's a hell of a stretch. It can't have been a targetted murder because there would have been no way of telling who was in the path of the bullet when it was fired or even if anyone would be.

But even if it was sabotage it's still negligence because the gun wasn't correctly checked. Unless it's genuinely impossible to tell the difference between a dummy and a real round, which would be insane.

Although I have just thought of a more plausible sabotage scenario. Maybe a hypothetical saboteur might have assumed that the guns would be checked correctly and loaded a real round into the gun expecting it to be found when the gun was checked before being used and expecting a serious disruption to filming to result while everything was double-checked and an investigation started into how it was even possible for a real round to be in the gun (because it shouldn't be).

 

[Geodude97AD]

I'm not sold on the sabotage idea. It's possible that some psycho got some jollies from the possibility of a random person being killed, but it's a hell of a stretch. It can't have been a targetted murder because there would have been no way of telling who was in the path of the bullet when it was fired or even if anyone would be.

But even if it was sabotage it's still negligence because the gun wasn't correctly checked. Unless it's genuinely impossible to tell the difference between a dummy and a real round, which would be insane.

Although I have just thought of a more plausible sabotage scenario. Maybe a hypothetical saboteur might have assumed that the guns would be checked correctly and loaded a real round into the gun expecting it to be found when the gun was checked before being used and expecting a serious disruption to filming to result while everything was double-checked and an investigation started into how it was even possible for a real round to be in the gun (because it shouldn't be).

What if it was Alex Baldwin himself?

 

[Jokester]

Yeah, if it was sabotage, I don't believe they intended to actually kill anyone.

 

[Angilion]

What if it was Alex Baldwin himself?

If it was, then it could only have been a targetted murder. Possible, I suppose, but where's the motive? It would also be a very unreliable and rather convoluted murder plan. The convoluted part isn't a deal-breaker because there have been convoluted murder plans, but I think the unreliability probably is a deal-breaker. Loading a real round into a gun that should then be checked by two different people to ensure it only contains dummy rounds before it's given to you is very unlikely to be a successful plan. He would have to have reloaded the gun on set after it had been given to him. A big risk at best and even if it was successful and he got away with it he would still suffer significant consequences. He'd need to have an enormous motive for killing her and there's no evidence of that.

 

[Jokester]

Anyone that was routinely on set would have known the accepted site procedure was to shake the gun rather than the individual rounds to see if they rattled which is my understanding so it would be possible to slip a real round in and for it not to be picked up.

 

[Angilion]

Anyone that was routinely on set would have known the accepted site procedure was to shake the gun rather than the individual rounds to see if they rattled which is my understanding so it would be possible to slip a real round in and for it not to be picked up.

That's ridiculously unsafe. If that's the norm in the industry I'm surprised a lot more people don't get shot on sets. A gun being assumed to be loaded only with dummy rounds if any of the rounds in the gun are dummies is not good enough. Certainly not in the USA, where real rounds are all over the place.

 

[Jokester]

That's ridiculously unsafe. If that's the norm in the industry I'm surprised a lot more people don't get shot on sets. A gun being assumed to be loaded only with dummy rounds if any of the rounds in the gun are dummies is not good enough. Certainly not in the USA, where real rounds are all over the place.

I wouldn't think it would be the norm, but it seemed to be what was done here.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think you're agreeing with me, but still. Yes there are hundreds of people who could be on set who do not get a credit. Mainly extras etc. Plus a lot of people in post production who work on many titles per year but do not get a credit (trust me, I used to be one of these people!)

Yes, agreeing and just adding my own experiences, as I also was on set but not always credited for my roles. Sometimes it was due to Equity status, other times it was just 'because'.

 

[hurfdurf]

I read some where, I think it was here, about how you shake the bullets to see if they rattle to make sure they are blanks, have I made this up or is that really a thing?

 

[Rroff]

I read some where, I think it was here, about how you shake the bullets to see if they rattle to make sure they are blanks, have I made this up or is that really a thing?

In theory dummy rounds rather than blanks, rounds which look identical to live rounds but are inert, are supposed to have beads inside so you can tell by shaking them when used in this kind of context - I don't believe there is any standard for it though just a best practise thing.

 

[Werewolf]

I read some where, I think it was here, about how you shake the bullets to see if they rattle to make sure they are blanks, have I made this up or is that really a thing?

I think that's only a very specific type of blank.
I think that might be for rounds that look real but have zero charge, not even the percussion cap.

Watching a video by an armourer the other day (from several years back) and he's talking about all sorts of different "blanks" including "blanks" that have something like twice the gunpowder of a normal round and thus the gun has to be modified to take the extra pressure.

In theory dummy rounds rather than blanks, rounds which look identical to live rounds but are inert, are supposed to have beads inside so you can tell by shaking them when used in this kind of context - I don't believe there is any standard for it though just a best practise thing.

Yup

The video I was watching was saying how different armourers can have very different ways of making blank firing guns depending on the type of gun (so what is mechanically required), the budget (do you make multiple ones for what might be only slightly different uses, or one that can have parts swapped), personal preference and what is needed to be shown on camera.
One example he gave was one method to make a gun a "blank" firer had the potential to throw back burning powder towards the person holding it, another iirc increased the pressure coming out the end of the barrel so you had the choice of the person holding it potentially getting stuff in their face or a slightly more dangerous level of pressure at the front. The result was you might want to have two guns even with the same "blank" rounds depending on the shot.
He was also saying he went about making them slightly differently to many others because he got into it from IIRC a career as a machinist rather than a gunsmith so used different methods/tooling and looked at them from a different direction.

Basically there doesn't appear to be any standard way because there are so many different guns that might need only slightly different modifications, or completely different ones and different people approach things differently depending on training, viewpoint, available equipment, what the shot is going to be, budget and speed even on the same guns (like many things).