Alec Baldwin
-
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
It's not like these movies are realistic anyway.
-
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
-
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
The bangy thing of course!
Anyway, as all kids know, guns actually go peeowwww, peeowwww!
-
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
Something without a projectile?
I seem to recall holding double happys back in the day. They went bang. No projectile.
Someone clever enough to make props for a The Movies with an unlimited budget ...
-
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
Something without a projectile?
I seem to recall holding double happys back in the day. They went bang. No projectile.
Someone clever enough to make props for a The Movies with an unlimited budget ...
Cap guns don't make the right noise. And given the cheapness of weapons in the US, expending vast sums for limited benefit seems to me rather unlikely.
-
CO2-powered BB gun with thundercaps FTW!
-
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
Something without a projectile?
I seem to recall holding double happys back in the day. They went bang. No projectile.
Someone clever enough to make props for a The Movies with an unlimited budget ...
Cap guns don't make the right noise. And given the cheapness of weapons in the US, expending vast sums for limited benefit seems to me rather unlikely.
What's betteer/cheaper? Inventing a fake gun you can enhance with sound effects*, or risk killing some one?
- it's not as if that's hard. We've all seen how they do footsteps, and door creaks and stuff. "Bang!" should be easy.
-
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
Something without a projectile?
I seem to recall holding double happys back in the day. They went bang. No projectile.
Someone clever enough to make props for a The Movies with an unlimited budget ...
Cap guns don't make the right noise. And given the cheapness of weapons in the US, expending vast sums for limited benefit seems to me rather unlikely.
What's betteer/cheaper? Inventing a fake gun you can enhance with sound effects*, or risk killing some one?
- it's not as if that's hard. We've all seen how they do footsteps, and door creaks and stuff. "Bang!" should be easy.
Yes, they only need to look at Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Who needs real horses when we have coconuts.
-
@catogrande said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@booboo said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
@kiwiwomble said in Alec Baldwin:
@antipodean as ive said, i was under the impression a prop gun was different to a real gun...hense the use of the name prop gun rather than...gun
of course they can still kill, as i have read about, but no projectile definitely makes the minimum safe distance smaller
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In order to fire blanks they need real firearms. Even blanks can kill. There is definitely a safe distance to ammunition, live or blank. Blank ammunition doesn't go very far.
At the risk of #me surely in the greater film industry in the US, with all the money involved, the could make a prop that looks like a gun, that goes bang, that doesn't fire any sort of ammunition.
What makes it go bang?
Something without a projectile?
I seem to recall holding double happys back in the day. They went bang. No projectile.
Someone clever enough to make props for a The Movies with an unlimited budget ...
Cap guns don't make the right noise. And given the cheapness of weapons in the US, expending vast sums for limited benefit seems to me rather unlikely.
What's betteer/cheaper? Inventing a fake gun you can enhance with sound effects*, or risk killing some one?
- it's not as if that's hard. We've all seen how they do footsteps, and door creaks and stuff. "Bang!" should be easy.
Yes, they only need to look at Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Who needs real horses when we have coconuts.
That is actually so true though (and possibly an origin of the joke)
So much sound is overdubbed in post-production due to the variables of live recording. I once helped on some post-prod sound on a ski movie and there was a box of bean bag balls with a couple of pieces of wood that were being used to get the right 'swoosh' sounds where they were needed.
Admittedly that was old pre-digital days and now there would be a suite of pre-recorded sound FX that you could drop in but the theory is the same.
There is no need at all for a 'bang' when filming given the tech available. A small pop would help mark the synchronizing in a long shot but that is also why clapperboards are used. -
@antipodean said in Alec Baldwin:
That should really have come with a trigger warning
(yes I shamelessly stole that joke)
-
I stand with Alec to be honest.
I’ve never worked on a film set. I don’t know how often rules are bent, swerved or broken, literally no clue.
But I do know that if you are handed a safe gun from a trusted colleague, just like you have 1,000 times before you have reason to think it’s safe.
I don’t deny the severity of this for the victims family. But I suspect it will be equal to AB.
-
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
I stand with Alec to be honest.
I’ve never worked on a film set. I don’t know how often rules are bent, swerved or broken, literally no clue.
But I do know that if you are handed a safe gun from a trusted colleague, just like you have 1,000 times before you have reason to think it’s safe.
I don’t deny the severity of this for the victims family. But I suspect it will be equal to AB.
Yeah, shit all around really.
I don't know the legal situation as to where the buck stops for H&S or how far you are expected to go to ensure that people are doing their jobs properly. What's the crossover point between responsibility and liability? -
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
But I do know that if you are handed a safe gun from a trusted colleague, just like you have 1,000 times before you have reason to think it’s safe.
The armourer should demonstrate the gun is safe or the actor should verify it themselves (they are trained on gun safety if handling a gun). They should never take someones word for it
More importantly, even if a gun is considered safe, you don't point it at someone and pull the trigger
I would wait to see what levels of negligence are involved in this case before excusing the people involved or calling for reforming the entire industry. Thousands and thousands of scenes are filmed safely why was this one different?
-
@duluth said in Alec Baldwin:
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
But I do know that if you are handed a safe gun from a trusted colleague, just like you have 1,000 times before you have reason to think it’s safe.
The armourer should demonstrate the gun is safe or the actor should verify it themselves (they are trained on gun safety if handling a gun). They should never take someones word for it
More importantly, even if a gun is considered safe, you don't point it at someone and pull the trigger
I would wait to see what levels of negligence are involved in this case before excusing the people involved or calling for reforming the entire industry. Thousands and thousands of scenes are filmed safely why was this one different?
That last sentence is literally my point.
Corners are cut in every single walk of life where familiarity is in play.
I don’t disagree guns should be different. But that’s not human nature.
-
@duluth said in Alec Baldwin:
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
But I do know that if you are handed a safe gun from a trusted colleague, just like you have 1,000 times before you have reason to think it’s safe.
More importantly, even if a gun is considered safe, you don't point it at someone and pull the trigger
I was just reading an article where they explained they were rehearsing a scene where baldwin "fires" down the lens where the director of photography and the director were standing, so it doesn't sound as if he did something wrong, or at least everyone involved was on the same page as to what was happening, he wasn't waving it around playing silly buggers
The more i read the more it sounds like there may have been several failings but the biggest being live ammo was not supposed to be on set
-
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
Corners are cut in every single walk of life where familiarity is in play.
Comments from other actors/movie sets suggest that the protocols are followed very strictly. As they should be.
If corners were cut people should be prosecuted
-
@duluth said in Alec Baldwin:
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
Corners are cut in every single walk of life where familiarity is in play.
Comments from other actors/movie sets suggest that the protocols are followed very strictly. As they should be.
If corners were cut people should be prosecuted
I think that’s also my point. I don’t believe other actors / movie set folks.
Not sure why, just don’t.
-
@majorrage said in Alec Baldwin:
Corners are cut in every single walk of life where familiarity is in play.
Agreed, but not in the area of expertise of people you hire specifically for that purpose.
I wouldn't have taken live ammunition to the site. I would've provided an inert weapon for the setup and rehearsal of the scene until the cinematographer was happy. Then loaded and provided the gun with blank ammunition in front of the actor, providing it to the actor personally, not through an intermediary and let everyone on set know he had a "hot weapon".
If the familiarity came from the actor, the deputy director etc. then that in my opinion still rests on the armourer for not having the strength of character to insist - do it properly or don't do it at all.
