Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Werewolf]

Is that what actually happened or are you making bits up?

IIRC he was asked by the director to practice for a scene so they could check the lighting and the camera angle.
Which is basically a specific type of rehearsal and not "mucking around", and is something that is utterly routine in film and tv as it costs a lot less to have the actor on the set with the lighting etc and the director/camera person there making sure the lighting is right and it looks ok than it is to do the entire scene and have everyone on set.

Or would it have been fine with you if the death had occurred when the set was full and the camera was running?

Long post. Blah. As you correctly assert you need a working gun to fire blanks. You don't fire blanks directly at people. See Brandon Lee as to why.
If you want to point a gun at people, the relevant effects can easily be added in post processing. It's already been stated that they didn't do this on rust because they wanted a 'more authentic effect'.

You don't point a blank firer at a person (certainly not within a certain distance), but pointing it at the camera that might be several meters away is still done as the risk is so low and is routine for certain shots, blanks are IIRC only normally any danger within a very short range due to the lack of mass of any of the unburned propellant, the blast pressure and the very low mass of any debris that makes it out, rather like an airline or a water jet the pressure (and thus risk of unjury) drops off almost exponentially as there is nothing of mass.

You can't "Easily add the effects in post processing" because it's actually hard to mimic the recoil of a gun as it has to happen at exactly the right point, and to do so you'd need to basically redraw the entire arm and gun as well as add in the flash and bang.

 

[Dis86]

Am I the only person who thinks that much of the force driving the "he's guilty" side is simply dislike of the actor?

As many people here have pointed out, an actor is not (generally) a firearms expert, and cannot be expected to tell if a weapon is real/prop/loaded/safe etc. Their job also involves pointing a weapon at someone. In this case, I believe the idea was to practice and compose a shot of the gun being pointed directly at the camera. So the actor relies totally on being provided with a safe weapon, and when they are told it is, expect it to be so. In this case, they were lied to. In the same way that if a gas worker in charge off safety tells me that the gas is off, and I have no way of checking, I expect it to be so and will go ahead with what i planned.

This is a man who has been around firearms a lot. However as pointed out some time back in this thread there are simple ways of checking and anyone handling a firearm should have been instructed in these.

 

[Dis86]

You can't "Easily add the effects in post processing" because it's actually hard to mimic the recoil of a gun as it has to happen at exactly the right point, and to do so you'd need to basically redraw the entire arm and gun as well as add in the flash and bang.

If only you could hire someone to mimic that effect. Perhaps a professional actor of some sort?

 

[Rroff]

If only you could hire someone to mimic that effect. Perhaps a professional actor of some sort?

As mentioned previously it is pretty hard to mimic the effect of something which starts the movement before the body does in reaction to it, it might look convincing to some but for others it will stand out like a sore thumb.

A mixed one for me as sometimes it doesn't bother me, other times firefights look laughable because of stuff like that.

 

[BUDFORCE]

Apparently nobody pulled it. He claimed it just went off all by itself.

I'm not sure believe that part.

Moving away from the guilty not guilty arguement.

I been shooting for years.

I've seen a rifle go off when the bolt has been closed onto a round, I've also seen a round going off about 30 seconds after the primer had been struck.

I've never seen nor even ever heard of anyone having a gun just "go off" by itself.

Also that gun is a single action revolver, there are no hidden mechanical parts or anything spring loaded.....

I'm not saying it's impossible. Just very, very unlikely.

 

[dlockers]

IIRC he was asked by the director to practice for a scene

And is pointing a gun at somebody who isn't an actor part of the scene or what? :S

 

[Scam]

but all those actions combined didn't create a fatal accident until the trigger was pulled

Maybe think about it this way.. Alec Baldwin was going to pull the trigger regardless. As that was his job, as an actor. Those in charge of the firearm should have known that, or at least known it’s a possibility. They wouldn’t have loaded it with blanks if he wasn’t going to pull the trigger for the scene. So there very little blame you can apportion to Baldwin - he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. It also makes the armouror even more guilty.

