Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
One of the best shows I remember of late for good trigger/muzzle discipline, carry, and positioning, is actually the Punisher Netflix show. The folks you'd expect to be good carriers are, the ones you wouldn't...well, aren't. Bernthal really learned his shit for that show, his handling is pretty impeccable.
Yeah, I was going to do a whole rant about that and muzzle flash, what muzzle flash actually is, why it's near impossible to catch on film, and the ludicrous lengths film producers take to capture flashes on film. Just to put this "visual fidelity" argument to bed once and for all. On the set of Scarface, the crew literally modified firearm props with electronic synchronization devices to ensure they only fired when the shutter was open.
When I say ludicrous, I mean ludicrous.
My question is, if you know that movies don't use muzzle flashes accurate to real guns, why even bring up something that's trying to simulate realism?
My question is, who was arguing that the kinds of muzzle flashes we see in movies are realistic? Put what argument to bed?
Praise be unto Gun Jesus, and his Holy FAMAS.
I always thought he should be gun Gandalf. He's almost got the actor's name and everything.
Excuse me while I look back at pages 3-5 of this very thread...
That argument? The "we need real guns to simulate real gunfire, so it looks good on camera" argument, when the reality is those very aspects of firearm use, are so difficult to capture on camera, and look so bad when they are captured, that Hollywood has to undertake very specific, very costly, very elaborate, and very risky measures that involves modifying the firearm anyways, using overcharged pyrotechnic rounds anyways, and all to simulate them anyways.
Been telling y'all this for four pages.
In what you quoted there, I also said, "if the filmmakers choose that aesthetic," referring to muzzle flashes. Authenticity, or visual fidelity as you call it, is important in a lot of movies, but I don't think crimson or I ever implied it's all meant to be totally realistic in all kinds of movies. If I thought that, I wouldn't have posted The Matrix Revolutions on page 1.
Wait, I got something for this. The definition and list of synonyms of "authenticity" from Merrian-Webster online:
Now we're down to quibbling over words that are synonymous?
Funny how that only seems to be a priority now.
Except for that the only reason you posted that was to discuss on-set firearm safety, and nothing whatsoever to do with any kinds of effects nor the authenticity thereof. Which is actually kind of ironic, considering you're discussing a film series one of its key selling points were gunplay and effects. No takesie-backsies or attempted retcons of your own posts.
Even more ironic, is the 300fps high-speed cameras used in the film barely have a framerate fast enough to capture muzzle flashes from some of the firearms used in the movie. That is to say, the 300fps high-speed cameras they used for some of the shots, 120 and 150 were more common on set. 300 frames per second is one frame approximately every 3 milliseconds, meaning the shutter speed is 1.5 milliseconds.
By comparison, the standard 24 frames per second is one frame approximately every 42 milliseconds, and the standard shutter speed is 21 milliseconds. 60 frames per second is one frame approximately every 17 milliseconds, with a shutter speed of 8.5 milliseconds.
Most firearms have muzzle flashes that last between 1-7 milliseconds, depending on caliber, barrel length, and load. Higher caliber, shorter barrel length, and heavier load correspond to more prominent muzzle flashes. That means the shutter has to be open from the moment the firing pin strikes the primer, to the point ejecta in the form of excess powder, lead and copper shavings, and carbon fouling are expelled from the barrel...and the end result is one frame of footage, that's an orange motion and overexposure blur.
Hence the ridiculous lengths filmmakers go to capture muzzle flash on film, and why adding muzzle flashes in post is so popular. Because that's a lot of money, time, labor, parts, expertise, equipment, and excess and entirely unnecessary, risk simply for one frame of footage each and every time a firearm is shot on camera.
Whether that's from modifying firearms to only fire when the shutter is open (Scarface), to using overcharged pyrotechnic rounds that create muzzle flashes of artificially lengthened duration (the source of my quip that Hollywood muzzle flashes look like black powder firearms). It's simply easier, more reliable, and cheaper nowadays to digitally add muzzle flash (and case ejection, for relevant firearms) in post, which means the only necessary source of authenticity on set, is simulated recoil. As pointed out earlier, foley can be recorded on firing ranges.
