News Alec Baldwin Accidentally Shoots & Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director with Prop Gun
- Thread starter Locutus of Bored
- Start date
I'm curious as to why there would be live ammunition loose on the set and especially loaded into a weapon that was being used as a movie prop.
The Props people screwed up...
Somebody sure did, but the question remains: other than in a personally-carried firearm, who has live ammunition on a movie set and loads it into a weapon being used as a prop? Not only that, it was live ammo that just 'happened' to be the right caliber. That's more than a screw-up- that's criminally negligent bordering on pre-meditated, under the circumstances. That's the question that needs to be answered. I don't expect a liberal hollywood actor like Baldwin to know anything about firearms safety other than simple common sense stuff, but he had no reason whatsoever to expect that he was handling a loaded firearm. Someone versed in firearms safety will always chamber-check any weapon handed to them regardless of what they're told, but again, people who haven't been taught that won't do it.
I can't believe I'm actually defending Alec fuckin' Baldwin here, but fair is fair.
Watching CNN coverage this morning of the investigation. Turns out that the armorer was a very young person, only 24, and this was only their second film. Apparently, only days earlier, some of the crew walked off the set in protest, over the lack of proper safety measures.
I think the armorer has a lot to answer for, as the proverbial buck stops with him/her.
I think the armorer has a lot to answer for, as the proverbial buck stops with him/her.
While that seems more likely I think it's possible for someone behind another to be hurt by a single round. People aren't perfect shields.
Also, I think when they say "live" or "hot" guns on a movie set that indicates it is loaded not that it has real ammunition (i.e. not blanks) because I don't think there's any reason to have real ammunition on a movie set.
A very informative thread by a film armorer
https://twitter.com/sl_huang/status/1451797888158375937
A thread by SL Huang 黄士芬
A lot of people are messaging me about yesterday's tragedy that was an on-set firearms death (because I am a film armorer, for those who don't know).
As both a human and a professional, it is extremely upsetting. My thoughts are with Halyna Hutchins' loved ones
I am not going to share backchannel rumors or speculation I'm hearing but I will answer a few things about movies and guns that people are asking (thread)
One is: "how are there not safety measures to prevent this?" The answer is: There are. There are very, very many
Qualified armorers have many, many safety precautions and redundancies.
Honestly I keep trying to come up with a scenario where it's possible for this to happen under standard gun safety procedures on film sets and I am so horribly stumped
(and horrified that I am stumped because it means this was likely so bad, and the failures here likely so unfathomably huge and many)
Our procedures plan in mistakes, actor error, etc. There should never be any single fail point; if anyone makes a mistake there are many multiple other things backing up the safety
Safety is always #1. Nothing can compromise it. There are other parts of the job (e.g. helping the director get the shots they want) but nothing can ever interfere with safety
In fact even in helping the director get their shots -- it's all about advising them on ways to do it SAFELY that will still look cool and get the effect they want.
I would tell directors "no" all the time (and provide them with a safe alternative). I can think of so many things I would do on every film set as standard, any one of which would have prevented something like this.
We plan for that redundancy, we plan for things to go wrong and for actors to mess up
Of course, I am talking as -- I would hope to say -- a good armorer. These are all things me and my colleagues do as standard.
Yes there are a handful of bad armorers out there... and production companies also cut corners and that's getting worse
What I mean by that is that they will hire someone unqualified for cheap, or they will try to do gunfire without any qualified person on the set, and production will allow it
...and other people on the crew who should put a stop to it (like the 1st AD (= 1st Assistant Director), who is the final word on safety) do not shut it down
Or the 1st AD etc may not have the experience to shut it down if production cut too many corners and has, for example, a green 1st AD for cheap also. This is devastating and I suspect has played into other non-firearms film set tragedies
There are positions where it is very, very important to have qualified people for safety reasons. 1st AD. Armorer, SFX, rigging, stunts. You need people who know exactly what they're doing. Now I do not know what happened here. But I want to convey to you, as someone who has worked firearms on probably hundreds of film sets, that this is both deeply, deeply upsetting and also deeply shocking
A tragedy happening in this particular way defies everything I know about how we treat guns on film sets. It implies to me that something was likely very, very wrong here. My colleagues and I have been trying to figure out how this could happen when following our basic safety procedures and we keep ending at a loss. We keep ending at "but how is that possible?"
