Alec Baldwin Shoots and Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director

[bad_teammate 13224]

10 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The way Hollywood operates with this stuff is essentially like ignoring lock out tag out procedures and just blindly trusting that the person writing the safe work permit did everything properly. The whole system is pretty much designed to fail, and it is amazing that accidents like this aren't more common than they are now.

And yet, it basically never happens. Weird.

9 hours ago, yoladu said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents#2020s

more than you imagine

A lot fewer than I imagined, actually. Did you even read your link. All you need to do is CTRL-F "gun" and see how rare these kinds of things are.

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Jesus your middle name should be Darwin Award in waiting. Grew up hunting, and handling firearms, and never was a loaded weapon allowed in a vehicle for any reason.  Yeah that was a big safety issue whether you recognized it or not.

You're either a liar, under 40, or a city boy. Probably all 3.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And yet, it basically never happens. Weird.

A lot fewer than I imagined, actually. Did you even read your link. All you need to do is CTRL-F "gun" and see how rare these kinds of things are.

You're either a liar, under 40, or a city boy. Probably all 3.

Yeah that's a swing, AND a miss on all 3, but hey you project all you'd like.  Loaded weapons in a vehicle was a definite no always.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Why is the myth that “everyone is treating AB with kid gloves” so important to you? I mean, you’re faced with direct evidence to the contrary in multiple posts in this very thread, yet you continue to state it and restate it as if repetition will make it true…it’s fascinating to watch, really. You so desperately need and want it to be the case that you simply disregard all contrary evidence. That’s the thing we’re all staring at right now - you, acting completely delusional.

step 1: tell the lie. 
step 2: repeat the lie. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah that's a swing, AND a miss on all 3, but hey you project all you'd like.  Loaded weapons in a vehicle was a definite no always.

You knew zero people who carried a rifle or pistol in their vehicle at any time for any reason?

In your mind, every single person who carries unloads their gun every time they get in a car and reloads it when they step out of the car?

When driving a property, the gun is unloaded in the vehicle and it is only after stepping out of the vehicle the occupant pulls out magazines/ammunition and loads the weapon?

A group of guys unload their guns before putting them on the back of the mule and driving from the truck to the blind?

This is what you believe, right?

I'm not asking what you imagine best practices would be. I'm asking what you think actually happens among people who consider themselves responsible gun owners. In the real world.

lol

[Js1 85534]

23 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

step 1: tell the lie. 
step 2: repeat the lie. 

[0xdeadbeef 1652]

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah that's a swing, AND a miss on all 3, but hey you project all you'd like.  Loaded weapons in a vehicle was a definite no always.

Do you even Carry, Bro?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

47 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You knew zero people who carried a rifle or pistol in their vehicle at any time for any reason?

In your mind, every single person who carries unloads their gun every time they get in a car and reloads it when they step out of the car?

When driving a property, the gun is unloaded in the vehicle and it is only after stepping out of the vehicle the occupant pulls out magazines/ammunition and loads the weapon?

A group of guys unload their guns before putting them on the back of the mule and driving from the truck to the blind?

This is what you believe, right?

I'm not asking what you imagine best practices would be. I'm asking what you think actually happens among people who consider themselves responsible gun owners. In the real world.

lol

Can't argue with you here.

I don't keep a shell chambered ever unless I am about to shoot. But yeah, when I am driving around the ranch with my AR, the magazine is certainly attached.  If a bolt action, I have the muzzle pointed at the floorboard to my right, the bolt up, but no shell in the chamber. I have shot a lot of doe, hogs, and coyotes while driving around. Probably half the doe I have killed in my life have been while corning miles of ranch roads and making big loops in my jeep or side by side.  So not infrequently, I need to be able to quickly rack a shell.

My pistols are always loaded and holstered, but I never rack a shell unless I am about to shoot.

I check all weapons for chambered rounds every time I touch them or move them.  And once they are not in my immediate possession they go back into their case completely unloaded.  That's how I handle weapons.

