Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[Specialka]

That's what replying does...

Your literal comment:

And you obviously did not read the quote I was replying to ?

[Machismo]

And you obviously did not read the quote I was replying to ?

Oh, I obviously did, and your shenanigans and bad takes were called out pages and pages ago.

[draynay]

Nah, you just chose to take it out of context and leave out the message to whom I was responding.

Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.

[PhaelixWW]

Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.

God, I'm glad someone had the same reaction I did. I was inching to make a comment, but couldn't bare to.

[gondrin]

NBC News reports that...well, it's what you expect, if you were thinking about it even a little bit.



I do not expect every actor in every movie to check on every technical assistant on that same movie when handed a prop gun, a car, makeup, etc. When Baldwin was handed a prop gun, I don't think he said "Wait a minute, maybe I should check this guy's work history..."



Have you changed your mind yet?

However, if Baldwin is hiring anyone(not sure if he is the producer hiring people or just putting money into the movie), I'm pretty sure it would be prudent to look at work history, especially in a position that might be subject to safety regulations.

[Benggaul]

Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.

"My guys are still under a judicial estrangement order! That blue thing I got from her! They could be exposing themselves!"

[Adamas102]

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.

While this is an excellent rule to follow in the vast majority of circumstances, this was a movie set so there should be an expectation that the props are generally safe to handle and designed for actors to point at each other.

[GreenJesus]

Actors can’t act? Fuck this ridiculous opinion. Go safe with airsoft and add some basic cgi gun effects. Nobody’s life is worth having someone flinch when a blank goes off.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.

[PhaelixWW]

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect later and the smoke later? It can't be that hard.

Because prop guns are demonstrably safe when the proper procedure is followed. Considering that the last prop gun death was nearly 30 years ago, I'd say that it's not the system that's at fault here.

There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.

I mean, it's not like Halyna was shot with a blank. That live round had no business being on the set, let alone loaded into the prop gun. Again, that's not a "mistake", that's criminal negligence, and has nothing to do with normal set procedure.

[Machismo]

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.

It's simple, it's way more expensive and time consuming.

[Endus]

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.

Why do they use real cars for some scenes? Just CGI it.

Why bother having stunt men? Just CGI it.

Repeat ad infinitum. Practical effects have a lot of advantages and CGI is not a magic fix-all button.

[Edge-]

If they were there wouldn’t be a ton of safety protocols to avoid things like this.

But...that's why they are demonstrably safe and why the last incident like this was three decades ago. There's far, far more risk in stunts and driving than there is with the use of guns on set, because you can control fewer risks throughout those stunts compared to being able to control that a prop gun is never loaded with live ammunition.

[PhaelixWW]

Prop guns aren’t demonstrably safe.

It's almost like you stopped reading halfway through:

Because prop guns are demonstrably safe when the proper procedure is followed.

Again, demonstrably, those procedures are followed with very few exceptions, hence the nearly 30-year gap between prop gun deaths. And, again, this wasn't simply "an accident", this was criminal negligence.

There’s zero reason to have working guns on set in the modern era.

You ignoring the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist. You ignoring the safety record in the industry doesn't mean it's hazardous.

With very, very few exceptions, there is zero reason to have live ammunition on set. That alone would have prevented this tragedy. Anything else is unwarranted hyper-extensive knee-jerking.

[PhaelixWW]

But...that's why they are demonstrably safe and why the last incident like this was three decades ago. There's far, far more risk in stunts and driving than there is with the use of guns on set, because you can control fewer risks throughout those stunts compared to being able to control that a prop gun is never loaded with live ammunition.

I mean, there's far more risk of death while camping, or swimming, or many other leisure activities.

[Edge-]

No, the protocols make using them somewhat safe.

Given the record, I'd argue it does make them safe, which is why the last incident was 3 decades ago. The accident rate is non-existent compared to normal gun handling/use.

[PhaelixWW]

No, the protocols make using them somewhat safe.

Nah, it's more than "somewhat safe".

Lee was killed because a live round was used in the same gun earlier. That should never happen. Hexum was killed because he put the gun up to his temple and pulled the trigger. A blank is capable of causing some injury if it's discharged at near point-blank range, but it's only able to kill if you do pretty much what Hexum did. The guy was literally playing Russian roulette with blanks. I'm pretty sure the protocols frown on that, too. I'd also wager that the protocols have become much more thorough in the 37 years since.

That’s why they don’t point them at anyone or anything vital when using blanks.

Yup, it's always good to exercise an abundance of caution with firearms. That still doesn't undermine the fact that the industry has an overall excellent safety record.

CGI and acting can produce the same effect.

No, they really can't.

[GreenJesus]

It's almost like you stopped reading halfway through:

Again, demonstrably, those procedures are followed with very few exceptions, hence the nearly 30-year gap between prop gun deaths. And, again, this wasn't simply "an accident", this was criminal negligence.



You ignoring the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist. You ignoring the safety record in the industry doesn't mean it's hazardous.

With very, very few exceptions, there is zero reason to have live ammunition on set. That alone would have prevented this tragedy. Anything else is unwarranted hyper-extensive knee-jerking.

Its like playing Russian roulette. "7/8 times it works every time." The chance for a titanforged arcanocrystal was really low, but it happened.

[PhaelixWW]

Its like playing Russian roulette.

That's not at all what it's like. What a horrible comparison.

In Russian roulette, when you play according to the rules, there's an extremely significant chance of death. With prop guns, when you use them according to the rules, there's basically zero chance of death. Of the now three deaths in the last 35 years, all of them were instances of people grossly failing to abide by the rules.

[Endus]

Which doesn’t make them safe. Something that’s safe doesn’t require extensive safety protocols to ensure safety. Things that are dangerous require safety protocols. That’s kinda how all those words/terms are defined.

In the same sense that cars aren't safe, and why we have a lot of safety regulations regarding their legal use.

Doesn't mean we freak the fuck out and try and ban private car ownership because there was an accident one time with a single negligent driver (not Baldwin, in this metaphor, though it's breaking down here).

[PhaelixWW]

Recap:

No, the protocols make using them somewhat safe.

I'd argue [the protocols do] make them safe

Something that’s safe doesn’t require extensive safety protocols to ensure safety.

Wheeeeee, watch those goalposts fly!

Whether they're dangerous without the protocols is a beside the point. The protocols make them safe.

You know, like walking across the street. Driving a car. Swimming in the ocean. There are rules there to protect you. Except those things are arguably more dangerous, because even when you follow the rules, you might still get hurt.