Jump to content

Random Randomness.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Verisimilitude? Some actors are insistent on that, and I could see Baldwin being one of those guys.

Pretty sure we’ll never see a prop gun on set like that ever again.

But there were supposed to be major changes after Brandon Lee died too................If they can put realistic flames in space for Star Wars movies (where things would never explode like that), they can put realistic muzzle flashes in guns.    The details of this are going to be fascinating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having prop guns so similar to real guns seems like an overboard to attention to detail... like worrying about the buttons on a coat.  The audience will never know.  There is no reason a gun on a movie set needs to be loaded.  If you load a gun in a scene then immediately after you stop filming the gun should be confiscated by a qualified person and held.  Why couldn't they make a prop gun incapable of ever being used?    I don't understand how this can happen.  Someone's going to be in trouble.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brandon Lee was thirty years ago. Memories fade.

Alec Baldwin seems like one of those actors who raises a loud fuss and people just cave to get past it. It’s possible that in the experience of seasoned movie people, they’ve been around dozens or even hundreds of prop guns and practically nothing ever goes haywire.

Then again, maybe it wasn’t Baldwin so much as everyone was simpatico with the idea of what kind of proper gun they would use and there was no need to discuss it, again because practically nothing ever goes wrong.

Yeah, someone’s gonna be in trouble.

Edited by chasfh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have heard stories about directors wanting real money on the set. When that happens you have extreme security around it.  The same should be with guns. Especially one that has been loaded.  We will probably find that the security person hired to watch over it was a lackey to a production person who had no regard for firearm safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 8:21 AM, Motor City Sonics said:

They want it to look as real as possible and they want a muzzle flash (something that easily can be done in post production).   When Brandon Lee got shot the gun expert was not on set that day (they didn't want to pay him).   It's possible that they loaded  a clip of blanks, not realizing there was a live round in the chamber.  

I took a hunter's safety course probably 30-35 years ago.  The first thing we were taught and it remains in my head today even though I do not hunt or shoot.  Always treat a gun as if it is loaded with real rounds.  So, again, in today's age of green screens and CGI and stuff, why is this possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, casimir said:

I took a hunter's safety course probably 30-35 years ago.  The first thing we were taught and it remains in my head today even though I do not hunt or shoot.  Always treat a gun as if it is loaded with real rounds.  So, again, in today's age of green screens and CGI and stuff, why is this possible?

right - but of course in film by it's nature this has to be violated - the whole idea in performance to simulate a reality that isn't happening., so an actor pretty much has to point the gun and pull the trigger while not 'really' intending to shoot the target, and I'm not going to argue a directors reasons for not using CGI, but what is harder to understand is why  they don't use 'real prop' weapons. That is 'real prop' in the sense of being truly non-functional mock-ups.  A studio could certainly afford to have an 'arsenal' of this truly fake stuff around. They've used mock up stabbing weapons ever since Hollywood begin, why not mock-up firearms? Maybe the risk is that given the ubiquitousness of real firearms in society the risk of accident from a real firearm ending up on the set where it isn't expected and no procedures are in place end up greater than the risk of how they do it now. I guess I can see that as a fair argument. Whether it true or not....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering whether the ubiquity of firearms in America contributes to some level of nonchalance leading to how Hollywood treats guns in production, as though having a firearm around is no big deal, not really. Guns are so common in real life, and so many people you know have one, maybe it’s like they’re thought of as little more than a toy. Some of the same people I know who gravely intone on the one hand how serious a responsibility having a gun is, will still wax childishly on the other hand about all the features and potential some new gun they just acquired has. I’m a little unnerved when they do.

I’ll bet movie capitals in other countries don’t treat even prop firearms at all nonchalantly during production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I was just wondering whether the ubiquity of firearms in America contributes to some level of nonchalance leading to how Hollywood treats guns in production, as though having a firearm around is no big deal, not really. Guns are so common in real life, and so many people you know have one, maybe it’s like they’re thought of as little more than a toy. Some of the same people I know who gravely intone on the one hand how serious a responsibility having a gun is, will still wax childishly on the other hand about all the features and potential some new gun they just acquired has. I’m a little unnerved when they do.

I’ll bet movie capitals in other countries don’t treat even prop firearms at all nonchalantly during production.

IDK, I'd guess the stunt people and 2nd unit folks who do most of the handling are serious about it because it's mostly going to be their lives on the line. Someone or someones - probably multiple point breakdown,  screwed up here big time - and it will probably lead back to lax enforcement or deliberate short circuiting of what must be well established safety protocols by the director.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the movie was described as a low budget picture and a large portion of the crew reportedly walked off the set earlier in the day protesting conditions, including the fact they were housed about 60 miles away.

It really sounds like a major screwup where a backup person had little or no idea whether on the loading of the pistol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK, I'd guess the stunt people and 2nd unit folks who do most of the handling are serious about it because it's mostly going to be their lives on the line.