 

[Parliament 14287]

A rifle in the pickup with a live round in the chamber is kinda sketch.  Now a loaded mag under an empty chamber is g2g.  That's my opinion.

That said, I have LOTS of friends who keep a round in the chamber most of the time.  More than once they'll pull the weapon out of the pickup, not check brass, and just hand it to me, with the muzzle pointing in random directions the whole time.  Drives me bonkers.

[Brisketexan 105276]

My handguns are double-action revolvers.  So if they're loaded, there's "one in the chamber."

That said, I'm a lifelong shooter.  And I have never - I mean seriously, not once in my life that I can recall - ever taken out a revolver or been handed a revolver where I did NOT pop out the cylinder to give it a look-see.  If I was an actor on set, and you handed me a revolver and said "cold gun!", I still would have popped the cylinder to look. But, I grew up around firearms.  I think about them a certain way.  A HUGE segment of America does not -- and that does not only include "I'm not a gun person" people.  There are plenty of people who have gotten into modern "gun culture," and can use the vocab and all that....but who weren't steeped in this shit since they were in diapers (like I was).

Guns are a prop for those people, too, and I've seen some of that type being WAY too cavalier about their handling.

Safe firearm handling includes training the shit out of the actors as well -- see how Keanu Reeves was trained for John Wick.  He isn't just able to ACT like he can handle a gun....he actually learned how.  In detail, intimately and personally.  Movie sets should be like that.

[HouTex 1890]

Can't argue with you here.
I don't keep a shell chambered ever unless I am about to shoot. But yeah, when I am driving around the ranch with my AR, the magazine is certainly attached.  If a bolt action, I have the muzzle pointed at the floorboard to my right, the bolt up, but no shell in the chamber. I have shot a lot of doe, hogs, and coyotes while driving around. Probably half the doe I have killed in my life have been while corning miles of ranch roads and making big loops in my jeep or side by side.  So not infrequently, I need to be able to quickly rack a shell.
My pistols are always loaded and holstered, but I never rack a shell unless I am about to shoot.
I check all weapons for chambered rounds every time I touch them or move them.  And once they are not in my immediate possession they go back into their case completely unloaded.  That's how I handle weapons.
 

This is how my father taught us how to ride the ranch with loaded guns. Never have a chambered round in a weapon will driving. Too many things can happen to the safety/trigger. All of them bad.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't keep a shell chambered ever unless I am about to shoot.

You don't, but you probably know plenty of guys who do or at least advocate doing it.

No safety + one in the pipe carriers are EVERYWHERE.

[Captainant 27727]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You don't, but you probably know plenty of guys who do or at least advocate doing it.

No safety + one in the pipe carriers are EVERYWHERE.

IMO if you're using an appropriate holster, no safety + one in the pipe is fine. A good holster isn't just gonna let go of a gun and it fully covers the trigger. To Brisket's point - any wheelgun is gonna have "one in the pipe".

But if it's just rattling around or in a car safe, it's not terribly smart to have one in the pipe.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

You don't, but you probably know plenty of guys who do or at least advocate doing it.

No safety + one in the pipe carriers are EVERYWHERE.

 

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IMO if you're using an appropriate holster, no safety + one in the pipe is fine. A good holster isn't just gonna let go of a gun and it fully covers the trigger. To Brisket's point - any wheelgun is gonna have "one in the pipe".

But if it's just rattling around or in a car safe, it's not terribly smart to have one in the pipe.

i feel like this is the shank batsignal

['stache 21844]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

My handguns are double-action revolvers.  So if they're loaded, there's "one in the chamber."

That said, I'm a lifelong shooter.  And I have never - I mean seriously, not once in my life that I can recall - ever taken out a revolver or been handed a revolver where I did NOT pop out the cylinder to give it a look-see.  If I was an actor on set, and you handed me a revolver and said "cold gun!", I still would have popped the cylinder to look. But, I grew up around firearms.  I think about them a certain way.  A HUGE segment of America does not -- and that does not only include "I'm not a gun person" people.  There are plenty of people who have gotten into modern "gun culture," and can use the vocab and all that....but who weren't steeped in this shit since they were in diapers (like I was).