And is pointing a gun at somebody who isn't an actor part of the scene or what? :S

I haven’t read all the minute details but it’s highly likely the cinematographer was standing in place of the camera to assess the scene, lighting, blocking, movement etc. Again, doing her job. Something these people do all day, every day.

 

[dowie]

It's a film set, if the script calls for him to point the gun at another character/camera and pull the trigger he has to do it. He was told the gun was safe (loaded with inert rounds) so why wouldn't he do it?

If he had opened up the revolver first and checked all the chambers he would probably not have been able to tell the difference between inert and live rounds anyway. (The live rounds are heavier, but if he was inexperienced he would not be able to tell without weighing them on a scale.)

The rounds were marked so they could be distinguished from live rounds, they just got sloppy.

Firearms safety should be the responsibility of everyone including the person in control of the weapon, that they may have sloppy practices is not really a good excuse.

The fact is this set had multiple complaints already re: safety and people walking off, they'd used firearms for mucking about/plinking targets in the desert.

He's not just some random actor either, he's an experienced, very well-paid actor and this was a real gun being used as a prop not just some prop gun incapable of ever firing real rounds - really what's the excuse for him not being trained in some basics re: firearms. We hear of the great lengths actors go through for certain roles whether it includes weeks of shadowing people working in a particular job or training in martial arts for hundreds of hours etc. he runs the production company and is a big star with a long career, no excuse for not familiarising himself with guns in America of all places and taking some responsibility.

Someone driving a real car in a movie you'd expect for insurance purposes to have a driving license, or perhaps expect a stunt person to take over for dangerous driving scenes. On the other hand a static car/fake car not being driven and just set up in a studio in front of a green screen could be "driven" by anyone.

I don't think the case necessarily needed to be tossed and it seems to have been law enforcement being inept in their handling, it didn't need to impact the case but it looks like the judge was already miffed with the state because of other delays and alleged disclosure hold ups and it's kinda down to her discretion, this was perhaps the last straw for her and she's given a mistrial. It's certainly no vindication of Baldwin though, it's more just an admin screw up by law enforcement and prosecutors.

 

[Rroff]

I've also seen a round going off about 30 seconds after the primer had been struck.

Quite a scary one actually, especially with an inexperienced shooter - fortunately very rare but it tends to lead to people forgetting muzzle discipline and/or even looking down the barrel...

Reminds me of this for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntVC5zz9fRM

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I for one am glad to see this thread hasn’t moved on at all in 3 years.

Oh wait… perhaps it’s time to un-watch this one!

 

[ColdAsIce]

The rounds were marked so they could be distinguished from live rounds, they just got sloppy.

Firearms safety should be the responsibility of everyone including the person in control of the weapon, that they may have sloppy practices is not really a good excuse.

The fact is this set had multiple complaints already re: safety and people walking off, they'd used firearms for mucking about/plinking targets in the desert.

He's not just some random actor either, he's an experienced, very well-paid actor and this was a real gun being used as a prop not just some prop gun incapable of ever firing real rounds - really what's the excuse for him not being trained in some basics re: firearms. We hear of the great lengths actors go through for certain roles whether it includes weeks of shadowing people working in a particular job or training in martial arts for hundreds of hours etc. he runs the production company and is a big star with a long career, no excuse for not familiarising himself with guns in America of all places and taking some responsibility.

Someone driving a real car in a movie you'd expect for insurance purposes to have a driving license, or perhaps expect a stunt person to take over for dangerous driving scenes. On the other hand a static car/fake car not being driven and just set up in a studio in front of a green screen could be "driven" by anyone.

I don't think the case necessarily needed to be tossed and it seems to have been law enforcement being inept in their handling, it didn't need to impact the case but it looks like the judge was already miffed with the state because of other delays and alleged disclosure hold ups and it's kinda down to her discretion, this was perhaps the last straw for her and she's given a mistrial. It's certainly no vindication of Baldwin though, it's more just an admin screw up by law enforcement and prosecutors.

