Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[Benggaul]

Honestly, when it comes to this type of stuff, the person shooting the gun should be the one loading it. Removes nearly all issues with this type of scenario. That way they can check the rounds while loading it.

Maybe, but I'd rather have an expert doing the check than the actor, and that's not a knock on actors. Given how ubiquitous guns are in film it strikes me as odd that there isn't always a designated safety expert to check these things. The task shouldn't be on the prop folk either. There's a lot of stress on everyone's shoulders during the production of a film, having one person personally check and load them and then during the blocking of a scene say "no, can't do it that way because it's pointed at someone, aim over there instead" should be standard. Again, I've not seen anywhere what the exact situation was in this case--whether it was during the execution of a scene or a genuinely boneheaded screwing around moment in-between--but I can totally see someone being careless with what they believe to be a "fake gun" unless someone's on hand to keep that shit in check.

Or, you know, filmmakers could wise the fuck up and stop using props that have the potential to kill someone. It's not as if there aren't alternatives.

[Twdft]

I have no idea about the authenticity of any of this, just a picture I saw floating around:

[Orange Joe]

At least he now knows the answer to this question

Wrongfully kill =/= accidentally kill


One of those still has intent the other doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

How many firearms safety rules did Alec Baldwin break? Not an accident, but negligence .

He should be charged with involuntary manslaughter in accordance with New Mexico law.

We have no idea really. Maybe they were shooting a scene where he was suppose to shoot the person?

[Orange Joe]

I also doubt that he meant to cause harm, but it was not an accident. He was negligent. One should ALWAYS treat every firearm as if it is loaded. One should NEVER point a firearm at anyone/anything they do not intend to destroy.

They are shooting a movie? What does he do point it in the air and they cgi that he was pointing at the person?

[Orange Joe]

Use a gun that doesn’t actually fire bullets?

I mean I agree with you but saying he can't point what is suppose to be a prop gun at a person for a shoot, how the fuck are they suppose to shoot movies where people get shot?

[gondrin]

I mean I agree with you but saying he can't point what is suppose to be a prop gun at a person for a shoot, how the fuck are they suppose to shoot movies where people get shot?

When it comes to shooting in movies, they tend to have the actors fire slightly off to the side of whomever they are firing at, if they are firing at a target so that even if it is a blank, nobody gets hurt.

When it comes to this, there was a lot of breakdowns in safety protocols that should have been followed.

[Orange Joe]

By making sure none of the guns have firing pins or the equivalent. Then you can point at anyone and be 100% safe without killing actors and crew. Omg, we might ask an actor to act like they’re firing a gun instead of firing blanks? How will they do it?

Not what I'm arguing against and you know it. So I see no reason to continue this with you.

- - - Updated - - -

When it comes to shooting in movies, they tend to have the actors fire slightly off to the side of whomever they are firing at, if they are firing at a target so that even if it is a blank, nobody gets hurt.

When it comes to this, there was a lot of breakdowns in safety protocols that should have been followed.

I agree with that., but it's not purely Alex at fault here. There is a whole system that is at fault and needs to be change.


like why the fuck a "prop gun" can even make a projectile in the first place.

[gondrin]

Not what I'm arguing against and you know it. So I see no reason to continue this with you.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree with that., but it's not purely Alex at fault here. There is a whole system that is at fault and needs to be change.


like why the fuck a "prop gun" can even make a projectile in the first place.

Well, most studios use real guns as prop guns. They just make sure that nearly all instances, blanks are usually the only thing loaded into them. What most people are thinking, from what I'm seeing(not just on here) is they are thinking they are replica guns. This isn't the case in this sense.

[Ticj]

Not what I'm arguing against and you know it. So I see no reason to continue this with you.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree with that., but it's not purely Alex at fault here. There is a whole system that is at fault and needs to be change.


like why the fuck a "prop gun" can even make a projectile in the first place.

Prop guns are typically real guns loaded with blanks. Blanks still have gunpowder and can still launch a projectile if something is in the chamber.


I honestly think it's unfair to blame alec on this. It is expected for these guns to be loaded with a blank/dummy round, and it is up to the armory directors to ensure that he's not handed an unsafe weapon. He was told it was safe, and hence acted like it was so.