Guns are a prop for those people, too, and I've seen some of that type being WAY too cavalier about their handling.

Safe firearm handling includes training the shit out of the actors as well -- see how Keanu Reeves was trained for John Wick.  He isn't just able to ACT like he can handle a gun....he actually learned how.  In detail, intimately and personally.  Movie sets should be like that.

Either way, if the actor doesn't have much experience, isn't the "armorist" (I term I think I saw in an article) completely responsible for doing "pop the cylinder" or whatever it is that is supposed to be done? Like, shouldn't the armorist do it in front of the actor, explain what they're doing, then hand it to the actor for the scene? It sounds like there is a person who is paid solely to do that job. If Baldwin really was completely in charge of all of the production, etc., he has some serious civil liability for hiring an incompetent person and continuing to shoot scenes after prior mishaps. As much as certain cloak roomers want him to go to jail or something, I'm just not seeing how anyone could stick even negligent homicide on him individually unless the armorist person literally told him they didn't know what they were doing and he was shooting it anyway.

[bad_teammate 13224]

48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IMO if you're using an appropriate holster, no safety + one in the pipe is fine.

Hey I agree. I don't do handguns, but if I did that's probably exactly how I'd run it.

[Red Five 40881]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If Baldwin really was completely in charge of all of the production, etc.

He wasn't. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If I was an actor on set, and you handed me a revolver and said "cold gun!", I still would have popped the cylinder to look.

no, you wouldn't.  you don't have that kind of agency. 

sure, maybe things differ when someone is a big star, or if there's a sloppy indie production going on - but actors don't start fucking with guns in any way when they're handed a "cold gun", regardless of ones upbringing. 

look at it the other way - let's say one of those random actors where you know his face but he's not a big deal was in a scene.  the armorer, propmaster, or first ad handed him a gun and said "cold gun" and he decided to pop open the cylinder, but instead the gun went off and plugged a gaffer or grip or pa in the leg.

the entire world would be yelling at the guy - "you hold the gun, hit your mark, and say your fucking line, you do not have any other latitude, you have no freedoms, you do what you're told."  people would be saying "do you believe this fucking guy?  so glad he got fired on the spot."  like i said earlier, if an actor does anything other than what he's told, people would be up his ass. 

i have a few actor friends including one of my best friends, and he's been in a bunch of stuff including several times where he's held and operated a prop gun.  i hear stories from him and other actors constantly about the unusual state of a film or tv set.  there was one time where a lamp interfered with him getting up and rotating around a desk - he kept bumping into it.  he tried to move it a little, and 3 different union guys stepped in and were like "you stand still, don't touch anything".  the propmaster came and handled the lamp and the gaffer and electrician came to fix the lighting and cords attached to it.  then the production designer's assistant came and made her own changes.  these stories are very common.

actors, unlike corporations, are not people.  they are props, same as the gun.

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Safe firearm handling includes training the shit out of the actors as well -- see how Keanu Reeves was trained for John Wick.  He isn't just able to ACT like he can handle a gun....he actually learned how.  In detail, intimately and personally.  Movie sets should be like that.

not everyone is keanu reeves and not every movie is john wick.  this is time-consuming, expensive, and very very rare. 

you think some random guest star robbing a bank in an episode of the rookie gets weeks of training?  

[HiggyBaby 2545]

Flipping thru CNN this morning they had some movie/theater weapons guy talking about standard protocols. The type of gun being used (one that can’t use actual bullets), the basic action of using it (the cross draw in this case), and this is what caught my attention, when being pointed at the camera, making sure nobody is behind the camera. This guys opinion was that basic links in the chain were broken.

[Js1 85534]

24 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

actors, unlike corporations, are not people.  they are props, same as the gun.

That is a great way to sum it up. 