Which implies something even more appalling -- that very basic, very standard safety procedures may not have been followed. And that nobody shut the production down when they weren't.
My heart is breaking to imagine this
Second thing people are asking. "Was this a real gun? why are real guns on set? how could a prop gun fire?"
The media reports are muddling things a bit here so I don't blame people for being confused. First of all, blank guns are real guns. Semi-autos are what we call "blank adapted" but that is purely for the function of the gun, not for safety (a projectile could still exit). Revolvers, shotguns, etc we use unmodified
In other words, you can take a revolver from a movie set and load live ammo into it. (We sometimes have demilled props and other variations but blank fire would almost always be real guns)
So it's very very important to know what is being loaded into the gun. It's also very important to know when a gun IS loaded at all
Our safety procedures are built around this
No one on a film set should ever have any question in their mind about what's going on with the guns. When I am keying a set I am very, very clear on everything to everybody at all times
When we say a "prop gun" on a film set we mean a rubber or a replica that does not fire. We do not mean a blank firing gun. We call blank fire guns real guns because as I said, they are real. Sometimes real guns are used "cold" (unloaded) if either there's no matching prop gun or if they want a closeup (the props are usually not as nice looking in detail), but for wide shots props are fine
Actors can feel & see that a prop is not something that can fire. Also props can be thrown/dropped without damaging the firearm. So lots of reasons to use rubbers/replicas where you can
Real guns are always -- always -- in my possession unless they're being used for a scene, in which case I'm right there watching. We treat real guns very seriously whether they're loaded or not
If we're using the real guns, cold (unloaded) guns are always used outside of gunfire scenes. If the ammo has to be visible we use dummies. These are always carefully checked. Dummies are visibly different from live ammo in that the primer in the back is punched. You can also "click through" by pulling the trigger pointed at the ground to show that they do not fire. When I am using a cold gun or a cold gun with dummies in it, I am VERY clear with the cast and crew about it. I physically open and show that the weapon is cold to the actors, the crew
That's at minimum. Comfort levels differ -- I worked with one cinematographer who wanted to be shown every few minutes that the gun was still cold because he was right next to the actor, even though the gun hadn't left his sight. No problem. I showed him every single take
This is part of the job. Nobody should EVER feel their safety is being compromised on a film set. I always considered it part of my job -- and an important part of my job -- to make sure people felt safe
Of course being safe is #1. But no one should ever have to doubt that that's true. So making sure to communicate with everyone on the set so they know they are in fact safe is also important
Before going "hot" for a gunfire scene, we always choreograph & rehearse everything carefully with the director, crew, actors, stunt people
Everyone needs to know exactly what they're doing before any guns are loaded. Where they're standing, where they're moving, where they're aiming. If anything violates one of our safety redundancies, we change it. If anyone's uncomfortable, we figure out another way. When we "go hot" that means we are loading the guns with blanks and doing blank gunfire. Everyone is very, very clear on this. Very loud notifications, announced and repeated, announced over radio and very loud on set.
It is treated very seriously. We only load the exact amount of blank ammunition needed for the scene. We only have hot guns on set for exactly the amount of time it takes to film the gunfire
I am always right there watching the scene extremely closely and making sure the actors and stunt people are exactly where they should be, doing exactly what they should be
And yes, actors screw up sometimes. Miss their mark, or turn the wrong way, etc. That's why we have so many redundant safety protocols.
No one's life or safety should ever depend solely on the actor hitting their mark correctly. Gunfire scenes are usually very, very short. Sometimes only a few seconds. Very often less than a minute. Remember, films are cut together from lots of shots.
