-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Who set up Alec Boldwin
- Thread starter GOVA
- Start date
Tam
Well-Known Member
Some press includes the word "rare" in reporting fatal prop gun accidents.
That kind of attitude fosters risky behaviors, not just in fatal prop gun accidents only but also in anti-government covid-19 mandates.
The industry should have learned after the 1993 fatal prop gun accident that killed actor Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee). His family just tweeted:
"No one should ever be killed by a gun on a film set. Period."
Some simple practices would prevent this kind of death:
1) Prop Guns should never be able to fire live ammunition. Lots of film sets are still using dual-purpose prop guns: they can fire both real bullets and blanks.
2) Ban real guns on film sets: Visual Effects (VFX) is so advanced now, there's no need for a real gun.
Remember when Assistant Director Dave Halls yelled out "Cold Gun" before handing it off to Alec Baldwin?
Most press says that means "safe" but few would explain why it's safe: "Cold Gun" means there's nothing in that gun that could heat it up such as burning, exploding: No real bullet, no blanks, no gun powder...
Better use in this instance should be the use of a plastic gun, a nonfunctional gun, not a dual-purpose gun that can use any kind of combustion/explosion either from real or blanks.
Lots of guns and shooting sequences in 1977 Star Wars and those are cold guns that could not fire any real or blanks at all.
3) Multiple people check for each prop gun: There should be multiple layers to pass before a prop gun can be used on the set. It's inappropriate for a non-specialist Assistant Director to yell out "Cold Gun". That should be the job of a licensed Armorer.
Because of the perception of "rare", management ignored the warnings according to the Los Angeles Times:
"Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.
“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”"
My observation is: In this richest country in the world, as seen by the numbers of deaths of Covid-19 and "rare" few deaths of fatal prop gun accidents, the society seems to choose risky behaviors at the expense of human lives, no matter how few or many.
Last edited:
Note that this is not "moderation content" in any way, its just a person posting a personal opinion.
I am always really confused by stuff like this, posted HERE. What makes someone read an article about a gun accident on a movie set, and think "I know, I am going to post this on Tesla Motors Club so we can discuss it".
There has to be other places on the internet that are more appropriate places to discuss a gun accident than tesla motors club. So, OP, what makes TMC a place to discuss this, even in the off topic section, other than the fact that "its a big website", and "I posted it in the off topic section"?
I am always really confused by stuff like this, posted HERE. What makes someone read an article about a gun accident on a movie set, and think "I know, I am going to post this on Tesla Motors Club so we can discuss it".
There has to be other places on the internet that are more appropriate places to discuss a gun accident than tesla motors club. So, OP, what makes TMC a place to discuss this, even in the off topic section, other than the fact that "its a big website", and "I posted it in the off topic section"?
@jjrandorin
This is quite simple really. This forum is very specific in a way that it gathers multitude of users from different countries spanning several age groups and professions among other things.
An 'Off Topic' part of this domain deals with multitudes of NON-TESLA related subjects. I was hoping to get different takes from those people on this accident. For instance, I have already found @Tam 's post fascinating.
I find your question weird and out of place, no offense. So, what's next @jjrandorin ? You'll be questioning soap quality or bungie jumping topic discussions in Off Topic? Well, you can, that's for sure.
Now, as a long time member here, let me ask you - where would you discuss it? AND, please do not suggest Twitter, FB?
Curious. Especially curious why this makes you confused. BTW, I am perfectly happy to delete this if any of TMC members and especially mods in personal mode get confused and have to question it.
Hope this helps.
This is quite simple really. This forum is very specific in a way that it gathers multitude of users from different countries spanning several age groups and professions among other things.
An 'Off Topic' part of this domain deals with multitudes of NON-TESLA related subjects. I was hoping to get different takes from those people on this accident. For instance, I have already found @Tam 's post fascinating.
I find your question weird and out of place, no offense. So, what's next @jjrandorin ? You'll be questioning soap quality or bungie jumping topic discussions in Off Topic? Well, you can, that's for sure.
Now, as a long time member here, let me ask you - where would you discuss it? AND, please do not suggest Twitter, FB?
Curious. Especially curious why this makes you confused. BTW, I am perfectly happy to delete this if any of TMC members and especially mods in personal mode get confused and have to question it.
Hope this helps.