[Cody2422 279]

20 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

i don't see what point you're making. your post, and every other argument similar to yours, is just baffling to me. if i (not an auto mechanic) take my car to the auto body repair shop and the experts there work on it, call me, and tell me it's fixed, then i take their word for it and go get my car. making sure that my car is fixed and safe to drive is their job, not mine; that's their field of expertise, not mine. if i drive my car away from the body shop and one of my tires falls off on the highway and causes a deadly wreck, whose fault is that- mine, or the expert who just gave me my car and told me that it was safe to drive? 

My point is that if someone hands me a gun and tells me it is unloaded, the first thing that I do is check to make sure it’s unloaded.  If you don’t have the basic knowledge to check to see if a gun is loaded or not, you shouldn’t be fucking pointing them at people or handling them at all.  Your comparison is stupid and your shit is all retarded.

[Cody2422 279]

I also know how to make sure this never happens again.  Let’s ban movies.  I’m only half way kidding…

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

Either way, if the actor doesn't have much experience, isn't the "armorist" (I term I think I saw in an article)

I’m talkin’ about l’armorer!

[Js1 85534]

God damn, this thread also has me agreeing with Derka.  

I need a fucking chemical shower. 

[Buzzrock 14936]

My point is that if someone hands me a gun and tells me it is unloaded, the first thing that I do is check to make sure it’s unloaded.  If you don’t have the basic knowledge to check to see if a gun is loaded or not, you shouldn’t be fucking pointing them at people or handling them at all.  Your comparison is stupid and your shit is all retarded.

Tell us you’re not an actor without telling us you’re not an actor.

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

Don’t use that tell us (blank) without telling us (blank) format.

[Red Five 40881]

2 minutes ago, MAUFRAIS said:

Don’t use that tell us (blank) without telling us (blank) format.

I'm old enough to remember when everyone wasn't saying that all the time. 

[Brisketexan 105276]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

If Baldwin really was completely in charge of all of the production, etc., he has some serious civil liability for hiring an incompetent person and continuing to shoot scenes after prior mishaps. As much as certain cloak roomers want him to go to jail or something, I'm just not seeing how anyone could stick even negligent homicide on him individually unless the armorist person literally told him they didn't know what they were doing and he was shooting it anyway.

Looking to the bolded, it comes back to his degree of knowledge/control over the set and production.  If 1) there was ample warning that the set and armorer situation was a shitshow with bad shit waiting to happen, and 2) AB had sufficient control that he could have changed that situation, then he may indeed face criminal liability.  That would be the case whether or not he's the trigger man.

In fact, it's kind of a cool law school fact-pattern question.  Him being the shooter is almost a red herring.  ANY actor could have been handed the gun and had that result happen.  If AB was just a bit player in the production, showed up that day, was handed a gun, told it was safe, and pulled the trigger as directed, he would/should face little to no liability, civil or criminal.  It is reasonable for an actor to trust an armorer.  The real wrinkle for his liability comes with his role as an executive producer, with some level of knowledge that the armorer was a dangerous fuckup.  Those facts still need to be fully developed, but again, in terms of liability, him being the trigger man is more of a coincidence than a fact of legal consequence.

[Nivek 16981]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

My handguns are double-action revolvers.  So if they're loaded, there's "one in the chamber."

That said, I'm a lifelong shooter.  And I have never - I mean seriously, not once in my life that I can recall - ever taken out a revolver or been handed a revolver where I did NOT pop out the cylinder to give it a look-see.  If I was an actor on set, and you handed me a revolver and said "cold gun!", I still would have popped the cylinder to look. But, I grew up around firearms.  I think about them a certain way.  A HUGE segment of America does not -- and that does not only include "I'm not a gun person" people.  There are plenty of people who have gotten into modern "gun culture," and can use the vocab and all that....but who weren't steeped in this shit since they were in diapers (like I was).

Guns are a prop for those people, too, and I've seen some of that type being WAY too cavalier about their handling.

Safe firearm handling includes training the shit out of the actors as well -- see how Keanu Reeves was trained for John Wick.  He isn't just able to ACT like he can handle a gun....he actually learned how.  In detail, intimately and personally.  Movie sets should be like that.

