My uncle on my Mom's side and my aunt (his wife) were both actors in the '50s and '60s. They acted in roles that required the use of firearms.

My uncle, Scott McKay, did a lot of minor support roles in war movies and westerns. My aunt was Ann Sheridan.

They both described the tight rules the armorers had for actors who used guns. The rules were so tight that only the actors who were actually supposed to fire their weapons had any ammunition. Any ammunition that was used was checked by at least two armorers. As soon as a scene was shot, everybody's guns were unloaded. And those rules just scratched the surface.

At the time my aunt was doing the short-lived CBS Western comedy Pistols 'n Petticoats, the network had no fewer than six Westerns going, plus another five or six police/detective shows. Their armorers were busy, and they were extremely good.

In this case, somebody screwed up royally. All fingers should point to the armorers unless proven otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by gpbst3:
As much as I hate Baldwin I cannot fault him for this mistake.

I can. I can fault him and I can condemn him for his hypocrisy. Why was he handling guns at all? I'll tell you why- it's because he's a hypocrite. The same goes for Liam Neeson, Danny Glover and the rest of the smug, ignorant, hypocritical bunch who decry legal ownership of firearms, yet profit handsomely from portraying gun use in film.

Oh, poor, poor Alec. Nope. Not a freakin' chance.

Damn; I was about to write pretty much the exact same thing. You accurately named the top three frauds… No empathy whatsoever for those fucks.

I can find 3 areas of potential fault, subject to additional facts.

1. Were they between takes and he was fucking around with the gun? If so that's on him and secondarily on the armorers.

2. Was it a scene were he was supposed to fire the gun towards the camera and that's how they were shot? If so, that's not on him.

3. For all of his anti-gun rhetoric, he shouldn't be making movies with guns. It's inconsistent with his public views unless he wants us believe there's a public and private Alec.

I'm not going to assume anything . I have my doubts that it was a live round . I hope they report what actually took place and don't try and smooth it over as some kind of " unfortunate incident " .
And yes , I agree Baldwin is a major hypocrite for profiting by the very things he condemns . But that's most of Hollywood anyway .

quote:

Originally posted by Oaklane:
I am remorse for the families of the 2 that were injured and killed. I have zero sympathy for Baldwin. He a vial hateful person and I’m sure with try and place the blame on anyone but himself.

Exactly.

Silent

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Everytime you pick up a firearm, you check it for safe.
Everytime.

Not me. I know that certain guns are loaded. I keep them that way. But it doesn't matter. I don't point guns at others (but all police officers do). None of us should play with the guns, loaded or checked for loaded. Guns aren't toys, only assholes do things like that.

quote:

My aunt was Ann Sheridan.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I enjoy her films on TCM.

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
But that's most of Hollywood anyway .

That's the point, and that's exactly the point that's going to have to be made when those hypocrites try to deflect attention from a failure in their industry by trying to make the conversation about banning guns for people in general.

That, in turn, is because the very next words that will come out of Hollywood's apologists' mouths will be "but you have to keep letting Hollywood have access to all the guns they want and make all the movies involving using guns to shoot people they want because the ability of hard-working movie professionals to earn a living is at stake". Not to earn the millions for themselves and investors that they do by using guns in movies, mind you, but the ability of hard-working professionals to earn a living.

The idea is to insist and reiterate that Hollywood had, and has, the same responsibility that any private person has - don't do anything stupid with a gun. To defend the Second Amendment rights of everyone outside of Hollywood, it's going to be necessary to insist that Hollywood take responsibility for its own failure within its own industry.

After all, they deliberately set out to make money by using a gun and did so within an environment that Hollywood completely controlled. They are, at least notionally, professionals. No one else could have prevented this from happening.

Does anybody want to watch a Western "starring" Alec Baldwin? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

What I would like to know is if a camera was rolling when this happened. With all the extra features on DVDs and cell phones I would be think something would have been recorded. If what they claimed is true what was a live round doing on set to began with.

My understanding was that when blank ammunition was to be fired on set that the firearm was not ever actually pointed at a person--the camera angle was set up to just make it look that way. Why was this not done?

flashguy

There's a prop master on set, so 100% on the prop master if the prop is unsafe.

