All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[inisideguy]

Yeah, I do, they've been going on about it almost since it happened. The union, that is---they don't want to be associated with this. They don't allow his conduct, and the production replaced them. It was a non-union crew on set that day. Not knowing that is...well, whatever.

Well Whatever? Actors are not in the line to making sure weapons are safe. If the production hired idiots, and fools that is the productions fault. An actor isn't in charge of making sure the vehicle he is driving has the proper breaks or the oil changed either. At the very least let this play out in court if charges are filed. Acting like you know what the rules are regarding actors checking if weapons on movie sets are safe, ( which for gods sake I hope they are not) is being a troll.

[achilles]

Movie sets themselves do not follow basic firearms rules. One can watch any of the thousands of movies over the last 100 years to know that. They point weapons at people. A typical John Wick w movie has hundreds of actors pointing guns at people. You are not even suppose to do that, with basic firearms rules, unless you intent is to shoot them. So that right there is a violation of a basic firearms rule. This is why there are experts on sets. Or there is suppose to be. These people are in charge and are suppose to make sets safe. Not actors. Actors act. They are not trained in clearing firearms and making sure they are safe. The movie industry has run on this idea for decades. Of course blanks can be dangerous.Thats why you have safety officers and armorers on sets to make sure things are being done right. Even when I was in the Military where I shot thousands and thousands of rounds when I came off the range with a weapon I myself knew inside and out, the range master checked again to see if my weapon was cleared properly. And even then there were accidents.

'Kay, you're not being serious. This movie is hardly John Wick, where the star knows what he's doing, and they hired the best people, and enough of them, to make the set as safe as possible. And it's quite possible, and in fact happens, to NOT point the damn gun at a living person. You point is a bit off, use shields where possible, and use the camera angle and editing to make it look like they are pointing it at someone. Rather like say any other fight scene. They don't for example actually hit each other...normally at least. When they do, it's an accident. But it usually looks like they are. Camera angles, editing. And the consequences for getting a fist in the face are usually less than getting shot, I should think.

[numberthirty]

Movie sets themselves do not follow basic firearms rules. One can watch any of the thousands of movies over the last 100 years to know that. They point weapons at people. A typical John Wick w movie has hundreds of actors pointing guns at people. You are not even suppose to do that, with basic firearms rules, unless you intent is to shoot them. So that right there is a violation of a basic firearms rule. This is why there are experts on sets. Or there is suppose to be. These people are in charge and are suppose to make sets safe. Not actors. Actors act. They are not trained in clearing firearms and making sure they are safe. The movie industry has run on this idea for decades. Of course blanks can be dangerous.Thats why you have safety officers and armorers on sets to make sure things are being done right. Even when I was in the Military where I shot thousands and thousands of rounds when I came off the range with a weapon I myself knew inside and out, the range master checked again to see if my weapon was cleared properly. And even then there were accidents.

On paper?

Perfectly sensible take.

In practice?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/opini...own/index.html

Guns can be safely used on a film set -- but only if you follow the rules

It's not just about keeping the cast and crew safe when there are firearms present on set. We make sure people know the weapon itself is safe to use. Once we inspect a firearm to make sure it is empty and ready to handle, we show it to both the actor who is going to work with it and any other cast members who may have the empty firearm pointed at them. On film sets, the person most responsible for safety is usually the First Assistant Director, and as a result they will also inspect the firearm -- a task the director, producer, camera operator or cinematographer may oversee, too.

Every single person on set -- cast or crew -- has the right to inspect a prop gun. But the specialist is the only person who will hand the firearm to an actor for use, and the specialist is the same person who receives it back when the talent is done.

In that instance, anyone from the crew inspecting that prop gun could have caught that. Never mind the only member of the cast that would actually be holding it.

The right mentioned is in place for a reason.

[inisideguy]

'Kay, you're not being serious. This movie is hardly John Wick, where the star knows what he's doing, and they hired the best people, and enough of them, to make the set as safe as possible. And it's quite possible, and in fact happens, to NOT point the damn gun at a living person. You point is a bit off, use shields where possible, and use the camera angle and editing to make it look like they are pointing it at someone. Rather like say any other fight scene. They don't for example actually hit each other...normally at least. When they do, it's an accident. But it usually looks like they are. Camera angles, editing. And the consequences for getting a fist in the face are usually less than getting shot, I should think.