I didn't grow up with firearms yet I am fairly cautious about their deployment and storage.   I never had a single lesson.  Most gun safety is intuitive.  Keep ammo stored separately.  Keep them locked up when not in use.  Don't transport them loaded.  Load it in the deer blind, unload it there too.   Know where the damn thing is pointed.  Know what is down range, where people or animals come from.   If I am are using a new blind or one I haven't visited in a while, I scout it out first.   

Ultimately, I treat them like there is a gremlin loading guns with magic bullets.  I check them when I put them in the case.  I check them when I pull them out of the case.   

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In fact, it's kind of a cool law school fact-pattern question.  Him being the shooter is almost a red herring.  ANY actor could have been handed the gun and had that result happen.  If AB was just a bit player in the production, showed up that day, was handed a gun, told it was safe, and pulled the trigger as directed, he would/should face little to no liability, civil or criminal.  It is reasonable for an actor to trust an armorer.  The real wrinkle for his liability comes with his role as an executive producer, with some level of knowledge that the armorer was a dangerous fuckup.  Those facts still need to be fully developed, but again, in terms of liability, him being the trigger man is more of a coincidence than a fact of legal consequence.

the paper chase reboot (2023)

 

fade in:

int. harvard law school classroom - morning

persnickety law school professor charles kingsfield (60's) doesn't wait for the chatter to die down in his packed, theater-tiered classroom.

                        kingsfield

on an indie film production in new mexico...

 

[0xdeadbeef 1652]

2 hours ago, Cody2422 said:

My point is that if someone hands me a gun and tells me it is unloaded, the first thing that I do is check to make sure it’s unloaded.  If you don’t have the basic knowledge to check to see if a gun is loaded or not, you shouldn’t be fucking pointing them at people or handling them at all.  Your comparison is stupid and your shit is all retarded.

Outside of the special case of being an actor, I think everyone agrees with you. 

But if you're an actor and they handed you a gun that was supposed to be loaded with a blank or an inert round? Are you taking the round out of the chamber to inspect it?   If so, what the hell are you looking for?

This place sells "movie quality" Ammo that looks real and has an inert primer. 

https://detroitammoco.com/product/inert-50bmg-dummy-rounds/

Quote

50 BMG “Dummy” INERT rounds are all are properly sized, seated, and will chamber. New Inert primers are used for true realistic product. 

It's completely reasonable that a movie set is a special case where responsibility for the gun moves to the 'armorer' . 

[Buzzrock 14936]

Don’t use that tell us (blank) without telling us (blank) format.

Deal. Now let’s get people to stop beginning their posts with “imagine”. And we can’t shitcan “do better” while we’re at it.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, MAUFRAIS said:

Don’t use that tell us (blank) without telling us (blank) format.

eh, maybe.  but you can pry "how it started/how it's going" from my cold, dead fingers.

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

No one:

Literally no one:

Me: fine

[HornOnTheBayou 8945]

1 hour ago, MAUFRAIS said:

Don’t use that tell us (blank) without telling us (blank) format.

I was today years old when I learned people didn't like that saying.

[henrygandorf 29194]

5 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I was today years old when I learned people didn't like that saying.

it's not my favorite, but i actually (checks notes) like this one too.

[Js1 85534]

34 minutes ago, MAUFRAIS said:

No one:

Literally no one:

Me: fine

This is fine

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah um, that checks out.  

[HornOnTheBayou 8945]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

it's not my favorite, but i actually (checks notes) like this one too.

Narrator: henrygandorf did not actually check his notes.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I didn't grow up with firearms yet I am fairly cautious about their deployment and storage.   I never had a single lesson.  Most gun safety is intuitive.  Keep ammo stored separately.  Keep them locked up when not in use.  Don't transport them loaded.  Load it in the deer blind, unload it there too.   Know where the damn thing is pointed.  Know what is down range, where people or animals come from.   If I am are using a new blind or one I haven't visited in a while, I scout it out first.   

Ultimately, I treat them like there is a gremlin loading guns with magic bullets.  I check them when I put them in the case.  I check them when I pull them out of the case.   

 

Pretty much common sense if one has any of course..... It is a bit of an intuitive thing in my opinion.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Outside of the special case of being an actor, I think everyone agrees with you. 