There's a union for it, meaning that job responsibilities (and liabilities) are clearly delineated.

In this context, the prop master (and only the prop master) is responsible for all the props.

Pretend you are the prop master on set. You hand an actor a prop that you've personally set up for a shot. Would you want the actor finger fucking the prop and it's settings? No. You are responsible for the prop, so nobody is to manipulate the prop as after it leaves your hands. In this instance, with injuries on the line and your reputation and livelihood at risk, you absolutely would not want an actor to open up and weapon and "check" if it's "loaded"--from your perspective as a prop master, that is just opening you up to be liable for someone else's mistakes. What if a loaded round gets in AFTER you made it safe because some actor was fucking around with the gun? So no, the rule is nobody touches the props but you. It's probably in the union contract.

Similarly, the union carpenter isn't going to touch the union electrical work on set.

Besides, it's a movie. The guns are to appear loaded and go bang like a real gun. How is an actor supposed to handle that after a prop master hands him a gun that's loaded with blanks?

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Why was this not done?

flashguy

Despite all the commentary here, no one knows what really happened, except that two people were shot (or struck), one is dead, and Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
My understanding was that when blank ammunition was to be fired on set that the firearm was not ever actually pointed at a person--the camera angle was set up to just make it look that way. Why was this not done?

flashguy

We don't know if a person was actually struck by a projectile.

For all we know, the actor was instructed to shoot at a camera, and 2 bystanders we're struck by shrapnel from the camera, (one fatally).

quote:

For all we know, the actor was instructed to shoot at a camera, and 2 bystanders we're struck by shrapnel from the camera, (one fatally).

This reminds me of when 3D was the big thing, and I think it is in Hondo that John Wayne sticks a rifle right at the camera lens. Of course, he was infinitely more prepared to handle a firearm than arguably one of my least favorite actors who is in the center of this mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Despite all the commentary here, no one knows what really happened, except that two people were shot (or struck), one is dead, and Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.

and who loaded the firearm with a live round...

Unless whomever loaded the rounds and supplied them put a live round into what should have been a blank.

What pisses me off the most about this: How the media is pulling the whole "the gun discharged" because he's liberal, but if he was a conservative it would be "He shot the crew."

Every single headline I've seen has been all about how "The gun went off" and not that what happened must have been a monumental screwup that someone is at major fault for. However had it been any circumstance where it wasn't a leftist pulling the trigger, they wouldn't be using all the weasel words to take away all the blame.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't know Alec, why don't you tell us. Given his fits of rage in public the answer to what happened on set will be interesting.

Well, Alec, how DOES it feel?

Lots of speculation...

Here is the blurb about Brandon Lee being killed on the set of the Crow. They had used real ammo without a powder charge for some close up shots, and somehow, a squib load occured, and then they loaded blanks... and the rest is history.


"On March 31, 1993, Lee was filming a scene in The Crow where his character is shot and killed by thugs.[97] In the scene, Lee's character walks into his apartment and discovers his fiancée being beaten and raped, and a thug played by actor Michael Massee fires a Smith & Wesson Model 629 .44 Magnum revolver at Lee's character as he walks into the room.[98]

In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun, which was a real revolver, was loaded with improperly-made dummy rounds, cartridges from which the special-effects crew had removed the powder charges so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunition. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges. At some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired; although there was no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck (a condition known as a squib load). For the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 ft), the dummy cartridges were replaced with blank rounds, which contained a powder charge and the primer, but no solid bullet, allowing the gun to be fired with sound and flash effects without the risk of an actual projectile. However, the gun was not properly checked and cleared before the blank round was fired, and the dummy bullet previously lodged in the barrel was then propelled forward by the blank and shot out the muzzle with almost the same force as if the round were live, striking Lee in the abdomen."

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Despite all the commentary here, no one knows what really happened, except that two people were shot (or struck), one is dead, and Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.

and who loaded the firearm with a live round...

Unless whomever loaded the rounds and supplied them put a live round into what should have been a blank.

You don't know anything of the kind.

I don't like Baldwin one little bit. But we know almost nothing about this incident at the moment.