I have no idea really, because I am not into that kind of "news" but "Tesla motors club" is a really strange place to discuss gun accidents on movie sets. If this post was about bungie jumping or soap quality, unless they involved a car or tesla in some way I would have the same confusion.
Your answer basically boils down to "its a large website with a bunch of people".
I also thought I was pretty clear that my question wasnt moderation content (it was the first line in my post in fact). I dont see whats so out of place about wondering about posts about accidental gun death on a movie set on a car website, though.
I guess I should also say that, I considered this from a moderation perspective, and since this is posted in the off topic section and doesnt break any rules, was not something that should be moved / deleted from a moderation perspective.
As for where is more appropriate? Any place online that has a primary function of discussing movie sets, actors, gun violence or ownership, etc.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
It's very much applicable to Tesla because of the risky attitudes that many Tesla owners might exhibit.
Just because statistically Tesla Autopilot/FSD fatalities don't happen that much often, it's quite rare really, so people might be emboldened and not follow Tesla owner's manual:
Tesla owner keeps using Autopilot from backseat—even after being arrested
Autopilot requires hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.
mashable.com
@jjrandorin
It looks like you expect to discuss Tesla ONLY related matters in Off Topic. I don't think it is a good take on this.
I am not going to polemize any longer here if 'confusing' matters should be discussed in Off Topic sections of any forums.
The only solution I see is to rename this section to 'Tesla Related Off Topic' Problem solved.
I feel like you really want to bend this your way. You call it "strange" and "confusing" to discuss Tesla Off Topic matter in Tesla Off Topic forum.
It looks like you expect to discuss Tesla ONLY related matters in Off Topic. I don't think it is a good take on this.
I am not going to polemize any longer here if 'confusing' matters should be discussed in Off Topic sections of any forums.
The only solution I see is to rename this section to 'Tesla Related Off Topic' Problem solved.
I feel like you really want to bend this your way. You call it "strange" and "confusing" to discuss Tesla Off Topic matter in Tesla Off Topic forum.
Perhaps you missed that I specifically addressed this from a moderation perspective, already?
I value the information posted in off topic. Sometimes it can be of no interest. In this case I find the value immense. Sometimes rational non media thought is what some people crave. Face it. This subset of the population (TMC Members) have in the past usually risen above the fray and discussed topics that are wide ranging, and of a much higher level of intellect than the general public.
So, this makes sense to me, thanks for the response.
I just wanted to be clear one more time (even though I said it a couple times already), that I was not asking because I was going to remove the post or something. I just didnt get why there would be a desire to discuss something like this, here.
The above answer makes a lot of sense to me, though.
Insurers could bring about a pretty quick change to these types of situations. I know some might want laws and regulations. Those take time. Almost all but the most independent productions have to purchase insurance of some sort.
Simple, but I am sure nothing is. Insurers could write into policies about prop guns. Live round fireable weapons void insurance, and potential reinsurance. Almost making the use non existent on set, and work to be done in post. I mean if Tom Cruise had to hear every round in Mission Impossible he would be deaf by now.
Was he set up?
If one reads accounts. Sure seems like there was some sort of issues or disgruntled parties on the set. Yet I can't imagine putting a live round in for that.
Reading that the particular gun was used for target practice off set. (Again reading some not so great journalistic websites on that) That just leads to mishaps.
Never been in that world of set's, but if I was armorer. I would carry those items like the nuclear football. Never out of my sight, and always under lock and key.
Was Alec Baldwin personally set up? I don't think so. Maybe the production as a whole, which he was producer. Would also have to see who else used the props, and other guns. Just him using that one, or others.
Simple, but I am sure nothing is. Insurers could write into policies about prop guns. Live round fireable weapons void insurance, and potential reinsurance. Almost making the use non existent on set, and work to be done in post. I mean if Tom Cruise had to hear every round in Mission Impossible he would be deaf by now.
Was he set up?
If one reads accounts. Sure seems like there was some sort of issues or disgruntled parties on the set. Yet I can't imagine putting a live round in for that.
Reading that the particular gun was used for target practice off set. (Again reading some not so great journalistic websites on that) That just leads to mishaps.
Never been in that world of set's, but if I was armorer. I would carry those items like the nuclear football. Never out of my sight, and always under lock and key.
Was Alec Baldwin personally set up? I don't think so. Maybe the production as a whole, which he was producer. Would also have to see who else used the props, and other guns. Just him using that one, or others.