But if you're an actor and they handed you a gun that was supposed to be loaded with a blank or an inert round? Are you taking the round out of the chamber to inspect it?   If so, what the hell are you looking for?

This place sells "movie quality" Ammo that looks real and has an inert primer. 

https://detroitammoco.com/product/inert-50bmg-dummy-rounds/

It's completely reasonable that a movie set is a special case where responsibility for the gun moves to the 'armorer' . 

Yeah fair points. Maybe I'd at least ask the armorer to show me the blanks. There's a whole protocol for making sure banks are indeed blanks.

[mchookem 16369]

i mean would an actor necessarily know what a blank looks like vs a real bullet? do they have red tips or something?

also... do we know it was a real bullet and not just a defective blank or something? the shot that killed Brandon Lee wasn't an actual live round but a misconstructed blank round, right? seems like i remember that. 

anyway... all this talk that Baldwin should have checked it himself, that the onus is ultimately on the actor... i'm just curious how he would even know what he's looking at 🤨 the whole point is that they look real for the camera.

[Guest Lobo]

everybody from moviemaking knows that blank rounds, you put two strips of blue tape around the magazine.  Hot rounds, you put reddish-orange tape around the magazines.  No matter long gun, semi-automatic, assault rifle, or handgun.  It's like some of you firearms badasses never served with the Green Berets.  like you don't even really care about weapons safety...or even America.

[Nivek 16981]

i mean would an actor necessarily know what a blank looks like vs a real bullet? do they have red tips or something?
also... do we know it was a real bullet and not just a defective blank or something? the shot that killed Brandon Lee wasn't an actual live round but a misconstructed blank round, right? seems like i remember that. 
anyway... all this talk that Baldwin should have checked it himself, that the onus is ultimately on the actor... i'm just curious how he would even know what he's looking at the whole point is that they look real for the camera.

I thought Brandon Lee was hit because they had used dummy rounds which were just bullets and a casing in which the powder was removed on the set first to get some film with the loaded gun. But one of the bullets came free from the case and was in the barrel. Then a blank (which contains half the charge of a typical cartridge) was loaded and when the actor shot at Brandon, the effect was that he was shot with a lower power bullet, but at that range and where it hit him, it wouldn’t have mattered.

[Nivek 16981]

everybody from moviemaking knows that blank rounds, you put two strips of blue tape around the magazine.  Hot rounds, you put reddish-orange tape around the magazines.  No matter long gun, semi-automatic, assault rifle, or handgun.  It's like some of you firearms badasses never served with the Green Berets.  like you don't even really care about weapons safety...or even America.

What tape do you use for clips? Periwinkle or mauve?

[Prepuce of Doom 21102]

54 minutes ago, Lobo said:

everybody from moviemaking knows that blank rounds, you put two strips of blue tape around the magazine.  Hot rounds, you put reddish-orange tape around the magazines.  No matter long gun, semi-automatic, assault rifle, or handgun.  It's like some of you firearms badasses never served with the Green Berets.  like you don't even really care about weapons safety...or even America.

I've also seen Die Hard 2.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

I've also seen Die Hard 2.

Well, I'm sorry about that Gourd...'cause then I wouldn't have to do this...

[otisdog 365]

6 hours ago, Js1 said:

That is a great way to sum it up. 

Henry knows WTF he's talking about....

[Pato del Muerto 52571]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

no, you wouldn't.  you don't have that kind of agency. 

sure, maybe things differ when someone is a big star, or if there's a sloppy indie production going on - but actors don't start fucking with guns in any way when they're handed a "cold gun", regardless of ones upbringing. 

look at it the other way - let's say one of those random actors where you know his face but he's not a big deal was in a scene.  the armorer, propmaster, or first ad handed him a gun and said "cold gun" and he decided to pop open the cylinder, but instead the gun went off and plugged a gaffer or grip or pa in the leg.