We only go hot for the specific shots that have guns firing in them -- not any of the adjacent ones. As soon as the scene is over, we go in and clear the guns. Nobody moves on until we finish. The set is still hot -- the guns are still considered hot, even if (since we only loaded what they're supposed to fire) they fired all the blanks. We clear the guns and announce them clear and then it's announced and re-announced over the set and over the radio -- we announce it, 1st AD announces it, PAs pick up & repeat. Again, it's very important that everyone on set knows the status of the guns. No guessing games
Only after the guns are announced clear does everything start moving on. At least, this is the way it should work on a properly-run set. This is certainly how it works on my sets. Are there sets that are improperly run? Yes. There shouldn't be, but there are. I don't think there are many -- it's why tragedies like this are thankfully rare. It would honestly be a shock for me to step onto a film set and have to fight for these procedures to be followed
In general I arrive expecting that this will be everyone else's expectations / procedures as well.
Most importantly, I expect people to always listen to / respect me on all of the safety protocols (if not, I would walk away and take the guns with me)
And if proper gun safety is not being followed? If the armorer or propmaster is endangering people?
For immediate safety purposes, in that case there are other people who should step in to shut things down
The 1st AD / production stepping in and shutting things down is what we would want/expect to happen if things aren't being run safely, and it's another thing that has to fail for things to go really, really bad. Experienced 1st ADs absolutely know how gunfire scenes should work. They know how to run them in conjunction with an armorer. They know if proper safety is being followed.
(You never, ever want to lack a good 1st AD. This is only one of many reasons.)
(In fact there are rumors that other (non-gun) tragedies happened because the 1st AD was not allowed to do their job in re: safety & walked off set.)
It is so, so important for all these safety-related positions to hire qualified, experienced people and then to listen to them. Next question I see -- "how could blanks hurt someone? Do blanks still spit out paper or another projectile? What was a film gun doing firing live ammo???"
The last question is one of mine as well (if that's what happened, which I've seen rumored but not confirmed). Live ammo should never, ever, ever be mixed in on a film set. There are live ammo shows like Top Shot and they have entirely different safety protocols. If live ammo was mixed in on this set that is unfathomably bad. It is a tremendous problem and not even slightly understandable or okay. But yes, blanks are still dangerous. Except for shotguns I always used "crimped" blanks -- that is, no wad (nothing coming out of the gun)
Some blanks do have paper wads & are more dangerous bc that is a projectile. I would not use those for films. So in that case, no projectile
But even without that, the air becomes concussive. What is coming out of the gun is air, concussion, powder, flame.
The concussive force dissipates at 15 feet or so for small caliber rounds
We have different size blanks as well -- full load, half load, quarter load (referring to the amount of gunpowder)
There are logistics / permitting / aesthetic / functional / safety reasons that go into load size choice. Not all firearms work with any load size, permitting can be specific to load size, etc. The tl;dr is that there are various considerations that go into this question. Finally, yes, if there is anything stuck in the gun and a blank is put behind it -- yes, that stuck thing can become a projectile, functioning like a bullet
That's why one of the things we always do every single time is check the guns all the way down the barrel.
That's also why one of the basic safety protocols is that blank firing guns are never pointed directly at someone else -- not at other actors, not at crew
I will emphasize -- I never set up actors aiming at a person. Even though blanks dissipate at 15ft -- no. We don't do it. Even though if everything went as expected it would be fine -- no. There are plenty of camera angles to make it look like guns are pointed where they're not.
And if the camera crew wants to film from near the line of fire we can also barrier by putting up lexan or the like as an additional safety protocol
(Remember also that that's still redundant with other safety -- we're not ever doing something like firing live ammo at a camera operator and trusting lexan to save them -- DEFINITELY not)
So that's blanks -- yes they are dangerous, yes we plan for that, yes we check the guns always.
NO there should never be live ammo mixed in (!). NO blanks should never be fired directly at another person even from a "safe" distance. I meant to add more questions I've seen to this but this has gotten very long already, and it is very late and I am very tired and heartsick about this. I may try to come back later if people find this helpful (I hope people do)
Just know that there is a lot of misinformation going around right now on how movie guns work. Please do not take anything you see on Twitter at face value. (A lot of media articles are getting some industry things factually wrong too.)
