Prosecutors say Alec Baldwin was ‘engaged in horseplay’ with gun before fatal shooting ( www.theguardian.com )

Fewer than three weeks before actor Alec Baldwin is due to go on trial in Santa Fe, New Mexico, prosecutors have said that he “engaged in horseplay with the revolver”, including firing a blank round at a crew member on the set of Rust before the tragic accident occurred.

Baldwin is facing involuntary manslaughter charges in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

In new court documents, prosecutors said they plan to bring new evidence to support their case that the 66-year-old actor and producer was reckless with firearms while filming on the set and displayed “erratic and aggressive behavior during the filming” that created potential safety concerns.

Prosecutors in the case, which is due to go to trial on 10 July, have previously alleged that to watch Baldwin’s conduct on the set of Rust “is to witness a man who has absolutely no control of his own emotions and absolutely no concern for how his conduct affects those around him”.

In the latest filing, special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Erlinda Johnson allege that Baldwin pointed his gun and fired “a blank round at a crew member while using that crew member as a line of site as his perceived target”.

Ulrich_the_Old ,

To be fair, I have never seen an American who had a gun not act like a goof.

Maggoty ,

Find better Americans then.

andrewta ,

You must not know many people in the US then

rayyy ,

Guns are deadly. I cannot count the times that I found an "unloaded" gun, both mine and others, that was found to contain a cartridge over the years. People get excited, they forget it was loaded, they get distracted, cartridges can get stuck when unloading. I can tell you stories that will make you cringe.

prole ,

I cannot count the times that I found an "unloaded" gun, both mine and others, that was found to contain a cartridge over the years.

You know what's interesting? I can count exactly how many times I've experienced this. It's zero. Zero times.

I mean really, imagine making a statement like that as if it's a normal thing for a private citizen of a modern society to say.

So many insecure people too afraid to face the real world without the ability to end human lives in a split second.

GBU_28 ,

I possess target and hunting firearms and have never carried or possessed for self defence from anything. I also have never experienced the safety violations the other commenter has.

Just saying, your assumptions about the reasoning for gun possession are not comprehensive.

Telodzrum ,

You shouldn’t own guns. Clearing the weapon before storage is basic safety. If you are “forgetting” that you left a round in, you don’t have the mental capacity to own a firearm.

Randomly finding out a stored gun is loaded has never happened to me or anyone I know.

Maggoty ,

Clearly you've never done guns with sleep deprivation or anything other than a range day. There's a reason you're supposed to check every time you pick a gun up.

andrewta ,

I’m just going out on the limb here, but I’m feeling you are prior service for the military and probably with a little combat experience. Correct me if wrong though.

Maggoty ,

Yup. Can't speak for the other guy but the entire reason the rule about always checking exists is because a lot of professions with guns will run you ragged and that's when mistakes happen.

TachyonTele ,

Please stop doing things that create those stories. For your safety and everyone elses.

Start by having someone that actually knows how to handle firearms take them away from you.

h3mlocke ,
@h3mlocke@lemm.ee avatar

U should go trade ur gun for a brain

Maggoty ,

People in here responding like you guys just party with guns and alcohol and don't care but obviously you're doing your safety check whenever you pick one up. Don't worry about these guys.

TachyonTele ,

Holy shit you're in this topic defending the idiot that's unable to remember the countless times they forget to unload their guns?

How fucking dumb are you? LMAO!

Maggoty ,

Probably smarter than you on this one. Over a large enough sample and time period mistakes happen. That's why you check every time. And from their post they obviously understand that.

TachyonTele ,

I cannot count the times that I found an “unloaded” gun, both mine and others, that was found to contain a cartridge over the years.

You continue to be one of the dumbest idiots I've ever talked to if this is what you call smart.

Maggoty ,

Hey you forgot to kiss me first!

LeFantome ,

Can you not even partially acknowledge that what he is praising is that this guy is successfully realizing that guns are loaded before handling them. This is exactly the behaviour that would have prevented the shooting in the case being discussed.

dezmd Mod ,
@dezmd@lemmy.world avatar

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-politics-new-mexico-state-government-clovis-prop-gun-shooting-4318dd3bce9974099a8cdb599264f876

This was always a political bag of bullshit. They even had to fund it as a special prosecution with legislation, going so far as to assign a special prosecutor that happened to also be a state Republican legislator.

