Uh, Alec Baldwin just shot and killed someone

[Morley]

eta: canpakes is definitely using the cultist as a set-up man.

And Canpakes is incredible with it.

[Cultellus]

Wombat. Definitely a wombat.

[Res Ipsa]

Sometimes I wonder about you, man. He’s trolling the LiBeRaLs on the board by taking on the veneer of leftist rhetoric and arguing it to absurdity. He’s mocking you by acting like a literally stupid Leftist. It’d be akin to me talking about, say, wearing my Desert Eagle to the minimart for my morning coffee because you never know when a BLM protestor might go too far because they burn down car dealerships. And then when people take the bait I just start inserting stupid Conservative talking points by taking them to ridiculous conclusions. You’re a smart guy, no doubt about that, but if you could take half your rage genes and convert them into humor genes you might save yourself from the inevitable aneurysm coming your way.

- Doc

I see no correlation with "leftist rhetoric" but even if this is true then you need to preach to Res Ipsa who apparently takes him seriously on this issue since he's written more in response. I've just dismissed him as a moron, whether he thinks he's being a successful troll or not. If you think this is "funny" then yeah, we have different humor genes or whatever. I think it is stupid. I mean six F'ing pages already and this doesn't even scratch the surface of his hundreds of similar posts many of which he's deleted.

The difference is, Cultellus doesn’t get under my skin. At all. When I argue with him, it’s because I want to make a point and Cam is correct — I generally use him as a foil.

You, however, let him get under your skin and use him as an excuse to vent your spleen. Why do you care that this thread is six pages long? Are pixels in short supply? Are we running out of space on the server?

People post what they want to post. That’s part and parcel of a venue that values free speech. If a thread doesn’t interest you, stop reading it and don’t post in it.

But for heavens sake, don’t claim that your thin skinned rage has anything to do with me.

[Res Ipsa]

[Jersey Girl]

When I argue with him, it’s because I want to make a point and Cam is correct — I generally use him as a foil.

Which is exactly why I said that the reader wins.

[Jersey Girl]

The care, maintenance, and preparation of weapons on the set is the responsibility of an armorer. The AD, I believe it was, handed Baldwin the weapon (from a collection of 3) and yelled "cold gun", which I assume was the appropriate protocol on this movie set. But I don't know if the procedures are written and standard throughout the industry.

I think this makes the case for eliminating the actual firing of guns on a movie set. Special effects can take care of the job quite nicely. Even so, you would still need safety protocols in place to ensure that the empty weapons are actually empty and haven't been replaced by a vindictive psycho in the chain of responsibility.

I’ve seen CGI muzzle flashes that made an otherwise professional looking production look like crap. Maybe it’s gotten better.

According to the articles I’ve read, exactly three people have been killed by guns on movie sets. One of them Was a guy who put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. How many times have guns been fired as part of making movies? I suspect that’s an accident/death rate that is lower than lots of other professions. I’d wager that it’sa death rate lower than other types of gun accidents, like in hunting or home defense.

Movie making involves a ton of differently types of risk. The industry does a lot in terms of risk reduction. But it’s never going to be perfect. The risk of accidental death for movie personnel from gunfire is likely orders of magnitude less than the risk of death from driving to the set.

I think the production company absolutely needs to investigate and figure out why this happened. If the safety procedures were in fact followed, then they should look at strengthening those procedures. If they weren’t, those responsible should be fired and, if appropriate, prosecuted criminally. But I wouldn’t call for eliminating firing of guns on movie sets based on an extremely small risk of harm.

I don't know about the quality of CGI effects involving gunfire. I rarely watch films with violent content.

There has got to be protocols already in place. Example, if one is filming (not rehearsing) the area would be cleared for a hot gun to be fired. Why not simply clear the area every single time regardless if rehearsing with a presumably cold gun or filming with a hot gun?

Seems to me, that would solve something without compromising the authenticity of the production. If the shooter is shooting at a person, that can easily be taken care of using editing.

[Lem]

Well geez, if I'd known there were going to be prizes I would have stayed in the game longer.

[Jersey Girl]

Here's a recently updated article from CNN that covers what we've been discussing here. Procedures, included.

Crew member yelled 'cold gun' as he handed Alec Baldwin prop weapon, court document shows
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/entertai ... index.html

[Lem]

I’ve seen CGI muzzle flashes that made an otherwise professional looking production look like crap. Maybe it’s gotten better.

According to the articles I’ve read, exactly three people have been killed by guns on movie sets. One of them Was a guy who put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. How many times have guns been fired as part of making movies? I suspect that’s an accident/death rate that is lower than lots of other professions. I’d wager that it’sa death rate lower than other types of gun accidents, like in hunting or home defense.

Movie making involves a ton of differently types of risk. The industry does a lot in terms of risk reduction. But it’s never going to be perfect. The risk of accidental death for movie personnel from gunfire is likely orders of magnitude less than the risk of death from driving to the set.

I think the production company absolutely needs to investigate and figure out why this happened. If the safety procedures were in fact followed, then they should look at strengthening those procedures. If they weren’t, those responsible should be fired and, if appropriate, prosecuted criminally. But I wouldn’t call for eliminating firing of guns on movie sets based on an extremely small risk of harm.

I don't know about the quality of CGI effects involving gunfire. I rarely watch films with violent content.

There has got to be protocols already in place. Example, if one is filming (not rehearsing) the area would be cleared for a hot gun to be fired. Why not simply clear the area every single time regardless if rehearsing with a presumably cold gun or filming with a hot gun?

Seems to me, that would solve something without compromising the authenticity of the production. If the shooter is shooting at a person, that can easily be taken care of using editing.

It seems there were, but the Union crew either walked off or got fired right before this happened. Three accidental discharges had already happened, according to an email, so there were already concerns.

When I was shooting in (very low level) competitions, there were layers and layers upon interminable layers of safety rules and procedures, and always one guy standing behind the competition line whose job was solely to make sure every layer of rules was followed to the T. Like a couple of guys mentioned above, the consequences for even looking like you might be accidentally bending a single rule were swift and LOUD.

I mention this because it was drummed into me that no matter how careful a person intends to be, mistakes are inevitable and the layers of redundancies were there to catch that if possible, or at least minimize the consequences. It was possibly the most disciplined type of competition I ever engaged in.

I'm guessing that losing the Union crew and bringing in new people who maybe weren't familiar with each other and the ongoing situation, plus the low budget situation resulted in a bunch of little minor errors, none really all that serious, that added up to the tragic end result.

[drumdude]

The armorer was a 24 year old woman who only got the job because her father was well respected in the industry. This was only her second film. She gave a podcast interview recently saying she felt unprepared.

Cast claim that there were multiple accidental discharges before this tragedy. And the news reports that there was a LIVE round, not a BLANK which killed and injured the crew. There is zero reason for a live round to be brought on set. That this happened is in itself criminal.

Ultimately I think this will land on the armorer, and she will likely offer some sort of excuse, like the producers forced her to abandon safety protocol in the name of saving time/money or something similar.