I'm not talking about the difference between not-at-all serious and heart-attack serious within this country. I'm talking about how seriously it's taken among different countries. I would also expand it to include people beyond those tasked with the technical implementation of firearms on set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chasfh said:

I was just wondering whether the ubiquity of firearms in America contributes to some level of nonchalance leading to how Hollywood treats guns in production, as though having a firearm around is no big deal, not really. Guns are so common in real life, and so many people you know have one, maybe it’s like they’re thought of as little more than a toy. Some of the same people I know who gravely intone on the one hand how serious a responsibility having a gun is, will still wax childishly on the other hand about all the features and potential some new gun they just acquired has. I’m a little unnerved when they do.

 

I also get nervous when people brag about their guns or wear tee shirts promoting gun ownership or anything like that.  I don't like it when I am on an internet hiking site and somebody mentions being afraid of bears (or something) and al the gun owners immediately tell that person they need to get a gun without knowing anything about that person's background.  Is having a gun a serious responsibility or not?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some articles and learned that a movie set firearm caretaker is called an armorer. It’s a legit career in the business. The armorer for this movie was new. Her dad was a famous stuntman and armorer.  She was recently on a podcast talking about her new career and how important it was.  Also a hot and cold gun refers to any ammunition, blank or real.  Same with the term “live”.  Blanks are given the same precautions as bullets.  Baldwin was told by the person that gave him the gun that it was cold.  I have seen people suggest that actors check too. I don’t know about that. Sure some may be able to and will do it but I don’t see it as their responsibility.  Do they check the brakes and steering on cars they drive.  There were also reports that crews alerted the production company to two other firing incidents.  Somebody was sloppy. It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence.  The industry has established precautions and given the prevalence of guns in movies it sounds like the standards work. I know of 3 incidents.  This one, Brandon Lee, and another guy who shot a blank at his head not realizing those are dangerous too. The force and small particles…. That’s why blanks and live and handled the same.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I read some articles and learned that a movie set firearm caretaker is called an armorer. It’s a legit career in the business. The armorer for this movie was new. Her dad was a famous stuntman and armorer.  She was recently on a podcast talking about her new career and how important it was.  Also a hot and cold gun refers to any ammunition, blank or real.  Same with the term “live”.  Blanks are given the same precautions as bullets.  Baldwin was told by the person that gave him the gun that it was cold.  I have seen people suggest that actors check too. I don’t know about that. Sure some may be able to and will do it but I don’t see it as their responsibility.  Do they check the brakes and steering on cars they drive.  There were also reports that crews alerted the production company to two other firing incidents.  Somebody was sloppy. It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence.  The industry has established precautions and given the prevalence of guns in movies it sounds like the standards work. I know of 3 incidents.  This one, Brandon Lee, and another guy who shot a blank at his head not realizing those are dangerous too. The force and small particles…. That’s why blanks and live and handled the same.  

Baldwin has certainly worked guns on sets before, though some many years ago (Red October, Phantom) but I'd hardly consider him an action movie actor anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Baldwin has certainly worked guns on sets before, though some many years ago (Red October, Phantom) but I'd hardly consider him an action movie actor anymore.

If this was a Western and the gun was a revolver it would not have taken long to make the check, but he obviously must not have. There are always multiple points at which things like this can be averted and they all have to have failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reporting tonight to the effect that the scene they were shooting was supposed to be the camera looking down the barrel of the gun - ergo the gun was supposed to be aimed at the camera. Sounding less like there is anything there from the Baldwin angle with the focus shifting to the assistant director.

Quote

Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Souza said, according to the affidavit. Mr. Souza said that he had been standing beside Ms. Hutchins “viewing the camera angle.”

Quote

After the 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died following the shooting on Thursday, detectives from the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office began examining the role that the assistant director, Dave Halls, among others on the set, had in the incident. They learned that Mr. Baldwin was told by Mr. Halls, who handed him the firearm, that it was a “cold gun,”

 

set shooting2

set shooting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Reporting tonight to the effect that the scene they were shooting was supposed to be the camera looking down the barrel of the gun - ergo the gun was supposed to be aimed at the camera. Sounding less like there is anything there from the Baldwin angle with the focus shifting to the assistant director.

