I agree, especially if real guns are being used. But what I don’t get is why in this case it would be Baldwin’s fault. If this is industry-wide practice, why was he charged?
I think the industry needs to change so that for action scenes with real weapons, everyone who touches the weapon gets basic safety and firearms training. Knowing how to hold and operate the weapon, the safety rules, how to check to make sure the weapon is clear, etc.
Baldwin’s culpability as an actor lies in how he accepted the gun from the assistant director instead of the armorer and accepted the gun without being present to observe a safety check, something which he should know not to do since he supposedly had the mandatory safety training. The assistant director is not the armorer and is unqualified to declare a gun ”safe/cold". When guns are handed out prior to filming a scene at least 3 parties are supposed to be present to observe a safety check conducted by the armorer. These are the actor, armorer, and the director/an assistant director. The armorer is the qualified expert. The actor should want to know that they’re not about to shoot someone with a real gun and real bullets. And the director/assistant director acts as a representative of the downrange cast and crew. This is supposed to be done every time a gun changes hands on set.
I thought so at first too, but the authorities didn’t go after the other five producers. They basically went after him because he fired the gun, not because of the production angle.
Halyna Hutchinson’s widower sued the producers. The settlement was reached and he’s both being compensated for her death and he’s now an executive producer of Rust. They moved filming to Montana and a lot of the original cast and crew agreed to complete the movie, but I don’t know how much more they were able to film before the actors strike.
I’m not sure what his involvement as a producer was, but I know a producer doesn’t “pay the bills”. It’s a vague enough term that it could mean he was showrunning, writing, financing. Prett much anything. It could be that he wanted the title for awards or it could be that he had many responsibilities including ensuring that the professionals involved were qualified and experienced enough for their roles - from what I remember, the armourer and some camera crew were probably not.
Sorry, I didn’t follow this case so I don’t know all the details.
It was because the gun safety practices on this particular movie set were sloppy as hell. The prosecutors argued that Baldwin ignored basic precautions on numerous occasions and that, as producer on set, he was legally liable for the shooting.
“Industry-wide practice” that goes against every firearms safety standard anywhere else. From what I remember it wasn’t even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
Wow, almost like being on a movie set isn’t like being in a fucking shooting range.
No, he was not “playing with it.” He was blocking out a scene and rehearsing. He removed the gun he was given from the holster and it fired.
He should never have been handed a live firing gun. The armorer’s responsibility is to track all firearms at all times.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
The firearm Baldwin was handed was unmodified. There was also one that had been modified to not fire anything, and another that was a resin cast replica. In other words, the entire industry is literally decades ahead of you in terms of safety and knowledge.
You do not need to ensure a firearm shoots only blanks if you just… and I can’t stress this enough… DON’T INTENTIONALLY BRING REAL AMMUNITION ONTO A FILM SET.
From what I remember it wasn’t even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
No, they were going over the scene right before filming. The shot in question was filming down the barrel of the gun, which is why it was pointed in the direction it was.
I agree, especially if real guns are being used. But what I don’t get is why in this case it would be Baldwin’s fault. If this is industry-wide practice, why was he charged?
I think the industry needs to change so that for action scenes with real weapons, everyone who touches the weapon gets basic safety and firearms training. Knowing how to hold and operate the weapon, the safety rules, how to check to make sure the weapon is clear, etc.
Baldwin’s culpability as an actor lies in how he accepted the gun from the assistant director instead of the armorer and accepted the gun without being present to observe a safety check, something which he should know not to do since he supposedly had the mandatory safety training. The assistant director is not the armorer and is unqualified to declare a gun ”safe/cold". When guns are handed out prior to filming a scene at least 3 parties are supposed to be present to observe a safety check conducted by the armorer. These are the actor, armorer, and the director/an assistant director. The armorer is the qualified expert. The actor should want to know that they’re not about to shoot someone with a real gun and real bullets. And the director/assistant director acts as a representative of the downrange cast and crew. This is supposed to be done every time a gun changes hands on set.
I thought it was because he was a producer.
I thought so at first too, but the authorities didn’t go after the other five producers. They basically went after him because he fired the gun, not because of the production angle.
Halyna Hutchinson’s widower sued the producers. The settlement was reached and he’s both being compensated for her death and he’s now an executive producer of Rust. They moved filming to Montana and a lot of the original cast and crew agreed to complete the movie, but I don’t know how much more they were able to film before the actors strike.
Because he paid the bills? IDK what a producer does other than that, but it sure as hell isn’t being in charge of the firearms.
I’m not sure what his involvement as a producer was, but I know a producer doesn’t “pay the bills”. It’s a vague enough term that it could mean he was showrunning, writing, financing. Prett much anything. It could be that he wanted the title for awards or it could be that he had many responsibilities including ensuring that the professionals involved were qualified and experienced enough for their roles - from what I remember, the armourer and some camera crew were probably not.
Sorry, I didn’t follow this case so I don’t know all the details.
It was because the gun safety practices on this particular movie set were sloppy as hell. The prosecutors argued that Baldwin ignored basic precautions on numerous occasions and that, as producer on set, he was legally liable for the shooting.
“Industry-wide practice” that goes against every firearms safety standard anywhere else. From what I remember it wasn’t even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
Wow, almost like being on a movie set isn’t like being in a fucking shooting range.
No, he was not “playing with it.” He was blocking out a scene and rehearsing. He removed the gun he was given from the holster and it fired.
He should never have been handed a live firing gun. The armorer’s responsibility is to track all firearms at all times.
The firearm Baldwin was handed was unmodified. There was also one that had been modified to not fire anything, and another that was a resin cast replica. In other words, the entire industry is literally decades ahead of you in terms of safety and knowledge.
You do not need to ensure a firearm shoots only blanks if you just… and I can’t stress this enough… DON’T INTENTIONALLY BRING REAL AMMUNITION ONTO A FILM SET.
Which the armorer did.
No, they were going over the scene right before filming. The shot in question was filming down the barrel of the gun, which is why it was pointed in the direction it was.