The gymnastics people keep using to align blame for manslaughter onto Bladwin have slowly become accepted as if it is factual like propaganda is meant to do.

MataVatnik , (edited )
@MataVatnik@lemmy.world avatar

Even if the armorer was at fault, he's still the producer, he ultimately hired and vetted the person. Apparently there were complains about safety on set too.

Zugyuk ,

Horseplay... With a gun... So he was playing at shooting someone who had broken their leg?

manuallybreathing ,

Remember that this occured during a strike, and Baldwin brought in scabs to fill the positions, and then pushed one of those scabs to be the fallguy, despite baldwin being both the one in the position of power, and the one who fired the gun without checking it was loaded.

CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

It's not the actor's job to check if a prop is a functional weapon. They have other things to be focusing on.

But since he hired the people and set the policies, he's still responsible.

catloaf ,

It is the job of anyone handling a dangerous object to handle it safely. If they can't, they shouldn't.

Midnight ,

The point of an armorer on set is that they ensure that the guns aren't dangerous. The typical rules about "don't aim at something you don't want to destroy" doesn't apply in a movie because otherwise all the action sequences would look dumb with people firing wildly at the ground. How stupid would it look if John Wick shoots at the floor and blood spurts out of the guys face.

That said, anyone who hires a scab armorer gets what they pay for and deserve to be prosecuted.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Safety is the duty of every employee (and employer) on any job site. Film set, factory floor, or office. You have a duty to not unduly endangered your coworkers. If you see something dangerous at your work place speak up. Make your complaint known and make sure there's a paper trail.

The four rules of firearm safety only fail if you break every one at once. And much like punches Hollywood is great at getting camera angles where you really can't tell the difference with gunshots.

doingthestuff ,

The rules about don't aim at something you don't want to destroy absolutely apply because it was a real gun. That rule applies even when you know the gun is unloaded because you checked it yourself. Been shooting 45 years (I'm 50) and no problems ever because I was taught and follow the safety rules.

WoahWoah ,

Guns used on film sets are real guns. They're simply loaded with blanks. Basically every movie and television show you've ever seen involved people breaking the "safety rules" of firearms. Every time you see a gun pointed at "you," i.e. the camera, an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.

When you see people "shooting" at each other, they're firing real guns loaded with blanks at each other. You can certainly remove all realistic gunplay from movies and TV, and I'm fine with that, but it's absurd to think that the same rules of firearm safety apply equally in the context of filmmaking.

aidan ,

an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.

which proves it I not safe? yes that's the point, something dangerous was done, maybe normalized in the industry but still dangerous. a boom or tripod can always be used to not have someone behind the camera on the other end of a gun

WoahWoah , (edited )

Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.

There's very obviously all sorts of ways to make Hollywood safer, but the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood. If you're interested in making the industry less dangerous, I would suggest reviewing how "acceptable risk" is determined when it comes to stunts.

aidan ,

Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.

I love strawmanning something nobody said, it's not dishonest at all.

the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood.

A rare risk, that's easy to avoid. why not just avoid it when possible? A camera operator rarely needs to be in front of a gun, so try to avoid it when it's not absolutely necessary? This seems like basic risk minimization

WoahWoah ,

K

aidan ,

insightful response

WoahWoah ,

You're not worth the time. Blocked.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

It is the job of anyone handling a firearm to handle it in a safe and responsible manner.

You don’t get to pull “not my job” when you were holding the firearm that killed someone.

Especially since the normal on set was so far below the industry standard - a fact I would expect somebody with is broad and extensive experience to know as a qualified actor.

He had a duty of care to check the weapon and to handle it safely and he didn’t.

He had a duty of care to not point a fucking lethal weapon at people, and he did.

(This is in addition to potential liability as a producer and a duty of care to ensure workplace safety.)

Willy ,

Is carbonated pasta sauce good? I’ve tried carbonated salad dressing. Are you a marinara sauce?

JackbyDev ,

If that's the norm then it needs to change. If actors truly don't have time to take safety courses to learn then have stunt doubles stand in for scenes where they hold firearms.

barsquid ,

Or maybe it is the job of any actor pulling the trigger on a gun to check whether it is a real or prop gun and to never do so while there is another person in the line of fire.

CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

It is not. That is why they have a prop master and a master at arms. That person is the one who fucked up.

ArcaneSlime ,

Iirc hadn't the staff responsible for that walked off the set three days earlier because of gross negligence (including two previous on set negligent discharges without injury) after the producer, Alec Baldwin, refused to heed their safety warnings?

CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

Hadn't heard that detail but it wouldn't surprise me.

Maggoty ,

If you have a gun in your hand, then the safety of that gun is your responsibility. You cannot delegate that responsibility, morally or legally.

nul42 ,

Sounds like Jack Donaghy was on the set.

hoshikarakitaridia ,
@hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah been following the rust cases closely.

Kari Morrissey was the one who secured the conviction for Hannah Gutierrez Reid.

Important things to note for Alec Baldwin's case: he's got more money and resources for his defense. There's a bunch of high class attorneys that entered appearance for Baldwin. But he has 2 major problems: those attorneys are not from new Mexico. A good lawyer knows the law and a great lawyer knows the judge. Additionally, he is known for being bad at safety and security. That was already becoming clear in HGR's trial. But legally things are bad as well: he held the weapon. Now in other states that doesn't make him more culpable than HGR, but in new Mexico basically everyone holding a weapon is held accountable for the consequences of whatever they do while holding the weapon. This, together with what I would predict are looking like pretty bad facts for him rn, is an indication that he has a steep climb to make, unless Morrissey fucks up in a major way.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Pretty solid summarization of the situation. I definitely think that Baldwin's on site safety problems and the seemingly rushed nature of production are going to bite him.

MutilationWave ,

I think lying about pulling the trigger will become an issue as well.

rottingleaf ,

but in new Mexico basically everyone holding a weapon is held accountable for the consequences of whatever they do while holding the weapon

Which is how it should be.

Kalkaline ,
@Kalkaline@leminal.space avatar

There's no good reason to use a functional gun in film and theater, change my mind.

Cethin ,

I'd argue otherwise. Their can be. It's not required, but it's the difference of using CGI or practical effects. John Wick didn't use real guns, but it's the perfect case for that. It's fast action with a lot going on, so you'll never notice that it's fake. I would argue more intimate shots it can make sense to use a real firearm.

They shouldn't be used where it's possible to avoid, and even when it can't be avoided aiming it at someone should be avoided. There should also be checks and double checks to ensure there isn't a live round, and the actor should also be trained to handle the weapon and check there isn't a live round before using it as well. There is no reason something like this should have been possible, but I don't agree there is no use for using a real firearm ever on set.

ninjabard ,

The key word is functional. Make it physically/mechanically incapable of firing. I've been in stage productions that used non-functioning firearms working on my undergrad. They were still locked away. The professor who was the technical director and armorer was the only one who had a key to that safe. They handed it to the props master who handed it to the actor. When the prop wasn't in use during the run, the props master had it on their person. When the performance was over, it immediately when back into the safe and locked away. If it is absolutely necessary for it to function then only blanks and only in use when needed. Not using it to play a prank. Not using it to fire rounds after the shoot is over. Baldwin and the armorer are absolutely at fault here for failing to maintain safety protocols.

bolexforsoup ,

Preach.

If you don’t have an armorer in your production than you shouldn’t have anything remotely akin to a firearm period. If your production is too broke for one, you’re too broke to simulate a firearm practically. Plain and simple.

Cethin ,

I agree Baldwin and the armorer are at fault. There's no debate there. A non-functional firearm can't fire blanks though, as you seem to mention (despite starting by seemingly saying they shouldn't exist). It's sometimes useful to do that, and it should be handled with extreme care and only in the cases where it's actually useful.

bolexforsoup ,

I work in film. No functional gun is needed on set.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

There's an entire industry surrounding the production of (often incredibly) realistic not-firing (and blank-firing) prop guns. the only time you'd need a real one, firing real bullets is if you were doing some extremely-close up shots or recording sound. Even then, you'd only need the real bullets for sound effects or close ups of actually firing. The only thing you'd really need CGI for is the muzzle flash. which is so short and so slow most people would barely even notice if it was merely 'realistic'.

All of which, it should be said, could have been shot with no one down range of the weapon at any time, and in any case, there was zero reason to need a functional firearm at the time of the shooting. They were not actually filming. They were setting up the cameras and checking for things like glare and reflections and various other angles. All of that could have done with a non-firing prop with no danger to anyone at all.

Cethin ,

I totally agree with everything you said. This case was handled poorly. I was arguing it can be useful, but should be handled as if it's a firearm, not a toy, because it is. There should have been no chance (or as close to that as possible) of this happening, but it doesn't mean there is zero use cases.

