Alec Baldwin: on-set 'Rust' shooting - NEW UPDATE

[willy1]

Ooooo, do I want to finish the addition on my house or buy a new toy? That is a tough decision. . .

If ya got a old lady?ya better finish the house son"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Alec still violated the rule of pointing a firearm at a person instead of at an angle away from people / camera .

On movie sets that rule has wiggle room, but that gets back to the armorer who should have a full shot list and know exactly how each scene is to play out and provide the correct safety checked firearms or non-firearm props, but producer Baldwin cheeped out and (allegedly) chose NM to skirt union rules so he could hire less experienced people and pay less money
Again, we all want Baldwin to be held responsible, the difference is if we believe the best chance of doing that is by going after Baldwin in his capacity as the actor or as the producer

 

[64MercurysRule]

As a producer I would think he is liable for what happens on the set to some or all degree . Obviously there should not have been live rounds on the set ... ever . Making sure a firearm is not pointed directly at a person is paramount also . Mistakes happen when humans violate the very simple rules because , well , they are simple . After over 100 years of cinematic features it is amazing what basic rules have kept people safe . As always humans are going to be the variable .

 

[Flopsweat]

He shot two people with a loaded gun. Make all the excuses you want.

 

[Bobbygun]

He shot two people with a loaded gun. Make all the excuses you want.

Well gee Flop. How would he shoot them with an unloaded gun? Riddle me that!

 

[Flopsweat]

Well gee Flop. How would he shoot them with an unloaded gun? Riddle me that!

Happens all the time. "I swear it wasn't loaded!"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

He shot two people with a loaded gun. Make all the excuses you want.

Dude . . why on God's green earth do you think anyone is making any excuses for him?!?!?!?

The debate here isn't if he should be held reasonable or not, or even if he's 'guilty' or not, the only disagreement is if the ACTUAL rules and laws in place make it more likely to hold him accountable in his role as the actor or as the producer.

 

[Flopsweat]

Dude . . why on God's green earth do you think anyone is making any excuses for him?!?!?!?

The debate here isn't if he should be held reasonable or not, or even if he's 'guilty' or not, the only disagreement is if the ACTUAL rules and laws in place make it more likely to hold him accountable in his role as the actor or as the producer.

Then why are you arguing with me?

 

[Spitpatch]

I've seen two themes (or beliefs) regarding movie sets here that need to be clarified.

The first is the contention that (paraphrasing a number of posts here) "there is no excuse for a loaded gun on a movie set".

Absolutely NOT true, and they are on movie sets on a VERY regular basis, and are necessary for many aspects and contributions to the production. Again, filming bullet impacts on dirt, battlefields, buildings and cars is BEST done with bullets. Authentically filming a star firing a gun with recoil is best done with a gun with recoil.

The second is this contention that the distinction between "fake guns" and "real guns" (where movies are concerned) is an absolute. Countless examples exist of "Frankenstein" or "Dummy" guns (real firearms that may have serious alterations...usually rendering them inert) done especially for the movie. In other words, a gun that appears "real" on the screen may not be, though parts of it might have been at one time.

A very good example of all of this is the movie, "Quigley Down Under". Five rifles were built by Shiloh Sharps for the movie. Only two were operational. One had an aluminum barrel (for Selleck's gymnastics with it). Selleck was schooled at the Sharps factory to shoot the rifles, and live ammunition was used in much of the production.

 

[Flopsweat]

I've seen two themes (or beliefs) regarding movie sets here that need to be clarified.

The first is the contention that (paraphrasing a number of posts here) "there is no excuse for a loaded gun on a movie set".

Absolutely NOT true, and they are on movie sets on a VERY regular basis, and are necessary for many aspects and contributions to the production. Again, filming bullet impacts on dirt, battlefields, buildings and cars is BEST done with bullets. Authentically filming a star firing a gun with recoil is best done with a gun with recoil.

The second is this contention that the distinction between "fake guns" and "real guns" (where movies are concerned) is an absolute. Countless examples exist of "Frankenstein" or "Dummy" guns (real firearms that may have serious alterations...usually rendering them inert) done especially for the movie. In other words, a gun that appears "real" on the screen may not be, though parts of it might have been at one time.