There's also rumors that it was possibly not a blank, but instead the gun had live ammunition. If that's the case the level of fuckup on the armory's part is ridiculous and that is where the charges should be imo.

[Endus]

Well, most studios use real guns as prop guns. They just make sure that nearly all instances, blanks are usually the only thing loaded into them. What most people are thinking, from what I'm seeing(not just on here) is they are thinking they are replica guns. This isn't the case in this sense.

Like, if this was a live round rather than a faulty blank, then I can't imagine how it could ever happen by accident. Basic policy should be that there are no live rounds on set. Ever. You can't mix up the boxes of rounds if there aren't any live rounds to mix in. And I can't imagine a situation where you'd need or even want live rounds on a set, anyway. If you had one specific shot where you wanted it super-realistic or something, maybe you do a special shoot where the live-round weapon is brought in from off-set specifically for that shot and you're super careful with everyone behind cover and nobody downrange at all and then the live gun is taken immediately off-set to be unloaded after you've got the shot.

I can't imagine any case but malice where you'd actually have live rounds on set to begin with, where they could get mixed in. And if there's malice, I'm more likely to assume someone loaded that gun deliberately with a live round.

[Orange Joe]

Well, most studios use real guns as prop guns. They just make sure that nearly all instances, blanks are usually the only thing loaded into them. What most people are thinking, from what I'm seeing(not just on here) is they are thinking they are replica guns. This isn't the case in this sense.

Prop guns are typically real guns loaded with blanks. Blanks still have gunpowder and can still launch a projectile if something is in the chamber.


I honestly think it's unfair to blame alec on this. It is expected for these guns to be loaded with a blank/dummy round, and it is up to the armory directors to ensure that he's not handed an unsafe weapon. He was told it was safe, and hence acted like it was so.

There's also rumors that it was possibly not a blank, but instead the gun had live ammunition. If that's the case the level of fuckup on the armory's part is ridiculous and that is where the charges should be imo.

I mean I know they do thats kinda the point. Why? We could easily make an actual prop gun with weights to simulate firing, powered by batteries.



Why are we still using "prop guns" that can make projectiles.

[gondrin]

Like, if this was a live round rather than a faulty blank, then I can't imagine how it could ever happen by accident. Basic policy should be that there are no live rounds on set. Ever. You can't mix up the boxes of rounds if there aren't any live rounds to mix in. And I can't imagine a situation where you'd need or even want live rounds on a set, anyway. If you had one specific shot where you wanted it super-realistic or something, maybe you do a special shoot where the live-round weapon is brought in from off-set specifically for that shot and you're super careful with everyone behind cover and nobody downrange at all and then the live gun is taken immediately off-set to be unloaded after you've got the shot.

I can't imagine any case but malice where you'd actually have live rounds on set to begin with, where they could get mixed in. And if there's malice, I'm more likely to assume someone loaded that gun deliberately with a live round.

That was my first question. Why was there a live round on the set to begin with? Second one would be who brought it in. Usually, if live rounds are used on a movie set, it is done under extreme supervision(up to and including paramedics and sheriff/police presence) and has to be cleared an insurance agency first.

[Endus]

Prop guns are typically real guns loaded with blanks. Blanks still have gunpowder and can still launch a projectile if something is in the chamber.

It's a lot less of a charge, though, since it just needs to make a convincing "bang" and there's no projectile to push. Even if something gets in there, it has a lot less velocity when it comes out. It can definitely kill someone, especially if they're close, but where this went through the cinematographer with enough force to injure someone else as well, I'm thinking it's not a blank to begin with.

I've shot a lot of blanks, up to several-pound charges in big-ass cannons. They're dangerous and you need to handle them appropriately, but I get the impression the cinematographer wasn't anywhere close to Baldwin, really. And movie sets are a particular kind of environment where everyone involved has signed a bunch of waivers, since even if you're not using blanks, you're using squibs or explosives, and that stuff has risks too.