ZoopZeZoop ,

The only reason to do it is verisimilitude, and that's not compelling because a fake is easy enough to acquire/create.

bolexforsoup ,

In 2024 having a real firearm on set is unconscionable. Especially without a proper armorist. This was not only avoidable, but the situation shouldn’t have even presented itself.

frezik ,

It also only matters at all because of people banging on about "this movie was set in 1935, but the down-bent charging handle on gun X wasn't introduced until 1941". Which will still happen, anyway, and it's not a good enough reason to have real firearms on set.

Empricorn ,

Isn't literally everything in film and TV intended to look real, or at least look like it exists in that universe?

ZoopZeZoop ,

Sure, but the difference between a real gun and a fake gun is not that great.

Also, they often shoot 30 times without reloading from guns with a much lesser capacity. Their interest in realism is often so-so.

Empricorn ,

Wasn't your original point that they use real guns so the guns... look real?

ZoopZeZoop ,

My original point was that the difference in how real it looks is not so great that it is outweighed by dangers of having a functional gun.

My later point was that they can't be all that concerned with being realistic if they are shooting 30 times from a gun with a 10 round magazine without reloading.

LeFantome ,

Ironically, I think there is a link there. I am more likely to relax my disbelief if things look real. Once I have immersed myself into a situation I believe ( because it seems real ), I am less likely to pay attention to things like shot count.

It is the same as having heros that struggle with situations early on and then later are effortlessly capable of so much more. I already believed them so now they can take advantage of that.

catloaf ,

Actors miming shooting looks ridiculous. Like laser tag guns. Actual recoil looks much more realistic.

Fillicia ,

The must be a way to create "false" gun in the sense that they only takes blanks and have nonfunctional barrels. Or I'm I too optimistic?

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@lemmy.world avatar

Unfortunately, guns are deceptively simple. Just about anything that can detonate a realistic looking blank is capable of firing an actual bullet. And even if it's just a blank, any obstruction in the barrel can end up becoming an ad-hoc projectile by the force. Every once in a while, you have that happen in Civil War re-enactments.

Grimy ,

We could get around this by having specific calibers that only come in blanks.

cybersandwich ,

Not really though because still, if anything is in the barrel, it becomes a projectile.

Kecessa ,

Ok but that's a separate issue and something that can happen with a regular gun loaded with a regular caliber blank, what they're saying is fake guns for movies should use a caliber for which no bullets exist, solving the main part of the issue, i.e. the fact that someone can load a normal bullet in a gun that is to be used as a prop.

rottingleaf ,

This would help avoid this specific death, but not most others where the projectile wasn't an actual bullet from a live round, but something stuck in the barrel, like the other person says.

This situation was unusual in the sense that an incompetent armorer had live rounds on set, and the gun was loaded with one.

What I mean is that the main part of the issue is exactly not this.

FiniteBanjo ,

Did anybody ask about most others, or were we having a highly specific conversation about a very real and somewhat recent event?

rottingleaf ,

First,

Did anybody ask about most others,

... doesn't seem relevant, since saying something doesn't require you personally asking about it at all, second,

what they’re saying is fake guns for movies should use a caliber for which no bullets exist, solving the main part of the issue, i.e. the fact that someone can load a normal bullet in a gun that is to be used as a prop.

... answers your question, and that quote is most of the original comment, I could even have quoted the whole of it.

FiniteBanjo ,

Pot Calls the Kettle irrelevant.

rottingleaf ,

You've failed to read all of the comment I was answering to, which is not yours so it's not clear what are you doing in this thread at all.

FiniteBanjo ,

Calling you out on whataboutism and watching you get really defensive for some reason. WBU?

rottingleaf ,

Either you are high or a bot, stop talking please

Kecessa ,

"most others"

Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to that, but is it really something that happens that often on movie sets where it's something stuck in the barrel?

rottingleaf ,

Most other cases where people were shot on set

Kecessa ,

You'll have to help me because I can't find any of those "most other cases"... I haven't looked before the 90s though

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents

rottingleaf ,

Brandon Lee? And someone else whom I can't remember

Kecessa ,

accidentally shot and killed in North Carolina with a .44 magnum gun that was intended to fire blanks but contained a bullet left behind after a dummy round had been inserted and removed.