I never once said realistic, I said right. Because it does have to look right, there are expectations for how it looks. You jumped to a conclusion that wasn't there.
Unless you need to record foley at the sight of the shoot specifically.
It's not funny, because no one ever implied that movies with guns need all or nothing for authenticity. All we've ever said is that using real guns and rounds can enhance those scenes. It is only coming up now because you said this:
Putting an argument that never was to rest.
Huh? I'm not sliding back on my post. The Wachowskis and their team wouldn't have used real guns with bullets/blanks in the first place if it didn't add to the authenticity of those scenes. But the Matrix movies are also highly stylized. It's possible for an action scene to have elements of both realism and fantasy.
Interesting. Adding muzzle flashes as principal photography seems better in some ways, though. Changing the color of one part of a scene isn't that easy a lot of the time. In the examples below, you can see the flashes brighten the metals, skin, leather and stone, and also reflect off the sunglasses. Of course some digital special effects teams will also be more cheaply funded and less talented than others.
Even today many special effects shots edited in post don't come out that nice. Actually, show me one whose CG light IS that convincing. The guy who restored Taxi Driver mentioned something similar, when asked about putting the redder blood back into the shooting scene at the end.
"You can't really successfully pump a color into a film that isn't there. There were attempts, to some degree, to put more red into that scene on older transfers of the film (the most recent almost ten years ago, and without talent involvement) and you can see those results in DVDs that were released. There is more red than should be there, but the red is everywhere, in the walls, clothing, skin, hair, etc., and that is what happens when you try to force a color into an image that really isn't present."
Sony's Grover Crisp on the Restoration of Taxi Driver
Sony's Grover Crisp understands the science and art of film restoration as well as anyone working in Hollywood today. As the Senior VP for Asset Manag
Last edited:
So let me get this straight. There's a difference between "realistic" and "right". That difference being, "right" is to meet audience expectation, regardless of whether or not it is, in fact, "realistic". Even though the point is for "right" to match "realistic" as much as possible, to provide audiences with a sense of verisimilitude.
Because these words are literally synonymous with each other in this context.
So, the film industry needs real firearms -- heavily modified ones that come at the cost of time, parts, and labor, that carry their associated risks to filming locations -- and overcharged pyrotechnic rounds, for the sake of creating deliberately fake-looking muzzle flashes, because the audience expectation is to see fake-looking muzzle flashes.
But, what we can't do is modify those firearms a different way that would make them inherently safe to store, transport, and handle on set, because post-modification it would be impossible for them to chamber or fire live rounds, even though they'd still be capable of firing pyrotechnic charges that create the deliberately fake-looking muzzle flashes that meet audience expectation. Or alternatively, we can't modify firearms needed for shots that involve dummy rounds that have had primers and loads removed, by removing mechanisms that allow them to actually discharge a round even though those mechanisms are entirely internal and therefore impact the appearance of the firearm in no way whatsoever, because...reasons, I guess.
Because that might make the deliberately fake-looking muzzle flashes look fake.
That need does not actually exist.
It’s a real tragedy! My condolences to the victims and their families. I hope they can get to the bottom of this mystery as to why the gun was loaded with actual ammunition.
And as you well know, Hollywood explosions are fireballs instead of pressure waves, so the answer to your rambling is yes.
You half know what you're talking about, and are a walking example of the danger of a little knowledge.
Incorrect. Sometimes you need the sound of a gun at a location. Guns sound different in different places and it's a lot easier to record a sound than to try and make it in post.
I'll keep that in mind for what I'm about to say. Now that you've committed fully to this argument...
They used electronic blanks for close shots in The Matrix.
Good job being unable to tell the difference, and inadvertently blowing your own argument out. Oops.
Last edited:
They used bigger muzzle flashes too.
Oops. Stop trying to find hypocrisy where there is none. You're trying too hard to "win."
Okay, yeah, I get what you're saying now. Those flashes in post 133 do look artificial while the brightening of the surroundings doesn't. So it's just a light. But it makes a strong case for real muzzle flashes still being important in the other scenes shown in post 138 if you could spot the CG in post 133.
Last edited:
When the official twitter account of Heckler and Koch is reposting Gun Jesus art by a completely random person, I think the nickname has stuck.