A very good example of all of this is the movie, "Quigley Down Under". Five rifles were built by Shiloh Sharps for the movie. Only two were operational. One had an aluminum barrel (for Selleck's gymnastics with it). Selleck was schooled at the Sharps factory to shoot the rifles, and live ammunition was used in much of the production.

Can we agree that in today's world there is no good reason for a firearm capable of injuring someone to be pointed at anyone on a movie set?

 

[Spitpatch]

Can we agree that in today's world there is no good reason for a firearm capable of injuring someone to be pointed at anyone on a movie set?

And we might also approach an agreement that being facetious is not warranted.

 

[Flopsweat]

And we might also approach an agreement that being facetious is not warranted.

Nope, definitely not. Some folks have it coming. Not you, but some folks.

 

[64MercurysRule]

The basic rule of pointing a firearm at a person is still at play here . Sounds very basic but that is the key . Special prop guns and loaded blanks are often used for sound and recoil affects . Sets often use protection barriers or suits to limit hazards . When live loaded ammo is used for effect on objects / environment safety rules still exist . With live ammo it is used on things not people .

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Then why are you arguing with me?

I'm not, I just asked who you thought was making excuses for Baldwin

 

[Flopsweat]

I'm not, I just asked who you thought was making excuses for Baldwin

 

[lucusloc]

Can we agree that in today's world there is no good reason for a firearm capable of injuring someone to be pointed at anyone on a movie set?

Yes, any real or approximately real firearm on a movie set should have been rendered completely safe to use there by a combination of procedures and methods that render it incapable of doing harm. This should be a layered approach so that any one or few failures do not compromise the integrity and safety of the entire system. These procedures can include things like;

Modifying the FCG to be non-functional
Keeping the set sterile of anything even approaching the energy capability of a real cartridge
making sure set safety checks are accomplished with religious devotion
extensive training for the responsible crew on the failures of the past

Many, many more.

All this so that the movie set can be confident enough in their safety to get the shots they need. Shots where people (both actors and crew) will likely be at least approximately down range of something that appears to be a functional weapon (but everyone is 100% confident is actually not).

This obviously was not the mind set they took on the set of Rust, and now an innocent person is dead because of it.

 

[billdeserthills]

'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed struggling in jail as she awaits sentencing: attorney

‘Rust’ armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed struggling in jail as she awaits sentencing: attorney

Her legal team said in court that she had been overworked by the production and that the shooting was not her fault.

nypost.com

 

[Certaindeaf]

Nope. It's a $500 to $800 million a year industry that has a $7.7 to $1 return on investment for New Mexico alone.
That's no justification for letting Baldwin the producer walk, in fact I see it as more reason to hold him accountable so as to not endanger the cash cow

Nope. It is a form of prima nocta where it's allowed to take the life of your inferiors.

 

[wired]

I guess the old saying tret every gun as a loaded gun.i guess that doesn't make any sense?

Yeah, that doesn't work on a movie set. People have roles they play. They point props around and pretend to shoot all over the place. Its not a firing range unless someone, the armorer, doesn't do their job.

 

[wired]

Yes, any real or approximately real firearm on a movie set should have been rendered completely safe to use there buy a combination of procedures and methods that render it incapable of doing harm. This should be a layered approach so that any one or few failures do not compromise the integrity and safety of the entire system. These procedures can include things like;

Modifying the FCG to be non-functional
Keeping the set sterile of anything even approaching the energy capability of a real cartridge
making sure set safety checks are accomplished with religious devotion
extensive training for the responsible crew on the failures of the past

Many, many more.

All this so that the movie set can be confident enough in their safety to get the shots they need. Shots where people (both actors and crew) will likely be at least approximately down range of something that appears to be a functional weapon (but everyone is 100% confident is actually not).

This obviously was not the mind set they took on the set of Rust, and now an innocent person is dead because of it.

You cant modify the FCG to be nnonfunctional Guns go bang and make smoke in movies. Thats the whole point of them being in the movie. They use blanks.. Thats why you have an armorer whose job it is to make sure the guns are loaded with blanks. The armorer loads the gun and hands it to the actor . It might be the actors only role they ever get and he might be there for 5 minutes for his scene. He knows not a damned thing about guns. The armorer is the party responsible for the gun. It is his/her job to ensure gun safety on the set not a constantly changing cast of actors.