I am being serious. You think people on movie sets don't point weapons at each other. Thats not being serious. Whats not being serious is you think you know the rules and regulations on movie sets regarding who can or should be handling firearms and how they should be handled. Or how its been done in the past. You think Bruce Willis is checking his weapon everytime to make sure there are only blanks or dummies in a gun. Nevermind he wouldn't know the difference between a dummy round or a live one. Thats what the experts who are in charge weapons on sets are for.

[achilles]

Well Whatever? Actors are not in the line to making sure weapons are safe. If the production hired idiots, and fools that is the productions fault. An actor isn't in charge of making sure the vehicle he is driving has the proper breaks or the oil changed either. At the very least let this play out in court if charges are filed. Acting like you know what the rules are regarding actors checking if weapons on movie sets are safe, ( which for gods sake I hope they are not) is being a troll.

Yes, they are. And ask any actor who knows what they're doing, and they'd say so. As do all the responsible armorers. All of them. Stop with the troll stuff, BTW. I know the rules of gun safety, and they don't change, no matter that you think they do. Which sort of makes me wonder if you recall them at all, as there is not "Exceptions are for Alec Baldwin or any other careless, thoughtless actor" clause. I would assume someone, at some point in his career taught him those rules, which he chose to ignore.

By the way, again, it IS industry standard practice for actors to check. It happens exactly the way it happens anywhere else, the person handing the gun to you says it's safe, then SHOWS you, and you look and verify that it is safe there as it does elsewhere. In the case of responsible movies, the armorer hands the gun to the actor that way, the actor verifies that the gun is safe by looking, he does his scene or whatever, finishes, and then the armorer takes the gun away and does whatever maintenance to it, then lock it up. No one else handles it. This has been in many news stories since, so there's no real excuse for not knowing it.

[inisideguy]

On paper?

Perfectly sensible take.

In practice?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/opini...own/index.html





In that instance, anyone from the crew inspecting that prop gun could have caught that. Never mind the only member of the cast that would actually be holding it.

The right mentioned is in place for a reason.

If the actors themselves were permitted to load and unload weapons, work with them, make sure they are in proper working condition, take care of them, without direct supervision I can see this point. But my guess is thats not how these things are run. My guess is these weapons are suppose to be in a controlled environment with only a certain amount of people allowed to handle them. They should be cleared for use prior to using, by several people before they are ever put in an actors hand. Obviously this didn't happen and this was a set run by idiots from the top down.

[achilles]

I am being serious. You think people on movie sets don't point weapons at each other. Thats not being serious. Whats not being serious is you think you know the rules and regulations on movie sets regarding who can or should be handling firearms and how they should be handled. Or how its been done in the past. You think Bruce Willis is checking his weapon everytime to make sure there are only blanks or dummies in a gun. Nevermind he wouldn't know the difference between a dummy round or a live one. Thats what the experts who are in charge weapons on sets are for.

You are arguing something I'm not talking about. First of all, Willis probably does know that difference, unlike Baldwin. But I'm talking about verifying that the gun was EMPTY. That's not a hard concept. Look and see it's not loaded. Even Baldwin can do that. He doesn't have to have done 600 Die Hard movies plus a thousand others just like them to know how to do that. Eyes are all he really needs.

[inisideguy]

Yes, they are. And ask any actor who knows what they're doing, and they'd say so. As do all the responsible armorers. All of them. Stop with the troll stuff, BTW. I know the rules of gun safety, and they don't change, no matter that you think they do. Which sort of makes me wonder if you recall them at all, as there is not "Exceptions are for Alec Baldwin or any other careless, thoughtless actor" clause. I would assume someone, at some point in his career taught him those rules, which he chose to ignore.

By the way, again, it IS industry standard practice for actors to check. It happens exactly the way it happens anywhere else, the person handing the gun to you says it's safe, then SHOWS you, and you look and verify that it is safe there as it does elsewhere. In the case of responsible movies, the armorer hands the gun to the actor that way, the actor verifies that the gun is safe by looking, he does his scene or whatever, finishes, and then the armorer takes the gun away and does whatever maintenance to it, then lock it up. No one else handles it. This has been in many news stories since, so there's no real excuse for not knowing it.

You can't just verify a weapon is safe by looking. What you would need to do on a revolver, is open it up check the individual rounds, while pointing the gun down range in a safe direction. Not on a movie set. So Alec Baldwin in theory should have been handed the weapon, outside in a range like environment, opened up the weapon, examined each individual round, then came back on set after he was satisfied that there were no live rounds inside the weapon. If you think this is how things are run ok. But if you are giving the actor that responsibility then he himself should have the area where he can do this and thats not inside a building on a movie set.

