Alec Baldwin: Hollywood's King of Menace

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-incident-santa-fe-1235094931/

Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun on a set in New Mexico on Thursday, accidentally killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.

!

what the fuck

Holy shit

I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone...https://t.co/WE6QsAAXGI

— AlecBaldwin (@AlecBaldwln____) September 23, 2017

people making Curb Yout Enthusiasm jokes under that tweet can fuck right off

I have questions about why the gun was pointing where it was pointing

FYI the (predictable) question I had was answered here: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prop-gun-using-blanks-still-052227936.html

also, what is wrong with the dickheads who are like "this is karma for making fun of Trump on SNL" - like WTF ?

I have questions about why the gun was pointing where it was pointing

I suppose it was a subjective "shot" where the actor is pointing at the camera... and all the people behind it.

xp Well we can start with the fact that these are trump fans on twitter, well I guess no need to explain further than that.

Man

https://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Lady-in-the-Lake.png

AFP otm

I'd guess yeah, feels like an unusual shot in the modern era

https://external-preview.redd.it/Khes6FDY0AljEXbDDlXZOXtiIKt9d-4sT5Pld8696-w.jpg?auto=webp&s=b9a56ae363501cfc026d7cfd8826f1e249bc63f0

Thinking about it, these subjective angles may well be in most movies with gun fights !

Oh sure, I was just rambling. I definitely associate them more with Noir and the 30s to 50s tho

http://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/d59e0e92-3bce-49b8-806a-e20649c7e3da_1.ab250b0f979bf172374ebaceea014ba7.jpeg

wtf!
how can a gun be a "prop" gun if it can kill someone?!

FYI the (predictable) question I had was answered here: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prop-gun-using-blanks-still-052227936.html

― StanM, Friday, October 22, 2021 5:48 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

the only previous cases of firearms deaths on movie sets the bbc correspondent could come up with was Brandon Lee and some 1915 silent western. I would guess there are probably strict H+S protocols in place that are why this doesn't happen very often.

I just don't get it. If you're making a movie, with guns, with prop guns, with toy guns, whatever, there is literally no reason there should be live ammo anywhere near the set, let alone close to the blanks or pretend rounds. Maybe that's why this apparently has not happened much before?

read the yahoo article, it explains how blanks work

we may need to post that link a few more times

in fairness Stan (not blaming him just saying) didn't say what the predictable question was: it explains how prop guns are often real guns, what blanks are, and how this setup is still a hazard

oh it seems blanks are quite dangerously unpredictable at close range.

Yeah, I kind of knew how blanks work, but that mostly explains how someone can still be seriously injured by shooting blanks. Of the two examples given, one involved a guy literally sticking the gun *to his head* at point blank and fatally hurting himself. The other, Brandon Lee, involved a projectile (that is, bullet) that had been accidentally jammed in the barrel. But think of the literally millions and millions of blank rounds shot in action movies over the years. This almost never happens, because it really shouldn't happen. There should be no projectile in or near the gun, and if there is it should be caught well in advance and removed. And it of course usually is, because this really doesn't happen, relative to the number of guns in movies.

I'd do a bit on risk assessment here but fuck it

feel like josh knows something we don't

All I know is that we can rule out Brian Laundrie.

the only time I had a real firearm shot at the ceiling above me I did the classic duck and cover (and almost shit yourself) move.

sorry about that

Apparently this was a Western, which means they were most likely using prop revolvers, which need <something> in the visible chambers that'll show up on camera.

ah good point.

I saw a props person quoted as saying that since the weapon seriously injured the director in addition to killing the cinematographer, it was likely a shotgun

that was my first thought as well. also if they were filming in rugged terrain, not out of the question that small rocks or debris could have gotten into the barrel

vfx artist here, to everyone saying muzzle flashes added in post are as good as the real deal: yes, of course they are, it’s the easiest thing, what the fuck

— Nick Sinnott (@ndsinnott) October 22, 2021

There’s no reason to have guns loaded with blanks or anything on set anymore. Should just be fully outlawed. There’s computers now. The gunshots on Mare of Easttown are all digital. You can probably tell, but who cares? It’s an unnecessary risk. https://t.co/pVWJp766EY

— craig zobel (@craigzobel) October 22, 2021

I could swear there was some kind of bad incident on set during Mike Figgis’s Internal Affairs; a prop gun not working properly or something. Figgis writes about Gere being horrified by the incident in the accompanying script book. Can’t find anything about it online.

There was also this from the filming of At Close Range; on IMDB

When Christopher Walken works with guns in film, he checks them himself before each scene for safety reasons and his own personal ease. During the scene when Sean Penn sticks a gun in Walken's face, Walken checked the gun before the scene started. Before the director had the chance to say "Action", Penn ran off camera and shouted, "Give me the other gun!" He immediately returned to Walken and started the scene. This is the cut that made it into the movie, and Walken was really terrified.

There's probably an argument for some people who want to have authenticity and things "feeling real" instead of all movies being all CGI but I don't know, personally I don't care...

I've seen this posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzDQvX0hAY

There's probably an argument for some people who want to have authenticity and things "feeling real" instead of all movies being all CGI but I don't know, personally I don't care...

― AlXTC from Paris, Friday, October 22, 2021 9:50 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I will stan for practical effects over digital in every instance where someone is not potentially in physical danger. There's no valid argument in favor of risking people's well-being to make a movie, especially in this day and age. The first thing I thought when I read about this is: isn't this what CGI is for?

the first thing I thought was "WTF? That Brandon Lee thing happened in 1993 and they haven't changed things yet?"

I note that BBC Headlines posted a news headline regarding this, and helpfully and tastefully the illustrative photo was a gun being loaded with ammunition.

I have questions about why the gun was pointing where it was pointing

― look on my guacs, ye mighty, and dis pear (Noodle Vague), Friday, October 22, 2021 5:42 AM bookmarkflaglink

considering my fight choreographer used to have a (rightful) apoplectic fit any time we would point a gun directly at anybody during stage combat, I also have this question.

I will stan for practical effects over digital in every instance where someone is not potentially in physical danger. There's no valid argument in favor of risking people's well-being to make a movie, especially in this day and age. The first thing I thought when I read about this is: isn't this what CGI is for?

― (a picture of a defecating pig) (Old Lunch), Friday, October 22, 2021 10:58 AM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

100%

And it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that Baldwin is also a producer on the film, meaning he is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the crew.

it explains how prop guns are often real guns

yes, this. we did a live production of Reservoir Dogs once and we were using real guns with blanks/no live ammunition, and our fight choreographer kept getting angry every night as the director who did the curtain speech assured the audience that "these aren't real guns". to which he'd tell us YES THEY'RE REAL GUNS, that's WHY WE HAVE THE SAFETY MECHANISMS WE DO.

a prop gun can kill. any gun that is designed to propel something at high speeds CAN kill, but there are proper handling procedures even when shooting blanks/non-live ammunition to prevent it from happening. get reckless or careless and your prop gun can kill your entire directorial staff and cast and crew.

i did read that article, thanks. i guess I'm asking how real guns that kill people are considered prop guns and allowed to be fired at people on set. the only explanation given in the article is that real guns feel/ look real but not any analysis of what the alternatives are and why they aren't used.

guns aren't commonplace where I live so perhaps that makes it more inexplicable to me.

I get the "real guns feel/look more real" (since they ARE real, duh) but couldn't they use "real" guns with the firing mechanics removed or something so they still weigh/feel/look real and then add CGI ?
Maybe there's something with "real" recoil ? I have no idea what blanks feel like on that aspect...