And please know that when very basic, very standard safety protocols for movie gun safety are followed, this sequence of events is not something we expect to be possible. Not ever, not even rarely.
So it's very important that we find out what happened here and why.
https://twitter.com/sl_huang/status/1451797888158375937
A thread by SL Huang 黄士芬
A lot of people are messaging me about yesterday's tragedy that was an on-set firearms death (because I am a film armorer, for those who don't know).
As both a human and a professional, it is extremely upsetting. My thoughts are with Halyna Hutchins' loved ones
I am not going to share backchannel rumors or speculation I'm hearing but I will answer a few things about movies and guns that people are asking (thread)
One is: "how are there not safety measures to prevent this?" The answer is: There are. There are very, very many
Qualified armorers have many, many safety precautions and redundancies.
Honestly I keep trying to come up with a scenario where it's possible for this to happen under standard gun safety procedures on film sets and I am so horribly stumped
(and horrified that I am stumped because it means this was likely so bad, and the failures here likely so unfathomably huge and many)
Our procedures plan in mistakes, actor error, etc. There should never be any single fail point; if anyone makes a mistake there are many multiple other things backing up the safety
Safety is always #1. Nothing can compromise it. There are other parts of the job (e.g. helping the director get the shots they want) but nothing can ever interfere with safety
In fact even in helping the director get their shots -- it's all about advising them on ways to do it SAFELY that will still look cool and get the effect they want.
I would tell directors "no" all the time (and provide them with a safe alternative). I can think of so many things I would do on every film set as standard, any one of which would have prevented something like this.
We plan for that redundancy, we plan for things to go wrong and for actors to mess up
Of course, I am talking as -- I would hope to say -- a good armorer. These are all things me and my colleagues do as standard.
Yes there are a handful of bad armorers out there... and production companies also cut corners and that's getting worse
What I mean by that is that they will hire someone unqualified for cheap, or they will try to do gunfire without any qualified person on the set, and production will allow it
...and other people on the crew who should put a stop to it (like the 1st AD (= 1st Assistant Director), who is the final word on safety) do not shut it down
Or the 1st AD etc may not have the experience to shut it down if production cut too many corners and has, for example, a green 1st AD for cheap also. This is devastating and I suspect has played into other non-firearms film set tragedies
There are positions where it is very, very important to have qualified people for safety reasons. 1st AD. Armorer, SFX, rigging, stunts. You need people who know exactly what they're doing. Now I do not know what happened here. But I want to convey to you, as someone who has worked firearms on probably hundreds of film sets, that this is both deeply, deeply upsetting and also deeply shocking
A tragedy happening in this particular way defies everything I know about how we treat guns on film sets. It implies to me that something was likely very, very wrong here. My colleagues and I have been trying to figure out how this could happen when following our basic safety procedures and we keep ending at a loss. We keep ending at "but how is that possible?"
Which implies something even more appalling -- that very basic, very standard safety procedures may not have been followed. And that nobody shut the production down when they weren't.
My heart is breaking to imagine this
Second thing people are asking. "Was this a real gun? why are real guns on set? how could a prop gun fire?"
