Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Remember that this occured during a strike, and Baldwin brought in scabs to fill the positions, and then pushed one of those scabs to be the fallguy, despite baldwin being both the one in the position of power, and the one who fired the gun without checking it was loaded.
It's not the actor's job to check if a prop is a functional weapon. They have other things to be focusing on.
But since he hired the people and set the policies, he's still responsible.
It is the job of anyone handling a dangerous object to handle it safely. If they can't, they shouldn't.
The point of an armorer on set is that they ensure that the guns aren't dangerous. The typical rules about "don't aim at something you don't want to destroy" doesn't apply in a movie because otherwise all the action sequences would look dumb with people firing wildly at the ground. How stupid would it look if John Wick shoots at the floor and blood spurts out of the guys face.
That said, anyone who hires a scab armorer gets what they pay for and deserve to be prosecuted.
The rules about don't aim at something you don't want to destroy absolutely apply because it was a real gun. That rule applies even when you know the gun is unloaded because you checked it yourself. Been shooting 45 years (I'm 50) and no problems ever because I was taught and follow the safety rules.
Guns used on film sets are real guns. They're simply loaded with blanks. Basically every movie and television show you've ever seen involved people breaking the "safety rules" of firearms. Every time you see a gun pointed at "you," i.e. the camera, an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.
When you see people "shooting" at each other, they're firing real guns loaded with blanks at each other. You can certainly remove all realistic gunplay from movies and TV, and I'm fine with that, but it's absurd to think that the same rules of firearm safety apply equally in the context of filmmaking.
an actor is pointing a real gun at a cameraperson who is holding the camera, which is precisely what happened here.
which proves it I not safe? yes that's the point, something dangerous was done, maybe normalized in the industry but still dangerous. a boom or tripod can always be used to not have someone behind the camera on the other end of a gun
Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.
There's very obviously all sorts of ways to make Hollywood safer, but the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood. If you're interested in making the industry less dangerous, I would suggest reviewing how "acceptable risk" is determined when it comes to stunts.
Yes, and instead of shooting at each other people can shoot at the ground and then just make really mean facial expressions at each other. Or we can just take guns out of tv and movies altogether. Or they can use squirt guns and people can use their imagination.
I love strawmanning something nobody said, it's not dishonest at all.
the use of guns isn't where I would start since injury or death from guns is extremely rare in Hollywood.
A rare risk, that's easy to avoid. why not just avoid it when possible? A camera operator rarely needs to be in front of a gun, so try to avoid it when it's not absolutely necessary? This seems like basic risk minimization
K
insightful response
You're not worth the time. Blocked.
There's no good reason to use a functional gun in film and theater, change my mind.
Actors miming shooting looks ridiculous. Like laser tag guns. Actual recoil looks much more realistic.
The must be a way to create "false" gun in the sense that they only takes blanks and have nonfunctional barrels. Or I'm I too optimistic?
If the armorer wasn't willfully negligent it wouldn't be a problem. Not a problem for the vast majority of film sets. Just pure lack of professionalism from the armorer whose sole core responsibility is to ensure safety.
if Baldwin wasn't waiving a gun around like a moron, a negligent armorer wouldn't have been a problem, either.
the armorer being negligent (and she was), doesn't mean that Baldwin wasn't also being negligent. and lets be perfectly clear: the reason Gutierrez-Reed was hired over other more professional armorers is precisely because she was "less professional"- or more bluntly, because she was willing to not insist on proper safety protocols that caused delays in shooting.
Unfortunately, guns are deceptively simple. Just about anything that can detonate a realistic looking blank is capable of firing an actual bullet. And even if it's just a blank, any obstruction in the barrel can end up becoming an ad-hoc projectile by the force. Every once in a while, you have that happen in Civil War re-enactments.
We could get around this by having specific calibers that only come in blanks.