[inisideguy]

You are arguing something I'm not talking about. First of all, Willis probably does know that difference, unlike Baldwin. But I'm talking about verifying that the gun was EMPTY. That's not a hard concept. Look and see it's not loaded. Even Baldwin can do that. He doesn't have to have done 600 Die Hard movies plus a thousand others just like them to know how to do that. Eyes are all he really needs.

It depends on what type of revolver Baldwin is using. You can't just look. That isn't even the proper way to do a safety check on a gun like that. He would need to pop open the weapon or if its another type of revolver release the loading mechanism so the area where the rounds are comes out. Then he would have inspect the rounds. And he would have do this in a safe environment off set. And what do you mean by loaded? Do you know the scene said the gun was suppose to be unloaded?

[Kid Devil]

How about Alec as a producer? If he can get off on just being an actor could that producer roll shoot him in the foot?

[achilles]

If the actors themselves were permitted to load and unload weapons, work with them, make sure they are in proper working condition, take care of them, without direct supervision I can see this point. But my guess is thats not how these things are run. My guess is these weapons are suppose to be in a controlled environment with only a certain amount of people allowed to handle them. They should be cleared for use prior to using, by several people before they are ever put in an actors hand. Obviously this didn't happen and this was a set run by idiots from the top down.

They are in fact cleared on normal sets by two people, the head armorer, and then the actor. This process has been described by several top armorers since then. The armorer hands it to the actor with the action open and the magazine out in the case of a semi auto handgun for example. The actor simply looks, with no knowledge needed, and verifies it is loaded or unloaded. Good productions like say John Wick movies, will have an armorer and one or two assistants. They are separate from the property master. This is how it works on union productions, apparently. It is...pretty safe, actually, when done diligently, which is why everyone on set at all responsible for handling the weapons needs to be on the ball at all times.

[achilles]

How about Alec as a producer? If he can get off on just being an actor could that producer roll shoot him in the foot?

Depends on what he did as producer, I should think. He might have nothing to do with it from that standpoint, or he might. Probably just lent his name to it, and attracted some money to the movie, it's pretty standard from what I understand.

[achilles]

It depends on what type of revolver Baldwin is using. You can't just look. That isn't even the proper way to do a safety check on a gun like that. He would need to pop open the weapon or if its another type of revolver release the loading mechanism so the area where the rounds are comes out. Then he would have inspect the rounds. And he would have do this in a safe environment off set. And what do you mean by loaded? Do you know the scene said the gun was suppose to be unloaded?

Well, if it's a SAA, he'd be presented the thing with the loading gate open, I would imagine, (never handled one myself, so I'm not certain), and the armorer would likely spin the cylinder slowly. Whatever, the point being there IS a way for even an actor who doesn't do that often to check, and he should have been shown the process by the armorer.

I'm fairly sure the scene, when it was filmed, would have had the gun loaded. But he wasn't filming the scene; he was rehearsing. And there is no reason for him to be using a loaded gun for rehearsal. By "Unloaded" BTW, I mean completely empty of anything; blanks, dummy rounds, and of course live ammo, which never should have been on set in the first place.

[inisideguy]

If thats how they clear and make weapons safe on sets that isn't anyway to clear and make weapons safe. What should happen is weapons should be made safe off set, in range environment. Loaded with blanks or dummies in that environment, then moved to the set to be used. And the armorer should be doing this, and he should have someone else who is in charge of safety to confirm this is being done. If people are rolling cylinders on sets pointing them at floors or whatever then something is wrong. No one should be loading or unloading weapons on sets unless they have a safety officer right there and the scene calls for it. And I don't know anything about the rehearsal and what it called for as far as shooting the weapon. Or who told him if the weapon was suppose to be loaded or not.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

How about Alec as a producer? If he can get off on just being an actor could that producer roll shoot him in the foot?

Depends on what he did as producer, I should think. He might have nothing to do with it from that standpoint, or he might. Probably just lent his name to it, and attracted some money to the movie, it's pretty standard from what I understand.

There has been a weird conservative movement by fans of Trump blasting Baldwin as being responsible. Even as details emerge that the AD involved and Armorer was more at fault. Videos and more have these angry Trumpsters not seeming to care whats coming out.

But as mentioned Baldwin as producer could be just coming to set , do his role and leave. Because it could be a "name only" position.