 

set shooting2

set shooting

The overriding question is why would someone put a round unless its specifically needed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oblong said:

I read some articles and learned that a movie set firearm caretaker is called an armorer. It’s a legit career in the business. The armorer for this movie was new. Her dad was a famous stuntman and armorer.  She was recently on a podcast talking about her new career and how important it was.  Also a hot and cold gun refers to any ammunition, blank or real.  Same with the term “live”.  Blanks are given the same precautions as bullets.  Baldwin was told by the person that gave him the gun that it was cold.  I have seen people suggest that actors check too. I don’t know about that. Sure some may be able to and will do it but I don’t see it as their responsibility.  Do they check the brakes and steering on cars they drive.  There were also reports that crews alerted the production company to two other firing incidents.  Somebody was sloppy. It wasn’t an accident. It was negligence.  The industry has established precautions and given the prevalence of guns in movies it sounds like the standards work. I know of 3 incidents.  This one, Brandon Lee, and another guy who shot a blank at his head not realizing those are dangerous too. The force and small particles…. That’s why blanks and live and handled the same.  

This circles back to my comment about nonchalance. It appears too many Americans are too comfortable around guns, and that’s not always (or maybe not even mostly) because they’re expertly-trained to handle them. I believe much of it has to do with their ubiquity, both physical (they’re all around us) and cultural (they’re everywhere in TV, movies, news stories, social media, etc.). I can envision where such comfort around something so dangerous can extend to even situations that are supposed to be airtight with their caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

This circles back to my comment about nonchalance. It appears too many Americans are too comfortable around guns, and that’s not always (or maybe not even mostly) because they’re expertly-trained to handle them. I believe much of it has to do with their ubiquity, both physical (they’re all around us) and cultural (they’re everywhere in TV, movies, news stories, social media, etc.). I can envision where such comfort around something so dangerous can extend to even situations that are supposed to be airtight with their caution.

I get what you are saying and to a level I don't disagree - esp for the actors who are coming in and out of these situations with each gig. But I would hope it applies less to the professionals - like assistant directors and armorers for whom it's primary to their responsibilities even if the object is in ways 'under-appreciated' in the larger society. Just to give you an example of what I mean, when I worked in process plants, you have to take a whole different attitude toward hoses. Hoses of course are literally the most 'garden variety' of tools and we don't give them a thought. But in a process plant any given hose might have something hot/dangerous/toxic/pressurized in it so you have to maintain a hard focus on handling them at all times, even though  -yeah, it's just a hose. For a set armorer, he knows the weapons his is managing are going to be discharged and that alone should demand his constant vigilance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

I get what you are saying and to a level I don't disagree - esp for the actors who are coming in and out of these situations with each gig. But I would hope it applies less to the professionals - like assistant directors and armorers for whom it's primary to their responsibilities even if the object is in ways 'under-appreciated' in the larger society. Just to give you an example of what I mean, when I worked in process plants, you have to take a whole different attitude toward hoses. Hoses of course are literally the most 'garden variety' of tools and we don't give them a thought. But in a process plant any given hose might have something hot/dangerous/toxic/pressurized in it so you have to maintain a hard focus on handling them at all times, even though  -yeah, it's just a hose. For a set armorer, he knows the weapons his is managing are going to be discharged and that alone should demand his constant vigilance. 

Hoping that nonchalance applies less to professionals does not necessarily mean that nonchalance could never apply to any of them, and that all armory professionals are of the exact same unimpeachably high quality, and never subject to error or negligence. Just as someone in America has to be the worst doctor, someone in Hollywood has to be the worst armorer. I’m not making any statements about this case in particular since I can’t possibly know for sure. I’m just talking in terms of general possibilities  

i don’t buy the nonstarter premise than nonchalance with the handling of weapons among Hollywood armorers could out possibly exist. If oblong’s comment that negligence in this case is true, I would certainly hypothesize that nonchalance in handling is quite possibly a factor, and should not be dismissed out of hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also clarify that I am not talking about an all or nothing proposition here: meaning, it must be either the epitome of care and caution, or else it’s zero caution taken at all. Even a marginal drop in caution applied, whether due to a minute degree of nonchalance, or fatigue, or lack of full competences, or whatever it may be, could mean the difference between a safe experience and a deadly experience. 

Edited by chasfh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Hoping that nonchalance applies less to professionals does not necessarily mean that nonchalance could never apply to any of them, and that all armory professionals are of the exact same unimpeachably high quality, and never subject to error or negligence. Just as someone in America has to be the worst doctor, someone in Hollywood has to be the worst armorer. I’m not making any statements about this case in particular since I can’t possibly know for sure. I’m just talking in terms of general possibilities  

i don’t buy the nonstarter premise than nonchalance with the handling of weapons among Hollywood armorers could out possibly exist. If oblong’s comment that negligence in this case is true, I would certainly hypothesize that nonchalance in handling is quite possibly a factor, and should not be dismissed out of hand. 

well certainly what happened is prima facie evidence that someone was negligent so that is a given. Negligence will always exist on some kind of distribution. But to take that question back to the original premise: How much Is the negligence rate among the professionals driven by attitudes in the wider society vs the quality of the institutional procedure enforcement? I suppose you can take the argument back a level and the it's the latter that is driven by external attitudes but that's another somewhat different case to make.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...