The media reports are muddling things a bit here so I don't blame people for being confused. First of all, blank guns are real guns. Semi-autos are what we call "blank adapted" but that is purely for the function of the gun, not for safety (a projectile could still exit). Revolvers, shotguns, etc we use unmodified
In other words, you can take a revolver from a movie set and load live ammo into it. (We sometimes have demilled props and other variations but blank fire would almost always be real guns)
So it's very very important to know what is being loaded into the gun. It's also very important to know when a gun IS loaded at all
Our safety procedures are built around this
No one on a film set should ever have any question in their mind about what's going on with the guns. When I am keying a set I am very, very clear on everything to everybody at all times
When we say a "prop gun" on a film set we mean a rubber or a replica that does not fire. We do not mean a blank firing gun. We call blank fire guns real guns because as I said, they are real. Sometimes real guns are used "cold" (unloaded) if either there's no matching prop gun or if they want a closeup (the props are usually not as nice looking in detail), but for wide shots props are fine
Actors can feel & see that a prop is not something that can fire. Also props can be thrown/dropped without damaging the firearm. So lots of reasons to use rubbers/replicas where you can
Real guns are always -- always -- in my possession unless they're being used for a scene, in which case I'm right there watching. We treat real guns very seriously whether they're loaded or not
If we're using the real guns, cold (unloaded) guns are always used outside of gunfire scenes. If the ammo has to be visible we use dummies. These are always carefully checked. Dummies are visibly different from live ammo in that the primer in the back is punched. You can also "click through" by pulling the trigger pointed at the ground to show that they do not fire. When I am using a cold gun or a cold gun with dummies in it, I am VERY clear with the cast and crew about it. I physically open and show that the weapon is cold to the actors, the crew
That's at minimum. Comfort levels differ -- I worked with one cinematographer who wanted to be shown every few minutes that the gun was still cold because he was right next to the actor, even though the gun hadn't left his sight. No problem. I showed him every single take
This is part of the job. Nobody should EVER feel their safety is being compromised on a film set. I always considered it part of my job -- and an important part of my job -- to make sure people felt safe
Of course being safe is #1. But no one should ever have to doubt that that's true. So making sure to communicate with everyone on the set so they know they are in fact safe is also important
Before going "hot" for a gunfire scene, we always choreograph & rehearse everything carefully with the director, crew, actors, stunt people
Everyone needs to know exactly what they're doing before any guns are loaded. Where they're standing, where they're moving, where they're aiming. If anything violates one of our safety redundancies, we change it. If anyone's uncomfortable, we figure out another way. When we "go hot" that means we are loading the guns with blanks and doing blank gunfire. Everyone is very, very clear on this. Very loud notifications, announced and repeated, announced over radio and very loud on set.
It is treated very seriously. We only load the exact amount of blank ammunition needed for the scene. We only have hot guns on set for exactly the amount of time it takes to film the gunfire
I am always right there watching the scene extremely closely and making sure the actors and stunt people are exactly where they should be, doing exactly what they should be
And yes, actors screw up sometimes. Miss their mark, or turn the wrong way, etc. That's why we have so many redundant safety protocols.
No one's life or safety should ever depend solely on the actor hitting their mark correctly. Gunfire scenes are usually very, very short. Sometimes only a few seconds. Very often less than a minute. Remember, films are cut together from lots of shots.
We only go hot for the specific shots that have guns firing in them -- not any of the adjacent ones. As soon as the scene is over, we go in and clear the guns. Nobody moves on until we finish. The set is still hot -- the guns are still considered hot, even if (since we only loaded what they're supposed to fire) they fired all the blanks. We clear the guns and announce them clear and then it's announced and re-announced over the set and over the radio -- we announce it, 1st AD announces it, PAs pick up & repeat. Again, it's very important that everyone on set knows the status of the guns. No guessing games
Only after the guns are announced clear does everything start moving on. At least, this is the way it should work on a properly-run set. This is certainly how it works on my sets. Are there sets that are improperly run? Yes. There shouldn't be, but there are. I don't think there are many -- it's why tragedies like this are thankfully rare. It would honestly be a shock for me to step onto a film set and have to fight for these procedures to be followed
In general I arrive expecting that this will be everyone else's expectations / procedures as well.
Most importantly, I expect people to always listen to / respect me on all of the safety protocols (if not, I would walk away and take the guns with me)
And if proper gun safety is not being followed? If the armorer or propmaster is endangering people?
For immediate safety purposes, in that case there are other people who should step in to shut things down
The 1st AD / production stepping in and shutting things down is what we would want/expect to happen if things aren't being run safely, and it's another thing that has to fail for things to go really, really bad. Experienced 1st ADs absolutely know how gunfire scenes should work. They know how to run them in conjunction with an armorer. They know if proper safety is being followed.
(You never, ever want to lack a good 1st AD. This is only one of many reasons.)
(In fact there are rumors that other (non-gun) tragedies happened because the 1st AD was not allowed to do their job in re: safety & walked off set.)