- - - Updated - - -

That was my first question. Why was there a live round on the set to begin with? Second one would be who brought it in. Usually, if live rounds are used on a movie set, it is done under extreme supervision(up to and including paramedics and sheriff/police presence) and has to be cleared an insurance agency first.

Yeah, so far as I know, a live-fire on a set would basically look like a Mythbusters explosives episode, where everyone backs way the hell off behind cover, and it's done way out in the middle of nowhere so there's no chance of bystanders being injured.

Not that I can think of many cases where you'd even want to use live rounds in the first place.

[Skulltaker]

It's a lot less of a charge, though, since it just needs to make a convincing "bang" and there's no projectile to push. Even if something gets in there, it has a lot less velocity when it comes out. It can definitely kill someone, especially if they're close, but where this went through the cinematographer with enough force to injure someone else as well, I'm thinking it's not a blank to begin with.

I've shot a lot of blanks, up to several-pound charges in big-ass cannons. They're dangerous and you need to handle them appropriately, but I get the impression the cinematographer wasn't anywhere close to Baldwin, really. And movie sets are a particular kind of environment where everyone involved has signed a bunch of waivers, since even if you're not using blanks, you're using squibs or explosives, and that stuff has risks too.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, so far as I know, a live-fire on a set would basically look like a Mythbusters explosives episode, where everyone backs way the hell off behind cover, and it's done way out in the middle of nowhere so there's no chance of bystanders being injured.

Not that I can think of many cases where you'd even want to use live rounds in the first place.

Isn't one point of blanks also that they produce more of a muzzle flash and look 'more impressive'?

[Twdft]

After a hundred years of filmmaking you'd think the industry came up with a special kind of prop gun that is safe to fire. Using real guns with blanks just wobbles the mind.

[Endus]

Isn't one point of blanks also that they produce more of a muzzle flash and look 'more impressive'?

Depends on the blank and exactly how the charge is formulated.

The work I did with blanks was with black powder weapons, and the charges were mostly meant to create the "bang" and smoke. You got some muzzle flare, but it wasn't the design intent, and they were black powder rifles so the barrel length mitigated how much flare you got, anyway (the cannons, though, hoo boy. 20' muzzle flash of the tiny 12-pounder signal gun. The 32-pounder was the fun one, though. Set off every car alarm for a kilometer or so downrange, usually.)

I imagine movie blanks are designed more for flash than sound. It's easier to add sound in post than muzzle flash.

- - - Updated - - -

After a hundred years of filmmaking you'd think the industry came up with a special kind of prop gun that is safe to fire. Using real guns with blanks just wobbles the mind.

I'm really not sure what you think could be done. It's the blank rounds themselves that are dangerous. A gun is just a complicated mechanism for triggering the round to fire. If you put anything in the barrel trying to prevent discharge, the weapon's gonna potentially blow up in your hands, and you're not going to get the right muzzle flare. If you take that same blank round and tap the primer with a screwdriver with enough force, it's going to fire with the exact same force and potential danger as it did inside the gun. A "real gun" is literally the safest means of discharging those blank rounds. It gives you far greater control over every aspect.

[Twdft]

A "real gun" is literally the safest means of discharging those blank rounds.

I meant the whole design. It doesn't have to blanks meant for real guns, some contraption that shoots a little bit of air and some kind of powder would be entirely enough to simulate a gun discharge.

[Endus]

I meant the whole design. It doesn't have to blanks meant for real guns, some contraption that shoots a little bit of air and some kind of powder would be entirely enough to simulate a gun discharge.

That "contraption" is a blank round. It already exists.

[Edge-]

Man, the folks doing political victory laps over a tragic accident are all kinda fuckin gross.

That's all.

[Hobb]

Isn't one point of blanks also that they produce more of a muzzle flash and look 'more impressive'?

Blanks =/= no ammo, the blank's casing still fires out some. That's what killed Brandon Lee a long time ago, a prop gun loaded with a blank fire at close range to his head.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...-baldwin-prop/

Also it looks like it will be the prop handler who will be held responsible for negligence. The prop gun was suppose to be a "cold gun", meaning no ammo in it and that was communicated to the director and Alex Baldwin prior to the accident.