I don't know why you would be opposed to taking measures to prevent one way these accidents can happen just because they can happen another way... 100% or nothing is a pretty stupid way to deal with issues.

rottingleaf ,

I don't know that either.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Jon-Eric Hexum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

Kecessa ,

The explosive effect of the muzzle blast caused enough blunt force trauma to fracture a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel this into his brain, causing massive hemorrhaging.

Pressure from the explosion of the blank coming out the nozzle, so no debris involved either.

bolexforsoup , (edited )

It’s not a separate issue. It’s exactly how Brandon Lee died. It was just a piece of a bullet, not even a complete one. Lots of hard objects that can get lodged in there that instantly become a lethal projectile.

Besides this person wants “realistic recoil.” That requires a lot of force. So it’s always a risk.

Kecessa , (edited )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents

It's not a common issue in general and taking preventive measures to prevent at least one risk is a good step in the right direction.

From the description of the incident it seems like Lee wouldn't be dead if they had used a gun in which it was impossible to put real bullets in the first place.

bolexforsoup ,

That is exactly what we are saying. They should not use firearms that are capable of launching projectiles. Which is exactly what happened on the set of Rust.

As a camera operator I have no desire to die for somebody else’s art. Especially not just because they want a more realistic looking firearm/recoil.

VelvetStorm ,

Thats also how Brandon Lee died. Iirc there was a squib malfunction that they didn't notice so when they shot a blank, the round was pushed out and killed him.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

If the armorer wasn't willfully negligent it wouldn't be a problem. Not a problem for the vast majority of film sets. Just pure lack of professionalism from the armorer whose sole core responsibility is to ensure safety.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

HGR definitely didn't do right here but a lot more went wrong. This was a perfect storm of negligence. Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale. So many people spoke out and zero action was taken to address their concerns.

A layered safety approach is a great idea. But it only works when at least one person in a position to do so does what's right.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale

Hutchins took one of those stands filing a union complaint about the safety violations, how tinfoily you wanna get?

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

if Baldwin wasn't waiving a gun around like a moron, a negligent armorer wouldn't have been a problem, either.

the armorer being negligent (and she was), doesn't mean that Baldwin wasn't also being negligent. and lets be perfectly clear: the reason Gutierrez-Reed was hired over other more professional armorers is precisely because she was "less professional"- or more bluntly, because she was willing to not insist on proper safety protocols that caused delays in shooting.

cybersandwich ,

Woah woah woah. Baldwin should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants with a prop gun. If an armorer gives him a gun on a set, why would he reasonably believe it was able to hurt or kill someone?

If an actor is given a prop pipe bomb, and he throws it at a cast member in jest and it explodes...because the explosive expert gave him a live explosive why the fuck is that the actors fault?

Why is is Alec's fault he was horsing around with what effectively should have been a toy. It should have been a fancy cap gun at worst.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Woah woah woah. Baldwin should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants with a prop gun. If an armorer gives him a gun on a set, why would he reasonably believe it was able to hurt or kill someone?

because it's a fucking weapon. he knew it was a weapon.

secondly, it was Hall (another producer) that gave him the weapon, not HGR.

thirdly, you don't fuck around with even the non-firing propguns precisely because of how easy it is to mistake them. He fucked around, and Alyna Hutchins found out. Ergo, it's negligent homicide

Tyfud ,

Hate to say it, but I agree here.

This is the price paid for not treating real guns with respect. Prop bullets or otherwise.

rottingleaf ,

I agree. Both equally guilty.

TheOctonaut ,

Wouldn't the live round have shot someone no matter what? The point of a blank round is so you can aim a gun at someone and not kill them.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Uhm.

That’s not how Blanks work

And even if there is some how no wadding They can still be lethal

You cannot render a functional weapon (blank firing or “real” or whatever you want to call it,) totally safe.

Which is why you should always treat them as something that will kill you given half the chance. (It was literally made to do just that.)

And you should always treat look alikes as if they were real because a) they’re easy to mistake for real ones and vice versa and b) the other people may not realize it’s a prop. (On a movie set, unlikely, but you never know who’s around and how they will respond. Or where an active shooter is going to appear.)

As for the cartridges, usually there’s tell tales of one sort or another. For dummy rounds it’s common to press the otherwise empty cartridge with a ball bearing or two so they rattle when shaken. Sometimes they also have a small hole on the wall of the casing

Blanks are, by their nature, lacking the bullet and the top is simply crimped to hold the wadding.