It is so, so important for all these safety-related positions to hire qualified, experienced people and then to listen to them. Next question I see -- "how could blanks hurt someone? Do blanks still spit out paper or another projectile? What was a film gun doing firing live ammo???"
The last question is one of mine as well (if that's what happened, which I've seen rumored but not confirmed). Live ammo should never, ever, ever be mixed in on a film set. There are live ammo shows like Top Shot and they have entirely different safety protocols. If live ammo was mixed in on this set that is unfathomably bad. It is a tremendous problem and not even slightly understandable or okay. But yes, blanks are still dangerous. Except for shotguns I always used "crimped" blanks -- that is, no wad (nothing coming out of the gun)
Some blanks do have paper wads & are more dangerous bc that is a projectile. I would not use those for films. So in that case, no projectile
But even without that, the air becomes concussive. What is coming out of the gun is air, concussion, powder, flame.
The concussive force dissipates at 15 feet or so for small caliber rounds
We have different size blanks as well -- full load, half load, quarter load (referring to the amount of gunpowder)
There are logistics / permitting / aesthetic / functional / safety reasons that go into load size choice. Not all firearms work with any load size, permitting can be specific to load size, etc. The tl;dr is that there are various considerations that go into this question. Finally, yes, if there is anything stuck in the gun and a blank is put behind it -- yes, that stuck thing can become a projectile, functioning like a bullet
That's why one of the things we always do every single time is check the guns all the way down the barrel.
That's also why one of the basic safety protocols is that blank firing guns are never pointed directly at someone else -- not at other actors, not at crew
I will emphasize -- I never set up actors aiming at a person. Even though blanks dissipate at 15ft -- no. We don't do it. Even though if everything went as expected it would be fine -- no. There are plenty of camera angles to make it look like guns are pointed where they're not.
And if the camera crew wants to film from near the line of fire we can also barrier by putting up lexan or the like as an additional safety protocol
(Remember also that that's still redundant with other safety -- we're not ever doing something like firing live ammo at a camera operator and trusting lexan to save them -- DEFINITELY not)
So that's blanks -- yes they are dangerous, yes we plan for that, yes we check the guns always.
NO there should never be live ammo mixed in (!). NO blanks should never be fired directly at another person even from a "safe" distance. I meant to add more questions I've seen to this but this has gotten very long already, and it is very late and I am very tired and heartsick about this. I may try to come back later if people find this helpful (I hope people do)
Just know that there is a lot of misinformation going around right now on how movie guns work. Please do not take anything you see on Twitter at face value. (A lot of media articles are getting some industry things factually wrong too.)
And please know that when very basic, very standard safety protocols for movie gun safety are followed, this sequence of events is not something we expect to be possible. Not ever, not even rarely.
So it's very important that we find out what happened here and why.
According to this article the movie's production was already "chaotic" even before this incident happened.
I wonder if the armourer was even IATSE. With worries about the potential strike its not impossible to imagine them hiring scabs up front.
That's a tragedy. What more can be said?
it should be the rookie "armorer" person to blame since they were young and dumb about prop guns and blank bullets in the first place.
yeah Alec baldwin is a total emotional wreck since hes being thrown under the bus.
But what bout the actual person that caused the incident such as the amateur prop gun crew members? They couldnt tell the damn difference between a real bullet and a prop gun and blank bullets?
yeah Alec baldwin is a total emotional wreck since hes being thrown under the bus.
But what bout the actual person that caused the incident such as the amateur prop gun crew members? They couldnt tell the damn difference between a real bullet and a prop gun and blank bullets?
Which has nothing to do with anything in this story.
Update, October 22, 10 p.m.: The Los Angeles Times reported that there had been existing concerns about gun safety protocols on the Rust set. Crew members told the Times that on October 16, Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds from a gun after being told it had no ammunition. According to a crew member, there were no subsequent safety meetings or investigations. Two anonymous sources alleged to Consequence that Halls, the assistant director who brought Baldwin the gun, had a history of ignoring safety protocols on other projects. One said she had previously filed two formal safety complaints against Halls.
https://www.vulture.com/2021/10/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-what-happened-gun-details.html
WTF? This is a total breakdown in safety from the armorer to the AD, and even to the director and producers (of which Baldwin is one) for not reacting to these safety concerns immediately.
https://www.vulture.com/2021/10/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-what-happened-gun-details.html
WTF? This is a total breakdown in safety from the armorer to the AD, and even to the director and producers (of which Baldwin is one) for not reacting to these safety concerns immediately.
