Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Real life accidents on film/tv sets  (Read 4198 times)

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14071
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #90 on: 02 December, 2021, 10:48:32 PM »
That was on Friedkin, because he was a fricking maniac who told the stunt guy to pull the rope as hard as he could without telling the actor. He was and is a piece of shit in the Kubrick mould of abusing women.

I'd really like it if film directors could be brilliant and also not be complete pieces of shit.* Just in the interests of my mental health, could folks maybe give me a few examples of brilliant directors who are also OK humans? They don't have to be humanitarian of the year… at this point, I'd just settle for not being weirdo misogynists, sex pests, child rapists, or dropping helicopters on people. That sort of stuff.

I don't exactly have my ear to the ground, but I've never heard bad stuff about John Carpenter, for example.** I'd like to think it's possible to be great in your field, without being a total arsehole.

* Yes, I know this isn't new. We didn't really have a sense of who the people were behind the names on the credits were until (relatively) recently.

** I may be wrong about Carpenter… maybe don't disillusion me tonight, eh? Also, yes, I know his best years are a lonnnnng way behind him.

Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #91 on: 02 December, 2021, 11:39:14 PM »
Sorry, lagging behind - been a bit busy.


So, to Hell with the victims? It was too complicated a task to protect them? I'm not buying that.



Absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested that, so why are you pretending they have?  Everybody (even you) is saying that the armourer is responsible - the only disagreement until you said that was that some (well, you) think the actor should also be held responsible.


Hawkmumbler said, "I sincerely say this from the heart as someone who has spent a lot of time on film sets dude, you have no bloody idea how complicated they are and why your notion of shared responsibility just does not gel with them."

This, I believe, moves the discussion into a more utilitarian realm, a more cost/benefit analysis type thing. Hawkie is saying, as I interpret his words, that film sets are complicated places and that adding yet another complication to an already complicated environment wouldn't be efficient. Or something like that. Whilst I think it's wise to take utility into account, I would not prefer to use it as a primary indicator. I find it inherantly distasteful and dangerous to let mathematics and spreadsheets decide the value of a human life. (And note here also that it's Hawkie's post that moves us away from the question of the actor's personal and shared responsibilities by focusing on their utility.) This attitude has "to Hell with the victims" baked into it - they're just a couple of variables amongst a whole lot of other variables on the spreadsheet. Personal or shared personal responsibilities have no place on that spreadsheet.

The thing is, I know that film sets are complicated. True, I don't know the exact nature of that complexity through first-hand experience but so what? Making a film is self-evidently complex, as the 45 minutes' worth of credits on the tail end of every modern blockbuster amply demonstrate. And those are just the names, the bare bones of the complexity supporting all the interpersonal and interdepartmental virtual and real life interactions required to put the film together. Complexity. I get it. But so what? Running a country is complicated. Organizing a supply chain is complicated. Running a shop is complicated. Filling a can with baked beans is complicated. Everything's complicated. (We had an issue with our electrical hook-ups one day last week that had us scratching our heads for an hour.) Something being complicated is a thin excuse as a bar to realising self responsibility, because complicated doesn't mean unchangeable.

