Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust

[Ezekiel]

What you personally believe, you say... "Likely." It clearly is your problem then.

Actually, you're also being pretty inconsistent. You began with this: "They do it to save money, so it'll never happen of course, but it would be nice to happen." So would it save money or wouldn't it? I need something better than "likely."

 

[thebobmaster]

Apparently, both the director and cinematographer were behind Plexiglass, so if there hadn't been a live round in the gun, they would have been safe. If so, then I feel it's a bit ridiculous to blame Alec Baldwin for pointing the gun in a direction it was supposed to be safe to point it in, and not the person who was negligent about making sure the gun was safe.

Honestly, Alec Baldwin is one of the people I feel the most for in this. The family of the victims, and the director, of course, get a lot of sympathy from me, but Alec Baldwin is going to have to live with having accidentally killed someone for the rest of his life. Just ask Michael Massee how that feels.

 

[Ezekiel]

Apparently, both the director and cinematographer were behind Plexiglass, so if there hadn't been a live round in the gun, they would have been safe. If so, then I feel it's a bit ridiculous to blame Alec Baldwin for pointing the gun in a direction it was supposed to be safe to point it in, and not the person who was negligent about making sure the gun was safe.

The problem is that, from everything I'm reading, the actor is in the chain of that responsibility.

Also, in the multiple forums I've been reading about this, some people have said that you're never supposed point guns at people, even on sets. Unless it's very controlled. But I'm no expert.

 

[thebobmaster]

Maybe. From what I understand, it is mostly on whoever was in charge of the prop guns at that particular time to make sure that the gun was unloaded and safe before handing it off to Baldwin, as well as show him that it was empty and make sure Baldwin understood how to make sure the gun was safe. However, it is indeed true that Baldwin is partially responsible in that he didn't double-check the gun, but I don't know how standard that is on film sets. I do know this is eerily similar to what happened to Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow, and pretty much no one then or now blames or blamed Michael Massee for firing the gun.

ETA: That said, it is quite possible that rules about prop guns since The Crow add some onus of responsibility on the actor holding the gun to make sure it is safe.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

A careful company would use rounds with no powder, but I wouldn't necessarily say using live rounds since they look like real bullets (being real bullets) for that kind of scene would be unsafe.

Any company that is not criminally negligent will not have live ammunition anywhere on set. You absolutely do not need live rounds for a film production.

 

[thebobmaster]

Here's an interesting article. Really breaks down just how much of a fuck-up this is.

How Could Alec Baldwin’s Set Tragedy Happen? Breaking Down Prop Gun Safety Protocols

The entertainment industry has long-established set of protocols regarding the use of firearms on set; here's what they look like.

www.indiewire.com

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Any company that is not criminally negligent will not have live ammunition anywhere on set. You absolutely do not need live rounds for a film production.

You don't, but I get the logic of doing so in certain situations and strictly speaking not using live rounds doesn't necessarily guarantee safety, like in the case of Brandon Lee. What you need no matter what with any pyrotechnics (and anything that makes a proper muzzle flash is indistuinguishable from pyrotechnics) is a vetted professional on set with an eye for safety. A lot of movie stunts are dangerous and don't involve guns at all.

 

[Eacaraxe]

You don't, but I get the logic of doing so in certain situations and strictly speaking not using live rounds doesn't necessarily guarantee safety, like in the case of Brandon Lee.

As I was saying earlier, there are solutions to this without having live rounds, blanks, or even firearms capable of chambering or firing live rounds in the first place, on set. Most of those solutions are commercially-available conversion kits for actual firearms, that are used in training by LEO's, military, and even civilians. They simulate nearly every aspect of live fire depending on manufacturer, make, model, and design intent, all the way from the weight of a loaded firearm, to recoil and muzzle flash, and largely absent the safety hazards of even using blanks which require the firearm to have a functional trigger, chamber, and barrel assembly.

There's no excuse to having a firearm capable of chambering a live round on any set, nowadays. Whether live rounds are necessary shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

As I was saying earlier, there are solutions to this without having live rounds, blanks, or even firearms capable of chambering or firing live rounds in the first place, on set. Most of those solutions are commercially-available conversion kits for actual firearms, that are used in training by LEO's, military, and even civilians. They simulate nearly every aspect of live fire depending on manufacturer, make, model, and design intent, all the way from the weight of a loaded firearm, to recoil and muzzle flash, and largely absent the safety hazards of even using blanks which require the firearm to have a functional trigger, chamber, and barrel assembly.

There's no excuse to having a firearm capable of chambering a live round on any set, nowadays. Whether live rounds are necessary shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

There are cases artistically where you do need bullets though. My pet theory for this particular case requires a revolver with an operating gate, cylinder, possibly hammer (depending on the model) and bullet with brass and lead.

 

[Eacaraxe]

There are cases artistically where you do need bullets though.

Properly-made dummy rounds, yes. Not live rounds.

Which is what happened to Brandon Lee. Improper use of jury-rigged dummy rounds by a negligent special effects crew.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Dummy rounds, yes. Not live rounds.

There are some edge cases where you even would want live rounds, albeit my theory doesn't involve that. And I did say a careful company would have used rounds with no powder. I also pointed out that wouldn't save Brandon Lee either. I'm just pointing out that the best barrier against accidents is good practice, because it's more than just guns on set that are dangerous and by the sound of it, safety practices were blown off weeks ago in production. And possibly they had a scab working the guns.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Any company that is not criminally negligent will not have live ammunition anywhere on set. You absolutely do not need live rounds for a film production.

You only get the best performance out of an actor when they know that there's a possibility they might actually get shot.

There are some edge cases where you even would want live rounds, albeit my theory doesn't involve that. And I did say a careful company would have used rounds with no powder. I also pointed out that wouldn't save Brandon Lee either. I'm just pointing out that the best barrier against accidents is good practice, because it's more than just guns on set that are dangerous and by the sound of it, safety practices were blown off weeks ago in production. And possibly they had a scab working the guns.

Actually, good practice (administrative controls) is one of the worst methods of hazard control, second lowest in the Hierarchy of Controls. The best method is to remove the hazard completely.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You only get the best performance out of an actor when they know that there's a possibility they might actually get shot.


Actually, good practice (administrative controls) is one of the worst methods of hazard control, second lowest in the Hierarchy of Controls. The best method is to remove the hazard completely.

Well "removing the hazard completely" in this would be be turning everything into CGI with synthesized sound effects. No more cranes, no more mattresses, no more animatronics or paints, etc.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Well "removing the hazard completely" in this would be be turning everything into CGI with synthesized sound effects. No more cranes, no more mattresses, no more animatronics or paints, etc.

Or making it so the guns cannot physically fire live rounds with conversion kits as @Eacaraxe is suggesting.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Or making it so the guns cannot physically fire live rounds with conversion kits as @Eacaraxe is suggesting.

Unless you need a real gun that fires real rounds for an artistic reason. That wasn't the case here specifically, but it is something that can come up, at some point there are productions where you can't replace the gun, you have to have the gun.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Unless you need a real gun that fires real rounds for an artistic reason. That wasn't the case here specifically, but it is something that can come up, at some point there are productions where you can't replace the gun, you have to have the gun.

Ok, then. I'm not really interested in arguing things that aren't the case. If you can eliminate the hazard you should, if you can't then you move down the hierarchy. That still doesn't change that elimination is the best method.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ok, then. I'm not really interested in arguing things that aren't the case. If you can eliminate the hazard you should, if you can't then you move down the hierarchy. That still doesn't change that elimination is the best method.

Which if you can, sure. But movies recreate dangerous situations, so the highest you're going to get in most every situation is best practice. Unless you count stunt doubles as isolation :V

 

[Ezekiel]

Well "removing the hazard completely" in this would be be turning everything into CGI with synthesized sound effects. No more cranes, no more mattresses, no more animatronics or paints, etc.

Good point. People are jumping to extreme measures for basically nothing. Nothing meaning that this would never happen under normal circumstances. It took so many mistakes and so much negligence to get to that point that it would be just silly to ban guns and bullets for all filmmakers. How is it any different from some idiot "accidentally" killing someone at a shooting range? You don't then call to end all competition and recreational shooting based on the one idiot's mistake.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I kind of figured it would have been a no brainer to just pull something similar to Die Hard 2 and just have two seperate guns; one "beauty shot" gun (heh) for close-ups and such and an "action" gun for the actual wizz-bang stiff, and then mark them appropriately with bright colors (like red and blue).

 

[Thaluikhain]

I kind of figured it would have been a no brainer to just pull something similar to Die Hard 2 and just have two seperate guns; one "beauty shot" gun (heh) for close-ups and such and an "action" gun for the actual wizz-bang stiff, and then mark them appropriately with bright colors (like red and blue).

Normally they do, they use rubber prop guns when people aren't actually going to shoot them. Because they look almost, but not quite, the same as the blank firing ones, fans and/or gun enthusiasts like pointing out when one changes to another. For example, when Arnie reaches the beach towards the end of Commando, his shotgun is a rubber prop which is a bit floppy and bendy if you look closely.

Or you get instances where the prop is a really convincing replica of, say, an M16A1, but the firing weapon is an M16A2.