I know very little about guns. But I do know this, which was drilled into me as a kid:
1. When somebody hands you a gun and says it's unloaded, you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS assume it is LOADED!!! Every gun is loaded with live rounds until you YOURSELF open it up and make sure there are no bullets, including in the chamber.
2. You NEVER EVER EVER point a gun, loaded or "unloaded" at anything you do not intend to shoot.
I am going to assume this was incompetence or negligence, not an intentional incident, but I regard it as criminal negligence and at the very least, the person who took the gun off the prop rack and shouted "Cold gun" without personally checking it, and Baldwin himself, who accepted it and fired it without checking it, are criminally negligent. If the gun was somehow tagged "cold" or placed in a portion of the prop rack clearly designated "cold" then whoever put it there or tagged it is also criminally negligent.
My step-father used to tell me that most accidental shootings are done with "unloaded" guns, by which he meant guns the person firing them thought were unloaded. Guns, like cars, are very easy to kill someone with by accident, for which reason both need to be treated with special care, observing strict safety practices while handling.
1. When somebody hands you a gun and says it's unloaded, you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS assume it is LOADED!!! Every gun is loaded with live rounds until you YOURSELF open it up and make sure there are no bullets, including in the chamber.
2. You NEVER EVER EVER point a gun, loaded or "unloaded" at anything you do not intend to shoot.
I am going to assume this was incompetence or negligence, not an intentional incident, but I regard it as criminal negligence and at the very least, the person who took the gun off the prop rack and shouted "Cold gun" without personally checking it, and Baldwin himself, who accepted it and fired it without checking it, are criminally negligent. If the gun was somehow tagged "cold" or placed in a portion of the prop rack clearly designated "cold" then whoever put it there or tagged it is also criminally negligent.
My step-father used to tell me that most accidental shootings are done with "unloaded" guns, by which he meant guns the person firing them thought were unloaded. Guns, like cars, are very easy to kill someone with by accident, for which reason both need to be treated with special care, observing strict safety practices while handling.
Exactly. I was going to mention the same. I also learned as a kid from my father the basic rules you state above.
(1) Never point a gun at something you don't want to kill, and
(2) Always assume a gun is loaded.
I think as our society becomes more anti-gun we also are losing the basic knowledge of safe handling. Anyone who has ever hunted or trained with firearms would have known this, and would have personally inspected the weapon and not have pointed directly at someone "just in case".
For the rest of us, yes, plastic guns would be better. Guns are not toys. Guns are not props. No one can declare a gun "safe" for someone else.
Atari2600
Active Member
Or at least, when somebody hands them a gun and says that it's cold, they should say "Are you certain it's cold? Can I point this gun at you and shoot?
You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk??"
Tam
Well-Known Member
This scene was to film the gun straight on and make the audience feels as if the gun was pointing directly at them.
That means Baldwin had to point the gun at the camera.
And to set up the camera correctly, the director of photography, as well as the director, were both at the camera to make sure the camera setup was correct.
That meant when Baldwin pointed at the camera, he was actually pointing at the two people behind the camera.
I guess there's a technological solution for this setup: robotized cameras and remote control/viewing so Baldwin could freely point at the camera with no one behind it.
The problem with this filming was: It's a low budget. So low that the crew used the same guns to entertain themselves with "plinking" or target practice with objects like beer cans.
A prop gun that can both shoot real bullets and blanks is asking for trouble. There are prop guns that can never be fitted with real bullets to prevent this kind of accident.
Maybe because of money so they might have preferred multi-purpose guns that work both for plinking and filming just hours apart.
Gun in Rust killing reportedly used for shooting beer cans earlier in day
The gun that was fired in the Thursday death of 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust was reportedly used for live ammunition practice the morning of the shooting.
If they really could not afford to use guns that cannot shoot (either bullets or blanks - since blanks at close range can kill or injure someone) then that's even more reason why every single person who handles any gun needs to personally inspect it. If the filming schedule is so tight that they don't have time for that, then they should not be making the movie at all.
And now another point. As I and others have noted above, you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. That means that a writer or director should never include a scene where a gun is pointed directly at the camera unless they have a camera that can be operated from somewhere out of the line of fire, or there's no gun used at all and it's painted in in post-production.
And now another point. As I and others have noted above, you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. That means that a writer or director should never include a scene where a gun is pointed directly at the camera unless they have a camera that can be operated from somewhere out of the line of fire, or there's no gun used at all and it's painted in in post-production.