Using the case under discussion as a template, and with the obvious benefits of hindsight, here is a possible way around Hawkie's objection that complexity is a barrier to self responsibility and shared responsibilities (if I've understood his objection properly, that is). In this fictional scenario I place myself in the role of the actor hired to pull the trigger and ask myself, "what would be the best way for me to handle this?" I start with my core belief - "Harm Nobody." There are riders and exceptions and fuzzy bits, like the coma of a comet, but its nucleus is solid. From the first time I see the script I know that it requires me to fire a gun at somebody. I know that guns are dangerous and that I'll be the one pulling the trigger. So if I truly believe that I should harm nobody, then that must mean by accident as well as on purpose. It is my responsibility, then, to do all I can to minimise the chance of any mishap. If I were to further learn something like the gun I'm going to be using will be a real one loaded with blanks for my shooting scene but will be used elsewhere in the film firing live rounds so shots can be taken of bullets slapping into doors, walls, dirt, and a side of ham, then that's going to heighten my awareness. I'd bring it all up with the armourer as soon as possible, maybe by 'phone or at rehearsal. It would be a fairly simple proposal - the armourer teaches me about the gun and how to tell the difference between live rounds and blanks (from what I gather it's generally pretty straightforward in that live rounds have big lumps of pointy lead at one end and blanks don't). I'd organise to double check the load with the armourer (and the actor who's going to be shot at might be interested to see, as well, and maybe the director, and undoubtedly a gaggle of lawyers...) on the day of shooting the shooting. It would take, like, a minute or two tops and could easily be done when the actor would otherwise be waiting around for everything to get set up. This check would be part of my set up, a little extra complexity in an ocean of complexity that just might, in that one in millions chance, catch a mistake at the last minute. Because it will be my finger on the trigger, so I want to be as sure as I can be that nobody's going to get hurt. The only danger then is from some cunning murder plot involving live rounds altered to look like blanks, I suppose - so nothing's infallible.

But all of that is beside the point, as I said. Hawkie opened the door to discussing bars to implementation, which I walked through. For three admittedly terse sentences. Because I thought this argument was drifting off point I dismissed it with three sentences because I didn't want to wade through all that stuff I've just had to wade through anyway.

So yes, you're absolutely right - nobody said to Hell with the victims. I said it, as a terse interpretation of Hawkie's utilitarian point. I then tersely refuted the idea that complexity is a bar to self responsibility.

Next up is Jim with his customary ad hom. What is he calling me this time? A troll? Oh no, this time I'm a contrarian. That must mean that my views on self responsibility are invalid. Because Jim thinks that if one can grind down the arguer, one can grind down the argument, that belittling the arguer belittles the argument. It's his entire schtick. My entire schtick is freedom, as Jim well knows. It's about taking more personal responsibility and seeing experts and authorities as guides rather than dictators. In this case is an opportunity for me to suggest how more libertarian philosophies might prove to be not quite the frothing mania Jim believes them to be but actually quite sensible. Given that I believe most of my posts on similar topics derive from the same philosophy, it would only have been contrarian of me to accept the armourer as solely responsible view. But no, Jim says I'm just a contrarian (an accusation I can only accept by denying and deny by accepting), so all my views must simply be arbitrary negatives and therefore invalid. Hrrgh.

The space gun idea sounds real good about now because next comes Gordon. Seriously? You're going to crack jokes based on that subject? Seriously, Dude, eww. Just, eww.

And as that seems to be the nadir, this seems like a good place to get off. Maybe there's a wine cellar down here...




~~~^~~~~~~~


Dive a little deeper - all is not as it seems. "Cyber pandemic" on the way. Devices to be "quarantined" (disconnected).

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9688
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #92 on: 02 December, 2021, 11:44:34 PM »
Jim - the Coen Brothers are nice. And Scorsese.
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9688
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #93 on: 03 December, 2021, 12:30:17 AM »
Shark - calling people out for placing others in danger when you’re not willing to get vaccinated is hypocritical. Climb down off your high horse, please.
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #94 on: 03 December, 2021, 01:12:13 AM »

No wine, then. Only vinegar.

~~~^~~~~~~~


Dive a little deeper - all is not as it seems. "Cyber pandemic" on the way. Devices to be "quarantined" (disconnected).

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9688
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #95 on: 03 December, 2021, 01:43:09 AM »
When all else fails ... DRAMA!
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

sheridan

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6757
    • View Profile
    • Wilde Wood
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #96 on: 03 December, 2021, 02:00:58 AM »
The space gun idea sounds real good about now because next comes Gordon. Seriously? You're going to crack jokes based on that subject? Seriously, Dude, eww. Just, eww.

And as that seems to be the nadir, this seems like a good place to get off. Maybe there's a wine cellar down here...

That's something I refute - as the conversation had got heated (and this forum is one of the friendlier places on the internet) the intention was to lighten the mood.  As my social interactions are more focused on the community embodied by the Advent Calendar thread and my daily blurb-translation contributions, trying to make things on this thread more friendly seemed like a good aim.  What you think was the nadir I'd say was an upturn after the true nadir (and let's hope the thread doesn't continue much longer to return to a downturn).