All it would have taken was a proper inspection to verify that it was unloaded/loaded with dummy rounds. Or, alternatively, Baldwin not pointing it at people.

Which leads me to the final thing you should always do: check the damn weapon. Don’t trust armorers. They’re people, too. They make mistakes, they fuck up.

TheOctonaut ,

Can I ask what the point of this screed was? I'm aware blanks are dangerous. That's irrelevant. There was a real bullet in the chamber. At some point, even if it was a blank, it would have been pointed at someone and the trigger pulled.

The point appears to be "check the damn weapon", which of course you could have said without 'educating' me, and wouldn't have been undercut with going on endlessly about wadding.

That point is a terrible one because the armourer is the expert, and is the one who should be signing the gun off as safe every time it is opened, not an actor who neither is required to have qualifications nor skills in clearing a gun as safe. If an actor interferes with the weapon, the armourer has to check it again.

VelvetStorm ,

Frist off, it is also the actors' job to ensure the gun is safe. He should have been there when the gun was checked and verified it for himself especially when he purposely hired a fuck around and find out armourer.

Secondly, how were they supposed to know your level of knowledge about firearms and ammunition? With them explaining stuff in a simple and quick manner, we are all now operating on the same level of basic knowledge about this, so there should not be any miscommunications going on.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

It’s stupidly easy to check a firearm. You don’t have to be an expert to do it. For most fire arms it takes 5-10 seconds.

A large part of the “experts” job is to know what is and is not safe protocol, and to enforce it. Part of that includes teaching everyone who’s handling a weapon how to…. Handle a weapon safely.

no question, the armorer fucked up. She’s human. Humans make mistakes. Which is why you check the damn weapon, too. An expert doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. An expert means they’ve made enough they should know better. (Or have learned from an older expert.)

doingthestuff ,

Wasn't Baldwin at some level responsible for the armorer though too? Was he the producer or something?

TheOctonaut ,

He was a producer but that's a meaningless title handed out to anyone who will front a little money or indeed sometimes just give some advice.

Grilipper54 ,

A producer has more input than that. An executive producer is what you're talking about I'm pretty sure.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

also, significantly gayer.

jonne ,

Yeah, you would think you could just change the chambers and bullets so only a certain standard of blanks would fit in it, although I guess those guns would become more expensive than the real mass produced ones.

Either way, this is all the result of Baldwin as executive producer cheaping out on every aspect of this shoot, causing this to happen.

HuntressHimbo ,

I know there at least used to be gas powered airsoft guns that had minor 'recoil.' I don't know if there's anything particular about them that makes them bad for filming, maybe just the lack of real force on the shooters wrist/shoulder.

Bernie_Sandals ,
@Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah the recoil is much weaker on those and there's no muzzle flash, and certain cinematic shots just can't be done with them like they could with an actual gun.

ArgentRaven ,

In Blade Runner 2049, Weta Workshop had their laser pistols set up with a solenoid that moved back and forth with a trigger pull. Adam Savage looked at them in a Tested video. I don't know if it's cost prohibitive, but it sure seemed like the right way to do it.

However, you don't get smoke with that. You can definitely rig something up as they did it with a knock off nerf blaster in the 80's or even a cap gun, but at some point I assume the level of complexity makes modifying a real gun cheaper.

You could weld shut the barrel of a gun, which is what a lot of them do, but it seems like it's a cost cutting measure when they used real guns that would retain their value. Alec (as a producer) used a cheap setup with a cheap armorer that didn't know what they were doing. It's both of their faults.

modifier ,

Man, I am a cinema buff and I just really don't think I care if the smoke is there at all, much less just right. Obviously botched attempts at realism are another matter entirely but this just seems like an area ripe for creativity and artistic reinterpretation.

Point is, we cede ground to the theater of the mind all the time, I don't know why realistic gunfire can't be treated similarly, and I think the lack of verisimilitude itself could be approached many different ways and that's even kind of exciting.

efstajas , (edited )

Smoke is easy to add in post. Muzzle flash is a little bit harder but also of course very possible.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Having seen Furiosa last night and finding out that they actually digitally manipulated the two actress' faces playing her so that one aged into the other... there's nothing not possible for CG at this point.

ours ,

Some guns are modified in that way for movies. They are still potentially dangerous. Blanks can harm someone close enough or accidentally propel something lodged in the barrel.

the_crotch ,

Like Brandon Lee

ours ,

Exactly. A series of very preventable events leading to death.