Last edited:
Thank you, Mr. Huang, and thank you, "antinoos," for posting Mr. Huang's piece.
Everything I've ever read about theatrical firearms safety (I think there was a discussion of the subject within the past few years, either here or on Fountain Pen Network) has indicated that there are so many procedural barriers in place to keep things like this from happening -- no live ammunition unless there is no other way to get the shot (and even then, only with very tight controls), even blanks only when (and as many rounds as) necessary, dummy weapons where possible, multiple checks and rechecks, treating every firearm as a lethal weapon even if one has personally verified that it is completely empty, and so forth -- that I can see only two ways this could have happen: either somebody (and it would almost certainly have to be more than one somebody) was criminally negligent, failing to follow safety protocols, or somebody acted with malice, deliberately circumventing safety protocols.
Everything I've ever read about theatrical firearms safety (I think there was a discussion of the subject within the past few years, either here or on Fountain Pen Network) has indicated that there are so many procedural barriers in place to keep things like this from happening -- no live ammunition unless there is no other way to get the shot (and even then, only with very tight controls), even blanks only when (and as many rounds as) necessary, dummy weapons where possible, multiple checks and rechecks, treating every firearm as a lethal weapon even if one has personally verified that it is completely empty, and so forth -- that I can see only two ways this could have happen: either somebody (and it would almost certainly have to be more than one somebody) was criminally negligent, failing to follow safety protocols, or somebody acted with malice, deliberately circumventing safety protocols.
Last edited:
This is so awful. I feel for all of them.
FYI, only because others posted these assumptions, but Baldwin is not liberal and I don't think he's anti-gun. But ALL actors are pro set safety.
FYI, only because others posted these assumptions, but Baldwin is not liberal and I don't think he's anti-gun. But ALL actors are pro set safety.
the young gal that was 24 and was a crew member where everyone all of a sudden calling her an "armorer" or whatever the hell, she was inexperienced with blanks so pretty much she shouldnt have been touching any of the prop guns where one of the props ended up with a real live bullet.
Stupid young folk like that shouldnt even be near props in the first place if they cant tell the difference between a real bullet and a blank
Stupid young folk like that shouldnt even be near props in the first place if they cant tell the difference between a real bullet and a blank
Whatever her liability in this situation is, and it appears to be severe (but not just limited to her own negligence), we can do without these kind of comments.
You seem to be trying to push buttons.
Last edited:
I am thinking a lack of the lexan shield and such might have been one of the reasons behind walk-offs…or horseplay.
Never use even a blank-filled shotgun as a crutch or it will be prone to a burst.
Use go pros for dailies. Never point any gun like object (not including phasers) at anyone. I don’t like the body english of pointing a pistol grip thermometer at people.
Always have the angle of the prop slightly away.
The lesson here if any?
You can do something cheap…or you can do something right.
Pick one.
Yes unions can be expensive…but we need them. I miss the old phrase “look for the Union label.”
For an industry that is called “liberal” many go out of their way to use cheap labor. It isn’t worth it.
Take care of your employees.
…or it’s crying time.
Never use even a blank-filled shotgun as a crutch or it will be prone to a burst.
He is today’s Rod Steiger…
Use go pros for dailies. Never point any gun like object (not including phasers) at anyone. I don’t like the body english of pointing a pistol grip thermometer at people.
Always have the angle of the prop slightly away.
The lesson here if any?
You can do something cheap…or you can do something right.
Pick one.
Yes unions can be expensive…but we need them. I miss the old phrase “look for the Union label.”
For an industry that is called “liberal” many go out of their way to use cheap labor. It isn’t worth it.
Take care of your employees.
…or it’s crying time.
Last edited:
