Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,844
1,693
118
Nowhere
Country
United States
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.
Oh yeah, I know about rubber guns. But those are mostly used in scenes where you don't want a metal gun (usually when hand to hand fighting is happening). What I mean by beauty shot is like with cars and how there's three layers to them; rubber guns are like the cars made only to do a single jump. Something you destroy quickly to cover-up the obvious shortcomings inherent in doing the stunt. Blank guns would be the stunt cars, ones designed for longer shots but still with obvious differences from the real thing for safety (roll cages for cars, less recoil/casings for guns). But then there are you beauty shot cars, pristine and as close (if not the) real thing and used only where it won't be damaged (in gun terms it's like needing real fire arms for a scene like in Taxi Driver where he is buying the guns).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,701
1,739
118
Country
United States
Looking at the production it's a low rent indie film running on a wing and a pray so the news about really iffy safety and people walking out is unsurprising. Indie low budget production can be harrowing if the producer and director aren't keeping track of things. Baldwin is known as pretty good dude these days and he already publicly stated he's co-operating with the police. Since the cops said he was explicitly told the gun was safe I think at worst he might get a minimal degree manslaughter charge. I forget the legalese, but there's a manslaughter degree that essentially states you absolutely had no ill intent and it was basically an accident. If it doesn't get closed out without charges at all, he might get fined and do community service.

Knowing Baldwin and humanitarian efforts of late I'd like to believe whatever happens hell make sure the family gets taken care of.

I'd chalk it down him just not knowing any better or being a tired idiot that day, I'm sure some gun "enthusiast" podcaster is losing his mind right now over how Alec should have known better, rules, blah blah blah, and I've seen Cops and Marines accidentally shoot themselves in the foot so I'm not gonna demand Baldwin be put on some pedestal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,363
8,862
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I'd chalk it down him just not knowing any better or being a tired idiot that day, I'm sure some gun "enthusiast" podcaster is losing his mind right now over how Alec should have known better, rules, blah blah blah....
As a gun enthusiast, I'm not inclined to place blame on Baldwin... in his role as an actor. That job does not encompass firearm safety; he placed his trust in an expert who, if this is true-

- was not deserving of that trust. If he followed basic protocols and the instructions of that expert, he did everything he could realistically be expected to do.

On the other hand, Baldwin is also the executive producer of the film, and in that role he is responsible for conditions on the set. If the armorer was incapable of safely loading and maintaining the weapons, that fault rests on him for having employed her; if that incapability came from being overwhelmed because of a busy schedule, then the fault rests on him for not allowing enough time for safety.
 

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
As a gun enthusiast, I'm not inclined to place blame on Baldwin... in his role as an actor. That job does not encompass firearm safety; he placed his trust in an expert who, if this is true-
If the job of an actor using a gun truly doesn't require firearm safety/training, then it should. I'd love to know what the law really requires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,124
1,882
118
Country
USA
And I think this is the big question going forward.

From everything I'm reading, I can understand if Baldwin really said, "Is this what you want?"... but I would think he would have posed rather than posed and then really pulled the trigger.

It is an interesting case. I hope we hear more details.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
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.
That's not a valid argument. When live rounds are truly necessary for a take and there is absolutely, positively no viable alternative in the entirety of practical or special effects to facilitate that take -- in other words it almost never actually happens -- crews go to a(n indoor or outdoor) range and dress that. And when filming, they close that location.

And the firearms and ammunition when that is required are kept separate, under lock and key in the prop master's possession and observation, and only accessed only when take is to be filmed.


 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,175
3,386
118
That's not a valid argument. When live rounds are truly necessary for a take and there is absolutely, positively no viable alternative in the entirety of practical or special effects to facilitate that take -- in other words it almost never actually happens -- crews go to a(n indoor or outdoor) range and dress that. And when filming, they close that location.

And the firearms and ammunition when that is required are kept separate, under lock and key in the prop master's possession and observation, and only accessed only when take is to be filmed.


You are correct. Don't get me wrong, I already said what they could have done different to prevent this.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,888
5,417
118
Out of curiousity how many prop accidents like that have happened in the entire film history? I can only think of three cases out of millions of films made.

There was one really early in film history like in the 50's or something.

Then there was Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow.

Then this thing.

Frankly in terms of accident odds, that's pretty fucking safe all things considered. You can never eliminate 100% of the risk but shit this seems about as safe as anyone can ask for really. Hell more stunt people get injured and killed driving bikes and cars and shit of bridges and buildings that these gun mishaps happen. Why aren't people calling to ban all practical stunts?

Most jobs have elements of risk to them. Oil rig workers, hell even offices jobs have work related injuries that can even be crippling in some cases. Risk is a part of life and we do what we can to prevent shit from happening, but banning the offending action, prop, stunt, event whatever it is, is not the solution. It is impossible to get anything 100% safe. Breathing can be deadly. Condoms are only 99.9% effective and if your cum is strong a baby you will have anyway. Point is risk is everywhere, and shit happens.
 

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
On the other hand, Baldwin is also the executive producer of the film, and in that role he is responsible for conditions on the set. If the armorer was incapable of safely loading and maintaining the weapons, that fault rests on him for having employed her; if that incapability came from being overwhelmed because of a busy schedule, then the fault rests on him for not allowing enough time for safety.
Check out his responsibilities as producer.

 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
Why aren't people calling to ban all practical stunts?
Because this is a risk factor that can be eliminated in its entirety with the most basic level of due diligence, components that are commercially available to a civilian market and therefore trivially purchased by license-holding armorers on studio payroll, and almost certainly at an overall lower price point than the status quo.

I'd ask in turn why it's so important to you, that Hollywood actors use real firearms in movies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118
If the job of an actor using a gun truly doesn't require firearm safety/training, then it should. I'd love to know what the law really requires.
It’s a shit production if so, because whether movies or even VG’s I’ve read several instances of how those directly involved went through often rigorous firearms training sessions to lend authenticity to their project. Perhaps not always John Wick levels, but still ultimately being able to effectively show competency in real life settings.

This here will spur a change in the rule book, or at least it should.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118
Because this is a risk factor that can be eliminated in its entirety with the most basic level of due diligence, components that are commercially available to a civilian market and therefore trivially purchased by license-holding armorers on studio payroll, and almost certainly at an overall lower price point than the status quo.

I'd ask in turn why it's so important to you, that Hollywood actors use real firearms in movies.

FWIW -


This part stood out -
Cast members should be trained in gun safety in advance. Guns should never be pointed directly at anyone, especially in rehearsals but even during actual filming, since camera trickery can be used to compensate for the angle. If necessary, plexiglass is used to protect the camera operator and surrounding crew members.

And no live ammunition, ever.

“Protocol had to have been broken,” said Daniel Leonard, an associate dean of Chapman University’s film school who specializes in set procedures. “We will have to see what the details are, but the industry has a very specific set of guidelines to follow to prevent something like this from happening”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Because this is a risk factor that can be eliminated in its entirety with the most basic level of due diligence, components that are commercially available to a civilian market and therefore trivially purchased by license-holding armorers on studio payroll, and almost certainly at an overall lower price point than the status quo.
Like with any kind of gun handling, it's only a risk if people act stupidly and break polices. So there is no need to enforce a ban. It looks good on camera, which is enough of a reason for many filmmakers to keep doing it.

Funny how almost nobody complained until someone was killed. I love this fellow's post on the forum that I received a week long ban from for blaming Baldwin:

This is the first I've heard of any of you guys complaining about real guns being used on a set. I guess wait for something to happen before you complain, despite the fact it always "could have happened" before that.

My stance is this: there was either malice or negligence involved, and studios will be made better aware next time. People still die on set for different reasons compared to that of what you saw here (especially in stunt work). I'm not accepting any single loss, but don't come in here like this is a stance you've had for decades if you didn't before. I'd expect every time you see a movie to go: "Great movie, but WTF did they use guns in here?" Stand up to your opinion in that regard, or maybe don't support those movies who use it.

It's like the extra protective netting used in MLB stadiums that extend down the lines. I didn't hear people want them before when they bought tickets there. They were happy to always sit there, bring their young child, etc. Now that they're up and there are people against them, I finally hear people saying: "I feel safe bringing my kid to those seats now." So you brought your kid there before not feeling safe? There are other seats you could sit as well, by the way. Oh I could go on about that one forever, especially in the realm of there being other ways you can die at a ballpark or a foul could still strike you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118
Can you copy and paste the whole article? New York Times has too many steps before you can access their articles.

LOS ANGELES — Hollywood was in a state of shock on Friday, one day after Alec Baldwin fired a gun being used as a prop on a New Mexico film set, killing a cinematographer and wounding the director. Real firearms are routinely used while cameras are rolling, and injuries of any kind are rare. The reason is that safety protocols for firearms on sets are well established and straight forward.

Weapons must be tightly managed by an armorer, sometimes credited on films as a “weapons master,” who holds various government-issued permits. Some states, for instance, require an entertainment firearms license in addition to standard gun licenses. Cast members should be trained in gun safety in advance. Guns should never be pointed directly at anyone, especially in rehearsals but even during actual filming, since camera trickery can be used to compensate for the angle. If necessary, plexiglass is used to protect the camera operator and surrounding crew members.

And no live ammunition, ever.

“Protocol had to have been broken,” said Daniel Leonard, an associate dean of Chapman University’s film school who specializes in set procedures. “We will have to see what the details are, but the industry has a very specific set of guidelines to follow to prevent something like this from happening.”

Weapons on sets vary. Some are rubber props (used for shots when actors are far in the distance) and others are airsoft guns that fire nonlethal pellets. Often, however, productions use real guns.

Studios prefer to digitally create the actual firing in postproduction whenever possible. Sometimes it is not. Even in a filmmaking age where visual-effects artists use computers to convincingly create disintegrating cities, it can be difficult to replicate the weight and recoil of a real gun, studio executives say. Some actors have a hard time faking it.

Depending on the complexity of the scene, effects wizardry is also expensive, Mr. Leonard noted, and independently financed movies like “Rust,” the film that Mr. Baldwin was making in New Mexico, operate on shoestring budgets.

When the guns need to be fired, they are loaded with blanks, which are cartridge cases with no bullets. People tend to think that blanks are like toy cap guns for children — a little pop and some smoke. That is not the case. Blanks can still be dangerous because they involve gunpowder and paper wadding or wax, which provide a flame and spark, which look good on camera. (When people are injured by firearms on sets, it usually involves a burn, safety coordinators said.)

“Blanks help contribute to the authenticity of a scene in ways that cannot be achieved in any other manner,” David Brown, a Canadian movie firearms safety coordinator, wrote in American Cinematographer magazine in 2019. “If the cinematographer is there to paint a story with light and framing, firearms experts are there to enhance a story with drama and excitement.”

A production safety coordinator, working with the armorer, institutes rules for keeping a safe distance from the muzzle of a gun loaded with a blank. At least 20 feet is a rule of thumb, according to Larry Zanoff, an armorer for films like “Django Unchained.” Mr. Brown wrote that “safe distances vary widely depending on the load and the type of firearm, which is why we test everything in advance.”

“Take the distance that people need to be away from a gunshot, and then triple it,” Mr. Brown wrote. He declined a telephone interview on Friday but added in an email: “Firearms are no more dangerous than any other prop on set when handled responsibly. All the safety procedures in the industry make these situations virtually impossible when firearms are handled by professionals who give them their undivided attention.”

If a movie involves gunfire, safety planning usually begins long before anyone gathers on a set, according to studio executives who oversee physical production. First, the armorer is brought on board to analyze the script and, working with the director and prop master, decide what weapons are needed. Studios tend to work with the same armorers over and over again; one such expert, John Fox, has credits in 190 films and 650 episodes of television over 25 years.

Armorers own the weapons themselves or rent them; Mike Tristano & Company in Los Angeles has a vast prop gun inventory that includes AK-47s in blank-firing, blank-adapted and nonfiring versions. Armorers (or sometimes licensed prop masters) are responsible for storing them on set. Guns are not supposed to leave their hands until cameras are rolling; actors hand them back as soon as “cut” or “wrap” is called and the cameras stop.

“There’s a big difference between being an expert with firearms and handling them on a set,” said Jeremy Goldstein, a prop master and licensed armorer in Los Angeles whose credits include films for Netflix, Amazon and Universal. “On a set, you’re around people who have never held guns and who don’t understand the gravity of what can happen.” (Mr. Goldstein, like Mr. Zanoff and Mr. Brown, has no connection with “Rust.”)

Studios typically require any cast members who will be performing with firearms to undergo training on a shooting range in advance. There, they are taught safety and given general information about how guns work. Independent productions, for reasons of cost and time, may handle safety demonstrations on set. Various unions operate safety hotlines where anyone on set can anonymously report concerns.

It is not clear precisely what kind of gun was being used in “Rust,” what it was loaded with or what exactly was happening on the set when it was fired. It was also not known what kind of training the cast members had. “Regarding the projectile, a focus of the investigation is what type it was and how did it get there,” said Juan Ríos, a spokesman for the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.

A New York Times reporter got a sense of what usually happens on a set right before a scene involving simulated gunfire. It happened in October 2015 on the Baton Rouge, La., set of the remake of “Roots.” Before the cameras rolled, a crew leader stood in the middle of the wooded location, with dozens of performers and crew watching, and gave a safety speech in an urgent, serious tone. The scene they were about to film involved cannons and gunfire from period weapons.

“All right everybody,” the crew leader said. “We have to discharge the gun. So we’re not playing with toys, guys. If something goes wrong, I’m going to yell cut, and we’re all going to back off calmly.

“The cannons are all faced out. We’ve all been through this training, we’ve rehearsed it over and over, we all get it. But pay attention, this is not a game. I keep saying that, guys. These guns are for real.”

Melena Ryzik, Nicole Sperling, Julia Jacobs and Simon Romero contributed reporting.
Brooks Barnes is a media and entertainment reporter, covering all things Hollywood. He joined The Times in 2007 as a business reporter focused primarily on the Walt Disney Company. He previously worked for The Wall Street Journal.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,888
5,417
118
I'd ask in turn why it's so important to you, that Hollywood actors use real firearms in movies.
TBH I didn't even know that they did. I thought they were prop guns that could only fire blanks. Basically just realistic looking models that fired a bit of smoke and gas.

Because this is a risk factor that can be eliminated in its entirety with the most basic level of due diligence, components that are commercially available to a civilian market and therefore trivially purchased by license-holding armorers on studio payroll, and almost certainly at an overall lower price point than the status quo.
I don't think that's true. The best equipment, in the best condition can still fail. Brand new cars have warranties for a reason, because sometimes shit just happens. I think the overall track record of the film industry as a whole is pretty clean when it comes to workplace accidents. Not to say that things don't happen, they do, but its so rare that I just feel like a lot of these reactions are kneejerk.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,175
3,386
118
TBH I didn't even know that they did. I thought they were prop guns that could only fire blanks. Basically just realistic looking models that fired a bit of smoke and gas.
Actually that used to be the draw of making westerns. You don't have to modify cowboy guns to shoot blanks, you can just buy them off the shelf. Self-loading guns have to be modified to shoot blanks properly.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,888
5,417
118
Actually that used to be the draw of making westerns. You don't have to modify cowboy guns to shoot blanks, you can just buy them off the shelf. Self-loading guns have to be modified to shoot blanks properly.
So the question is, is it the gun's fault or the fault of the blank manufacturing? And again it is such a rare occurrence i dont really see a need for a radical change.

Maybe they can just pretend the gun is shooting without a blank and then cgi the gun shots in post.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,175
3,386
118
So the question is, is it the gun's fault or the fault of the blank manufacturing? And again it is such a rare occurrence i dont really see a need for a radical change.

Maybe they can just pretend the gun is shooting without a blank and then cgi the gun shots in post.
There's not enough info to say. My theory places the blame on the armorer, but it's just a guess.