Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

why does anyone ever put live rounds in guns on set?

When I was an actor in college, I worked with dangerous props on a few occasions. We had one particular revolver that was used in a couple of on-stage and off-stage shootings over the course of the various plays. Although the gun was always loaded with  blanks, someone familiar with guns would always open a training by shooting a piece of paper at close range, and then showing the paper to the cast and crew. Given how close the range was, there were always closely-bunched tiny holes in the paper.

 

The message was clear. Whatever you load into a gun for stage or screen work, it is always dangerous. Needless to say, I was never cast in a role where I would need to touch the gun, much less pull the trigger. For sall I know, theya re using the same gun nearly forty years later.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmjalund said:

why does anyone ever put live rounds in guns on set?

 

They shouldn't. 

 

Quote

Hollywood weapons expert Larry Zanoff said that when firearms are used as props in the television and movie industry only blanks — cartridges that do not hold bullets — are allowed on set.

Even so, there is a minimum safety distance of 20 feet in front of the muzzle because even with a blank, smoke and burning embers can get propelled out of the gun, he said.

“There should be nothing in front of it when filming is occurring with firearms,” Zanoff said.

The weapons should also be inspected before and after each scene, and there should be a safety briefing as part of the protocol, he added.

“We have a series of guidelines in the industry that govern the use of blank firearms and ammunition on set,” he said. “So my question is, of course, firstly, was that protocol followed?”

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alec-baldwin-shoots-prop-gun-killing-1-injuring-another-set-n1282126

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dmjalund said:

why does anyone ever put live rounds in guns on set?

 

AIUI "live round" in Hollywood means any round with powder in it, including blanks, as opposed to what it means... everywhere else, which is a round with both powder and projectile.

 

It sounds as though there were all manner of safety problems with this production in the first place, as well as an attempt to replace the union film crew with nonunion people.  Film productions have been militant about prop gun safety ever since Brandon Lee, so a lot of people had to screw up for something like this to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of you probably don't remember Jon Eric Hexum...for good reason.  Very short career.  Pretty boy, athletic (major college football), model-actor.  One of the principals in a Charlie's Angels style show.  You likely never heard of the show;  this was 1984...and while filming the 7th episode, Hexum was goofing around with a prop gun loaded with blanks, and killed himself.  

 

I agree, it certainly sounds like quite a few people messed up;  the production companies *have to be* militant about this.  Financially?  This project can't continue, one would not think.  Obviously, the cast and crew...and for now, while Baldwin might've been an idiot for playing with the gun in the first place, I side more on the tragic (albeit potentially negligent) accident more than anything.  But this movie couldn't be released without reminding EVERYONE of the events.  So all the money spent so far....whoosh!!!  Gone.  Professionally, the prop manager's career might be over as well.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

At this point, why even use blanks? Why not just add the smoke, sound, etc. in post production?

 

That happens a lot actually.  I see a lot of fairly high budget films where the muzzle flash is obviously added in post.  The last film I remember seeing this in was Army of the Dead, the Dave Bautista postapocalyptic zombie heist Aliens ripoff.   It looks the same from film to film so it might literally be some kind of Final Cut Pro plugin, like the one YouTubers use to post lightsaber duels.

 

We're gradually getting more information.  This L.A. Times article noted that there were at least two accidental firearm discharges on set in the days leading up to the shooting.  People are going to jail for this one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

We're gradually getting more information.  This L.A. Times article noted that there were at least two accidental firearm discharges on set in the days leading up to the shooting.  People are going to jail for this one.

 

 

Ohhh boy....from that article...

 

Quote

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.

 

Jail time might not be on the table yet, but serious charges absolutely are.  Not sure of the exact charge but something like "reckless negligence resulting in death" frames the incident fairly well, I would say.  Whether anyone goes to jail is somewhat separate.  What's the past history, is this a one-off or is there pattern and practice?  The production company is going to be crucified in civil court;  the career of the woman who died was really taking off, so her future earnings would be substantial.  That's before we get into the *massive* pain and suffering damages.  If safely procedures aren't followed, the production company's got no defense, I'm pretty sure.  Even without that, the company is responsible for mitigating the KNOWN danger...the moreso because the actors *might not* know that a gun with blanks is still a potentially lethal instrument.  I think the law would hold the company to a higher standard in ensuring that such an incident did not happen.  If there were shots from a supposedly unloaded gun days before??  Oh man.  