the entire world would be yelling at the guy - "you hold the gun, hit your mark, and say your fucking line, you do not have any other latitude, you have no freedoms, you do what you're told."  people would be saying "do you believe this fucking guy?  so glad he got fired on the spot."  like i said earlier, if an actor does anything other than what he's told, people would be up his ass. 

i have a few actor friends including one of my best friends, and he's been in a bunch of stuff including several times where he's held and operated a prop gun.  i hear stories from him and other actors constantly about the unusual state of a film or tv set.  there was one time where a lamp interfered with him getting up and rotating around a desk - he kept bumping into it.  he tried to move it a little, and 3 different union guys stepped in and were like "you stand still, don't touch anything".  the propmaster came and handled the lamp and the gaffer and electrician came to fix the lighting and cords attached to it.  then the production designer's assistant came and made her own changes.  these stories are very common.

actors, unlike corporations, are not people.  they are props, same as the gun.

not everyone is keanu reeves and not every movie is john wick.  this is time-consuming, expensive, and very very rare. 

you think some random guest star robbing a bank in an episode of the rookie gets weeks of training?  

I understand the point of your post here, but I’d like to make an analogy anyway and maybe you feel like hammering out a little response. 
 

If you have a part where an actor needs to drive a motorcycle, do you just tell them to get on and go?  Do you ask during casting about an actor’s ability to operate a motorcycle?  Do you let a double with the proper experience do it and use camera tricks/blocking/helmet to hide the face?  Do you get your actor lessons and get them up to speed?  Do you fake the shot with a stationary bike next to a green screen and sfx it?

I can see where this analogy doesn’t hold up, as pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger isn’t as complicated as operating a motorcycle. But I guess the overall point is that maybe if actors aren’t allowed to handle lamps, they shouldn’t be trusted to handle guns or motorcycles either.  At least not without some amount of Hollywood gun safety training.
Rubber prop guns exist for a reason.  Actual guns with the firing mechanism removed/altered to the point of inoperability also exist I assume. 

 

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

I've also seen Die Hard 2.

I wish I was with you guys for that

[henrygandorf 29194]

50 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I understand the point of your post here, but I’d like to make an analogy anyway and maybe you feel like hammering out a little response. 

If you have a part where an actor needs to drive a motorcycle, do you just tell them to get on and go?  Do you ask during casting about an actor’s ability to operate a motorcycle?  Do you let a double with the proper experience do it and use camera tricks/blocking/helmet to hide the face?  Do you get your actor lessons and get them up to speed?  Do you fake the shot with a stationary bike next to a green screen and sfx it?

the short and easy answer is - fuck no.  the stunt driver does everything.  the long answer is (1) is your name tom cruise?  if the answer is no, then fuck no.  the stunt driver does everything.  every movie/tv show is different and every actor and situation is different. 

i actually thought about motorcycles as an interesting analogy earlier.  if somebody got into a motorcycle accident, injuring him/herself and possibly others while doing 90mph on a closed movie set, would we have a bunch of weekend warriors coming in with motorcycle safety lessons?  or instead, would people stop for a minute and say, "hey, this is a movie, this is not real life, and often times the two are just not the same."

what baldwin did (and what people do every day on a movie/tv set) is not the same thing you guys are doing in your spare time.  it may look the same at times, but it isn't.

56 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

But I guess the overall point is that maybe if actors aren’t allowed to handle lamps, they shouldn’t be trusted to handle guns or motorcycles either.

my fun lamp story may have been misunderstood.  any actor could move the lamp just fine, as they probably have plenty of real life lamp moving training at home, especially if they're married.  they can move it and not hurt themselves.  but if they pull at it and a cord bubbles and another actor/crew member trips and falls on it, then there's a problem.

insurance exists for a reason, and people who work on movie sets are trained and cleared to handle certain tasks.  their unions make sure that others don't step in and fuck their shit up.  baldwin is covered by these same guidelines, because he doesn't do anything besides what he's supposed to do.  this would go for whether he was an experienced marksman or first time holding a gun.

i also find it funny that we're discussing actors shooting guns and riding motorcycles, when the reality is that most actors aren't even trusted to drive a car.