Tjm86

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3492
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #97 on: 03 December, 2021, 06:37:04 AM »
I see Dwayne Johnson advocates for the use of airsoft guns lmao. Take it away, big guy.

Perhaps from here on all films involving firearms should use Nerf guns?  That would have made Saving Private Ryan a much more interesting film, no?

only if it applies to cannons as well.

Can you imagine the remake of Dambusters with a chuffing great big barrel of foam?

Mister Pops

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
  • You're Goddamn right!
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #98 on: 03 December, 2021, 09:47:50 AM »
I see Dwayne Johnson advocates for the use of airsoft guns lmao. Take it away, big guy.

Perhaps from here on all films involving firearms should use Nerf guns?  That would have made Saving Private Ryan a much more interesting film, no?

only if it applies to cannons as well.

Can you imagine the remake of Dambusters with a chuffing great big barrel of foam?

I can't think of any movie that wouldn't be improved with action scenes like THIS
You may quote me on that.

CalHab

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #99 on: 03 December, 2021, 12:07:35 PM »
I'd really like it if film directors could be brilliant and also not be complete pieces of shit.* Just in the interests of my mental health, could folks maybe give me a few examples of brilliant directors who are also OK humans? They don't have to be humanitarian of the year… at this point, I'd just settle for not being weirdo misogynists, sex pests, child rapists, or dropping helicopters on people. That sort of stuff.

David Lynch seems to be a good sort, so that's something.

Woolly

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4261
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #100 on: 03 December, 2021, 12:33:03 PM »
I'd really like it if film directors could be brilliant and also not be complete pieces of shit.

George Miller is by all accounts a good 'un.
As was Richard Donner.

milstar

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #101 on: 03 December, 2021, 01:13:33 PM »
In the Exorcist when filming the scene were the possessed Regan slaps her mum Chris McNeil throwing her on to a table the man pulling the rope to make Ellen Burstyn crash onto it pulled too hard causing her permanent back problems

That was on Friedkin, because he was a fricking maniac who told the stunt guy to pull the rope as hard as he could without telling the actor. He was and is a piece of shit in the Kubrick mould of abusing women.

Friedkin was really tough bastard in those days, something he acknowledged to. But in those days, brazen behavior by director wasn't something new. And I say that with knowledge that older directors were exceptionally brutal, Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger, David Lean and especially John Ford. In Kubrick's defense, he treated anyone equally miserably (except Malcolm McDowell). I  suppose it was the role you have to be friendly with your actor. But all these people were hard on their actors. The film set shouldn't be dangerous place, the only dangerous subject would be your director.

Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

milstar

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #102 on: 03 December, 2021, 01:16:44 PM »


Can you imagine the remake of Dambusters with a chuffing great big barrel of foam?

Well, the closest we got is Alan Parker's Bugsy Malone. SPLURG!!
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

von Boom

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #103 on: 03 December, 2021, 02:20:55 PM »
I see Dwayne Johnson advocates for the use of airsoft guns lmao. Take it away, big guy.

Perhaps from here on all films involving firearms should use Nerf guns?  That would have made Saving Private Ryan a much more interesting film, no?

only if it applies to cannons as well.

Can you imagine the remake of Dambusters with a chuffing great big barrel of foam?

I can't think of any movie that wouldn't be improved with action scenes like THIS
Better than 90% of the action in Expendibles 3.

The Enigmatic Dr X

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 5954
    • View Profile
Re: Real life accidents on film/tv sets
« Reply #104 on: 04 December, 2021, 08:09:10 AM »
The latest suggestion is that the incident was caused by a faulty blank; that is, a round that was supposed to be deactivated but wasn't. It would have been indistinguishable from a proper blank.

So maybe the armourer wasn't to blame...

I guess I don't like this thread as it feels a bit modern cancelly internet mob justice-y.  I don't like that and won't come back (to this thread).
Lock up your spoons!