 

But that's on the civil liabilities side.  The criminal side...yeah, I think there will be charges, but as said, I'm not sure there will be jail time.  I'd even say that there won't be trials here, because there won't be much of a defense...depending on who's charged with what, of course.  BUT, pleading guilty to reckless endangerment or somesuch, *guarantees* that there'd be no leg to stand on, come the civil suit.  On the flip side there...the props guys feel like they'll be the most likely to be charged, and they aren't necessarily beholden to the production company.  They could well take a plea deal.  Part of that is commonly the allocution...the statement of what happened.  THAT will bury the production company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pariah said:

At this point, why even use blanks? Why not just add the smoke, sound, etc. in post production?

 

Probably because the blanks will cause the same subconscious reactions in actors as a live round would, adding to the verisimilitude of the scene. Just a guess.

 

 

5 hours ago, Old Man said:

AIUI "live round" in Hollywood means any round with powder in it, including blanks, as opposed to what it means... everywhere else, which is a round with both powder and projectile.

 

It appears only one shot was fired, killing one person and seriously injuring another. Probably an actual live round in this case. Which should not be within a mile of a movie set using prop guns.

 

Big civil suit incoming. Hopefully puts the idiot production company out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LA Times story cited, did say a projectile;  the cinematographer was winged (makes me thing, REALLY bad luck...probably got a major blood vessel?) and the other person also hit, IIRC.  So yes, it does sound like a live round, and yes, there's no bloody freaking way live rounds should be in the staging area, much less loaded into a prop gun.  This factor could be the clincher for jail time for the props people.

 

And yes, I think the production company has no prayer of surviving.  Their insurance company will very likely refuse to pay any claims from this...and the layer upon layer upon layer of GROSS!!!!!! screwups, from what's being reported, should be more than sufficient grounds.  So the...what, 8 digit wrongful death claim...maybe 9 digit?  That'll come out of the production company, but by the same token, they've got no assets.  Whether the company partners can be held liable as individuals will be a separate point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be a major blood vessel, could be bone chips shattered off and gone through something vital, might even just be shock effects leading to death. There is nowhere in the human body that isn't a potentially lethal wound.

As to using real guns, props don't behave the same way. A guy back in the 1970s created a gun prop that made a bang noise but projected nothing - and no one would use it because the results did not look realistic enough. Many Hollywood guns have their chambers altered so that a live round can't be inserted, but even that is rare. Directors want realistic heft and recoil and muzzle blast - which is made all the more absurd when their bullet impact events are in fact ridiculously fantastic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

The weird thing is that the certification was voluntary.

 

Well, not entirely. Paizo is facing a lot of legal trouble and horrible PR relating to stories from their employees and former employees. They didn't have many moves left to them if they wanted to remain a viable company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cygnia said:

 

Yeah, I just saw this.  The details are pretty ugly, if they can be substantiated.  It brings up a question, tho:  were these issues reported, are they tracked?  Who follows up when serious safety issues are disregarded?  Who, if anyone, in this movie's production company knew anything about this?  The end of the CNN story indicates complaints were filed on these 2019 allegations...with the production company and the Directors' Guild, but neither did anything.  One can readily hypothesize that it's Penn State and Sandusky, or the Catholic Church shuffling priests accused of inappropriate contacts...just cover things up, don't do anything, don't rock the boat.  

 

The other angle is, OK, if these allegations can be substantiated, now there's pattern and practice on the part of the assistant director, and to my mind, that supports at least reckless endangerment charges.  At least...because from what I've found, that's only a misdemeanor, and only a year in jail.  Doesn't feel nearly adequate.  But there's no doubt in my mind now, that charges against the assistant director WILL be filed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...