Alec Baldwin: Hollywood's King of Menace

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...

Movies/TV have been using slightly off-looking fake money for decades and it has somehow not been a problem for anyone

Prop guns are used ten thousands of time on film sets around the world each year; it’s perfectly reasonable to be shooting a film thinking the use of a prop gun will lead to no accidents. A lot of things on a film set are as dangerous as a prop gun.

Not so coincidentally, the film technicians union voted to go on strike recently and all I’m hearing is that sets are ever increasingly dangerous with producers willing to cut corners to save money.

it’s perfectly reasonable to be shooting a film thinking the use of a prop gun will lead to no accidents

i think the actual answer is that this isn't going to be allowed anymore after the union has their say

sorry kinder, i wasn't trying to be rude with my reply i just wasn't sure you had seen it given the way it was posted

Not being facetious - this seems like it's acceptable risk?

― kinder, Friday, October 22, 2021 11:46 AM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

There is only a risk involved if people don’t do their jobs properly. On that very same film set, there’s a decent chance a 65 kg tungsten light was hung above film technicians in order for the director and dop to have their artistic desires fufilled. Film sets simply are dangerous spaces with risks involved. Heck, filmming during a pandemic is a massive risk unto itself.

Do CGI when you can, of course, but the only way you’ll have a risk free film set is by hiring properly trained professionals working decent hours and to give them the time to properly do their jobs.

When movies need guns, you're supposed to hire a firearms expert to be on set supervising said weapons (these people are frequently retired cops, ex-military etc.). But corners do get cut.

I was an extra in a tv advert once as a favour to a friend and I ended up being promoted to a non speaking acting role mainly, I think, because my costume looked so good - Anyway I had to carry a rifle - the only one that ended up being used as a prop rather than set dressing- and the arms supervisor or whatever you’d call him would take the gun off me and painstakingly inspect it after every take. It drove me crazy since we were shooting all day in rain (fake rain but real water). At the time I thought he was an arse who was trying to give himself more prestige in the process by being so ruthlessly pedantic. Now I realise why he was doing that... in the end you didn’t really see me or my costume or really see the gun but it comes on tv from time to time and I shout “that’s me!” Before anyone registers my fleeting presence.

Yeah I was thinking about the big lights since in most murder movies located on a film set or in a theater that's usually the "weapon" !
And then of course, all movie sets including cars or other vehicles are also very dangerous, I guess.

Per this story:

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/10/alec-baldwin-fires-gun-kills-cinematographer-wounds-director-on-rust-set-1234673555/

IATSE Local 44, which covers prop masters, sent an email to its members early Friday morning that said the gun used in the scene contained “a live round” and the production’s propmaster was not a member of Local 44.

Chatting to a friend of mine who's an ex-pig with firearms training who also has questions. Still think this is likely a horrible health and safety failure but still

a live round?? uh

xpost