You can watch the trial back on YouTube. The lead detective admitted that herself the prosecution team and others knew about live bullets that were likely from the same batch that ended up on the rust set. They didn’t reveal this info to the defence and filed them under a separate case number that wouldn’t tie them to the rust case. The judge had no option but to dismiss the case once both the prosecution and detectives were rubbish at their job. Plus another specialist prosecutor for the DA resigned during day 3 of the trial.

 

[Rroff]

Interestingly talking to someone who has done a bit of acting involving firearms, on the sets they've been on even imitation guns, etc. they have a minimum of 3 people who audibly confirm the weapon is clear before it is allowed on set. Obviously not foolproof unless you meticulously control the perimeter but would largely eliminate something like this, especially on any properly run production.

(EDIT: Obviously a bit more complicated with dummy rounds, etc.).

 

[Uther]

Well it's not over yet...

Alec Baldwin Rust shooting: Actor says he may sue prosecutor and sheriff over trial

Baldwin's case was thrown out by the judge after three days, based on testimony heard in court that police and prosecutors had withheld potential evidence from the defence.

news.sky.com

 

[Hotwired]

This is selling more popcorn than that western ever would.

Bring on the sad harmonica to play Entrance of the Gladiators when the armourer manages to get off the hook by claiming the prosecution incompetence sabotaged her trial also.

 

[Rroff]

Hmm.. I'd Say if you can't fake recoil with a fake gun, then your are not a very good actor.

CGI can take care of the rest

A more extreme demonstration of it but I happened to come across this on a similar conversation about it elsewhere:

Though far more obvious in the slow motion for some people it will look noticeably wrong even at normal speed, other people won't notice.

 

[Mr Badger]

A more extreme demonstration of it but I happened to come across this on a similar conversation about it elsewhere:

Though far more obvious in the slow motion for some people it will look noticeably wrong even at normal speed, other people won't notice.

Surely the actor could just shout "Pew! Pew! Pew!"

 

[something daft already!!]

IIRC he was asked by the director to practice for a scene so they could check the lighting and the camera angle.
Which is basically a specific type of rehearsal and not "mucking around", and is something that is utterly routine in film and tv as it costs a lot less to have the actor on the set with the lighting etc and the director/camera person there making sure the lighting is right and it looks ok than it is to do the entire scene and have everyone on set.

Or would it have been fine with you if the death had occurred when the set was full and the camera was running?




You don't point a blank firer at a person (certainly not within a certain distance), but pointing it at the camera that might be several meters away is still done as the risk is so low and is routine for certain shots, blanks are IIRC only normally any danger within a very short range due to the lack of mass of any of the unburned propellant, the blast pressure and the very low mass of any debris that makes it out, rather like an airline or a water jet the pressure (and thus risk of unjury) drops off almost exponentially as there is nothing of mass.

You can't "Easily add the effects in post processing" because it's actually hard to mimic the recoil of a gun as it has to happen at exactly the right point, and to do so you'd need to basically redraw the entire arm and gun as well as add in the flash and bang.

You dont get any recoil from firing a blank, unless it's one which is for a machine gun as these have cardboard bullets in them which are shredded by an attachment to the barrel.

 

[Rroff]

You dont get any recoil from firing a blank, unless it's one which is for a machine gun as these have cardboard bullets in them which are shredded by an attachment to the barrel.

Blank firing guns can still have recoil just reduced compared to a live round, how much depends on the setup - typically around 1/5th.

EDIT: Can also have practically no recoil if you aren't worried about cycling the gun, etc.

One which can show the difference is attempts to hand held fire a minigun

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Quite a scary one actually, especially with an inexperienced shooter - fortunately very rare but it tends to lead to people forgetting muzzle discipline and/or even looking down the barrel...

Reminds me of this for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntVC5zz9fRM

Squib loads are even scarier than a hang fire when they happen to inexperienced shooters or during rapid fire drills when even veteran shooters might not notice a different in report and recoil.

 

[Flibster]

Well that's convenient. Scott Prop and Roll have done a video on how they manage revolvers on a set.