VelvetStorm ,

I know some pistols have a co2 blow back system that you can install on your gun so you can practice drawing and dry firing without fear of damaging the gun or hurting people. The only one I know of is for glocks but I'm sure a company could make them for more models.

justaderp ,

At that point one should should buy the gas blowback replica that the manufacturer licensed for airsoft. It'll have identical wright and balance, the trigger can usually be tuned to match, and it'll dry fire with about half recoil. It'll plink on target at 40' once the hop-up is calibrated. Should be a modest $150-250 for common Glock, Sig, etc.

VelvetStorm ,

That is also a good option that they should be using instead of using real guns.

the_crotch ,

If you shot a blank in a gun with a plugged barrel the gun would explode. A blank is just a round minus the projectile, it has just as much "push" from the powder as a real round does.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Brandon Lee died because of this exact scenario ... so you're incorrect.

the_crotch ,

Brandon Lee died because in a previous scene they used bullets without a casing so the revolver wouldnt look empty facing the camera. One of them got stuck in the barrel, and in the next scene where they were using blanks it was propelled out and struck him. A blank with a bullet in front of it is essntially just a live round with extra steps. Idk what you think I'm incorrect about. That doesn't mean filling in the barrel would be safer, it wouldn't, the gun would explode. The energy released by igniting gunpowder has to go somewhere.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

A blank killed Brandon Lee while filming The Crow.

Although I don't know the details admittedly.

RacerX ,

It was a blank that was fired, but there was a bullet lodged in the barrel from a previous firing they had done using improperly handled prop rounds.

The force from the blank ejected the round into him. :(

catloaf ,

The "prop" rounds shouldn't have had real primers, either.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Here's the background on the only other two deaths that occured on-set: Brandon Lee and Jon-Erik Hexum.

https://www.looper.com/640645/every-tragic-movie-set-death-caused-by-prop-guns/

AbidanYre ,

So do people getting shot in movies, but nobody seems to mind.

apocalypticat ,
@apocalypticat@lemmy.world avatar

Who cares?

ours ,

What recoil? They are shooting blanks. There is no mass leaving the gun. If you want to cycle the gun on trigger pull in a realistic yet safe way, compressed CO2 can be used. Some movie guns are even electrically/magnetically actuated.

VelvetStorm ,

You do know how physics works, right? There is an explosion in the chamber that moves the slide/bolt backward to rack another round of course there will be recoil. Have you ever fired a black powder gun with no bullet in it? There is still a recoil.

catloaf ,

And an ejection of hot gas from the muzzle. That has mass.

Empricorn ,

Not as much as your mother.

Maggoty ,

I've fired a lot of blanks in my life. The recoil is nowhere near a live round.

VelvetStorm ,

But there is still more than enough for a movie.

Maggoty ,

Then a compressed air system will work too.

VelvetStorm ,

I agree. Anything that can be done to make it safer while also being a practical effect that looks good should be done. I get that as an actor, they sometimes want to feel the weight of a gun to get into the role, but safety should always be the number 1 priority.

Cort ,

I mean 5-10 grams of vaporized gunpowder leaves the barrel at fairly high speed. It's not a lead round but it's not nothing. Also the spent brass being ejected is not easy to CGI convincingly.

ours ,

Good points. The gun would have to cycle with CO2 or magnets and feed from a magazine empty casings so that the ejector continues to do its job.

Yet so many movies just add the sound of casings hitting the ground so I wonder if the hassle is worth it except for some specific shots. I enjoy the realism but I'd rather people not put their lives needlessly at risk.

dukatos ,

They put a choke on a barrel so automatics can work.

BruceTwarzen ,

We gotta sometimes kill a bunch of people on set, because americans need their religion represented correctly

nonailsleft ,

I'm more than willing to sacrifice some moviepeople if it means we get more realistic action scenes

Fedizen ,

❌When the recoil looks fake

✔️Action hero only ever gets shot in shoulder despite thousands of rounds shot at them, bullets used by bad guys never hollow point

lepinkainen ,

It’s like a bad accent.

Some people won’t notice, but for those who can see/hear the difference it takes the suspension of disbelief away immediately

Maggoty ,

You can only get that with real rounds though. Blanks are not causing that recoil effect.

ArcaneSlime ,

Downvoted but correct.

Here's the first link I've found explaining the concept of recoil, and the section relating to blanks and the fact that since bullet weight is a major factor blanks have virtually no recoil conveniently uses movies to illustrate that point.

x4740N ,
@x4740N@lemm.ee avatar

There are airsoft GBB (gas blow back) guns that can replicate recoil from my short online research

Chozo ,
@Chozo@fedia.io avatar

Real, sure. But functional, no. Sometimes, for authenticity's sake or just for cost reasons, it may make sense to use a real firearm for a scene. However, it should always be modified so that it cannot be loaded or fired. There are plenty of ways to do this without affecting the appearance of the gun, and skipping that is just pure negligence.

AngryCommieKender ,

Unless it's a revolver, just remove the firing pin. Problem solved. Revolver might be a little more tricky, but removing the pin from the hammer and putting a silicone cushion into the chambers should work.

ArcaneSlime ,

The colt SAA and other old revolvers' firing pin was attached to the hammer (at least most of the newer repros have updated that part for safety). That is why they used to carry them on an empty chamber, because otherwise your firing pin would just be resting on the primer and could very easily go off if bumped. If using a repro you could similarly just remove the firing pin, if using an original (just don't do that, because what I'm about to say is an affront to history, but) you could grind that pin down enough that it'd never make contact with the primer again. Shudder.

billwashere ,

Modify the dang things so they can’t take real ammo. Make it keyed somehow or odd shaped. Problem solved.

Snowclone ,

This particular gun was an actual period gun, so it could prevent the use of the gun if it needed to be modified. But honestly, just like there wasn't a real helicopter in films besides stock footage or military footage the production company didn't film, because accidentally killing three actors two of whom were children being illegally treated, was enough for studios to forbid it, the people who've been shot accidentally on film should really make everyone unwilling to use anything but a prop that is explicitly and legally not at all a gun in any way.

Guntrigger ,

But we all know the old adage:

Guns don't kill people, helicopters do.

Maggoty ,

Then it's time for the green polka dot gun that gets CGI'd after the fact.

chiliedogg ,

It's laziness. Automatics are modified in a way that prevents them from being fully operational as a gun, but not for safety reasons.

They won't cycle with blank rounds because there's no backpressure from firing a live round, so they obstruct the barrel to redirect some of the gasses back into the action.

For revolvers, bolt guns, etc that isn't an issue because they aren't cycled by recoil or gasses. You can just load a blank and use it.

Modern_medicine_isnt ,

The only reason I can see from all the comments is cost. But it isn't about a good reason. It's about not micromanaging what people can do from a legal standpoint. Guns are either legal, or they aren't. After that it would be up to unions involved in these things to demand better saftey for thier people. In this case we know the standards for safely handling guns on set were not followed. Now maybe that should be a crime and not just a civil matter. I could totally get behind that.

Pacmanlives ,

It’s funny I recently bumped into a guy who is a gunsmith and worked in Hollywood sets before so we talked about this. There are reasons to have a fully functional gun on set and the different rounds they use on set because there are a bunch of different types depending on the scene and lighting. They use different charges for different shots and a bunch of other things. Especially if it’s a practical effects movie.

The issue is making sure live ammo is not on set or around the guns on set. If you have access to these guns you can use them after filming is done with live rounds.

Alex trusted the people around him to do their jobs and they didn’t make it a safe set. This is like flipping the keys to Dodge Hellcat to your 15 1/2 year old son with a learners driving permit and his 18 year old friend riding shotgun. It’s not a good idea. They should be driving Kia Sportage.

PancakeTrebuchet , (edited )

With all the money spent on films, I'm amazed there isn't regulated "Hollywood" caliber firearms. Something incapable of chambering anything on the market, and only functions with the certified blanks.

Something akin to the way fake currency is controlled.

tb_ ,
@tb_@lemmy.world avatar

I mean, cool idea, but that would severely limit the available choices for types of firearms.

PancakeTrebuchet ,

I dont know. I think there could be an inventory of replicas. You can get a 1911 in multiple calibers already, as you can many revolver frames. There's no reason they couldn't make custom ones.

Buddahriffic ,

Or just make it a chamber modification that can be applied to any gun that reduces the size of the round that can fit in it to something that isn't a standard size.

JokklMaster ,

Except my understanding is Baldwin would be the Hellcat owner in this case. He was the producer and the film hired a company to handle the guns that was known to have issues and be irresponsible. I'm not intimately familiar with the case but from what I remember he was being reckless with that choice and it sounds like he was being reckless with the gun as well.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •