So let us begin.
First, thanks to Funt for suggesting a thread dedicated to this hot and rather peculiar subject which I am sure it can provide some thought-provoking discussions instead of trolling unrelated topics.
Accidents that claim people's lives in the movie industry aren't something new. Whose fault is it? The director's? Hackneyed equipment? Stunt person overstepping own capabilities? Mistakes in sfx and prop department? Malfunctions in communication between the crew members.? All of the above? A film is a collaboration, and while the director might seem responsible for everything that happens on camera, irl is often the product of people in charge of several departments. Unfortunately, the Twilight Zone catastrophe isn't the first one in the history of cinema. I have seen recently Flight of the Phoenix (the 1965original), where a stunt guy is killed by sheer destiny. Obviously, filming of dangerous scenes takes a lot of preparations which can last for weeks, in order to measure up every possible aspect in avoiding life defying risks and to get the precious gold-worthy seconds of usable footage.
Now, about Twilight Zone...Landis definitely stepped over his work ethic when he had those kids to work over pre-estimated hours that allow children on a film set. His second mistake was not informing children's parents about the perilous level of the stunt. His third mistake - rushing up the shoot. But it's insane, if not infantile blaming everything on one man, whose job isn't even to research, prepare, and calculate everything that he needs to have his shot. I am sure that everyone are aware that filmmaking is a tough, often stressful experience, where everyone involved carry a high level of responsibility for what is their job in film production.
"When you read about the accident, they say we were blowing up huts—which we weren't—and that debris hit the tail rotor of the helicopter—which it didn't. The FBI Crime Lab, who was working for the prosecution, finally figured out that the tail rotor delaminated, which is why the pilot lost control. The special effects man who made the mistake by setting off a fireball at the wrong time was never charged."
(For the record, I read what the commission reported on the incident)
Ofcourse, I wish that people here don't stick up strictly to Twilight Zone; hence, I am sure there are equally valuable other subjects of a similar ilk worth of discussion.
RE: The Twilight Zone
Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, and Frank Marshall (all producers on the film) must have known what was going on in regards to the under-the-table dealings with the child actors.
The parents of the two children were assured that there would be no explosions on set, as were the casting agents.
The children were hidden when safety inspectors visited the set on the day of the shoot, and the helicopter pilot (Dorcey Wingo, a vietnam veteran) was supposedly hired as it was thought he'd be more likely to follow Landis' orders without questioning them. (Landis also reportedly made crewmen climb scaffolding to repair lights while the helicopter was hovering nearby, calling them 'chickensh*t' if they refused).
So while Landis is clearly responsible here (although the courts somehow aquitted him), I find it unbelievable that Spielberg et al would claim to have had no knowledge of the underhand dealings, or the lack of safety on set.
The fact that Spielberg instantly distanced himself from Landis appears to be more about deflecting any personal involvement in this, as opposed to trying to prove the crew/Director weren't responsible.
One last thing - one crew member originally reported that Spielberg was on set when the accident occurred. He then changed his mind and said it may have been Frank Marshall. Make of that what you will.
Brandon Lee, shot on the set of The Crow:
https://www.grunge.com/175557/the-truth-about-brandon-lees-death/
David Holmes, child stuntman, paralysed from the waist down on the set of the final Harry Potter movie:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588583/Harry-Potter-stunt-double-paralysed-horrific-accident-flying-scene-final-film-broke-neck-hurled-wall-set.html
Quote from: Rara Avis on 15 October, 2021, 04:17:11 PM
Brandon Lee, shot on the set of The Crow:
https://www.grunge.com/175557/the-truth-about-brandon-lees-death/
I have no knowledge are anyone of those prop blokes held responsible for negligence, that took the life of one man.
This article has 15 on set accidents from films including Top Gun, The Hobbit & Maze Runner
https://screenrant.com/tragic-movie-accidents-on-set-famous/
Quote from: milstar on 15 October, 2021, 06:14:41 PM
I have no knowledge are anyone of those prop blokes held responsible for negligence, that took the life of one man.
There were no charges filed :
Dist. Atty. Jerry Spivey said he found no evidence of the "willful and wanton" negligence that would have been required to prosecute Crowvision, the production company making the movie "The Crow."Just a terrible accident.
Maybe the most famous onset injury: https://youtu.be/6n0Uj41zlhU
Seems that LOTR and Hobit were true nightmares of filmmaking.
I'm not familiar with anything else happening on LOTR other than Sean Bean has a fear of flying and would have to hike in his costume to the shooting locations. How did he get to NZ I wonder?
He (Sean Bean) also got stabbed in a pub a few years back and apparently just went back and finished his pint.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 15 October, 2021, 08:03:58 PM
I'm not familiar with anything else happening on LOTR other than Sean Bean has a fear of flying and would have to hike in his costume to the shooting locations.
Well, there's Viggo Mortensen breaking his toe, and Sean Astin cutting his foot on some glass at the bottom of a lake, but they hardly seem in the same league as dropping a helicopter on three people.
(I don't think Sean Bean has a general fear of flying, so much as not wanting to get in the helicopter that flew the cast halfway up a NZ mountain to shoot the Caradhras "Such a little thing..." scene!)
True but it was a real life accident .. I'm not familiar with where this thread originated so I'm not au fait with the context of the thread. I just happen to know a few bits of movie trivia.
I read a story online recently about an actress who was hurt on the set of a film and now had a permanent scar on her face but I don't know the exact detail.
This may not belong to the real life accident, but John Rhys Davies had terrible time under make-up that burned the skin under his eyes.
Few banged up stunts guys too ....
(https://i.redd.it/yq69weyfprz21.jpg)
In Ben Hur the story goes that the stunt double for Stephen Boyd (the villain Mesalla) was killed during the chariot race. This was false the only person that was injured during the filming of this scene was Joe Canutt, doubling for Heston, when he was flipped out of chariot, catching himself on the center hitching rail before pulling himself back in place. His only injury was a gash on his chin requiring four stitches.
DiCaprio on the set of Django, cut his hand and it ended up in the film.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 15 October, 2021, 09:55:09 PM
DiCaprio on the set of Django, cut his hand and it ended up in the film.
Mark Hamill was mauled by a Wampa and then had to fake a car accident to explain the facial injuries.
TRUE STORY.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 15 October, 2021, 09:55:09 PM
DiCaprio on the set of Django, cut his hand and it ended up in the film.
Yes, and Leo stayed in the character for the whole scene.
Poor Kerry Washington!
Tom Cruise broke his ankle doing a jump in one of the MI movies, kept running and that scene made it into the movie afaik.
How could we know mention Jackie Chan in every single one of his movies.
Can't believe Ken Ogata actually committed suicide at the end of Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters.
Absolute giga chad.
Recently on the set of the film RUST, Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun on set accidently causing the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-incident-santa-fe-1235094931/
Quote from: rogue69 on 22 October, 2021, 05:03:11 AM
Recently on the set of the film RUST, Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun on set accidently causing the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-incident-santa-fe-1235094931/
If it could fire bullets and kill people, it wasn't a prop gun. Someone fucked up royally there.
Doesn't need to fire bullets, it's often blanks that kill people
Quote from: Dandontdare on 22 October, 2021, 12:11:43 PM
Doesn't need to fire bullets, it's often blanks that kill people
Isn't a blank more or less the propellant part of a round without the actual bullet bit? If there's
anything in the barrel when the blank fires, it'll get shot out much the same as a bullet. As was the case, tragically, with Brandon Lee.
The things with Alec Baldwin are heating up. Personally, whatever opinion I have on him is irrelevant, and I still do not think he should face charges for other people's negligence. But what grinds my gear currently is...seeing other people in particular places of the internet, calling that Alec should be locked up and charged for manslaughter. And it's obvious from where they come from. This is not a political issue, but yet, those very same folks made it to be. The Armorer and the AD definitely are the ones more responsible and should never be allowed to work in the industry again (after they do jail time dearly). One human life is lost thanks to their negligence; the other lies in the hospital. In terms of measuring the blame, those people are higher on the totem pole than Alec. He will probably face some issues and lawsuits and court settling on his own, being the producer he is. But we'll see. All in all, Hollywood needs to reset some of its rules on the set.
Why was he firing a gun at the cinematographer though?
I think he should bear some responsibility for this.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 October, 2021, 08:45:36 PM
Why was he firing a gun at the cinematographer though?
Apparently they were after a shot of the protagonist firing towards the camera - which is quite common. Not unusually, the director and the cinematographer were standing close to the camera, so they could view the shot as it unfolded.
All things being equal, I expect the responsibility will lie with the armorer (rather than the actor who relies on the expertise of the armorer).
Quote from: Funt Solo on 28 October, 2021, 10:28:47 PM
All things being equal, I expect the responsibility will lie with the armorer (rather than the actor who relies on the expertise of the armorer).
I saw a FB post on this explaining the (correct) on-set firearm procedures and this is 100% on the armourer, if the accounts are correct. The armourer is supposed to check
every single prop weapon before it's put into the hands of an actor and confirm that it's safe to use.
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 October, 2021, 08:45:36 PM
Why was he firing a gun at the cinematographer though?
I think he should bear some responsibility for this.
They were rehearsing a scene, that Funt described. The pistol had live rounds, which was used by crew for shooting beer cans in the spare time, hours before the incident.
Alec Baldwin said he had no idea that live rounds were in and I believe him. Now, I am not exactly sure how movie sets in terms of safety responsibility. Is the actor required to check the gun before holding? Many people told me he is.
It's confusing .. I thought the first rule of gun safety was always assume it's loaded.
Yes it is true but the bigger problem most people have never handled a gun before and it can be overwhelming at first. The bigger problem is most people are ignorant on how to handle a gun in a save way. I feel the person responsible for the gun should have given the actors a lesson on how to handle it and the director should have been aware of it and always remind people "safety first"
Again, I saw a post from an actual armourer in film production: it is 100% the armourer's responsibility to check every single firearm before it's put into the hands of anyone else and confirm it's safe for use.
They're supposed to check the magazine/clip/cylinder and the breech, confirm that no live rounds are present, and hand it to the intended user confirming that it's safe for use.
At that point, it's not the actor's job to check it again, because the person who's job it is to make sure it's safe has told them it's safe.
Quote from: milstar on 28 October, 2021, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: Rara Avis on 28 October, 2021, 08:45:36 PM
Why was he firing a gun at the cinematographer though?
I think he should bear some responsibility for this.
They were rehearsing a scene, that Funt described. The pistol had live rounds, which was used by crew for shooting beer cans in the spare time, hours before the incident.
Taking weapons that are going to be used on set and putting live rounds in them EVER is stupefyingly brain-dead behaviour.
Not been following the story much, but very sad for that young woman.
I fell quite sorry for Alec Baldwin too, poor fecker will probably never get another good nights sleep for the rest of his life.
KILL BILL Uma Thurman
Near the end of filming, Thurman was injured in a crash while filming the scene in which she drives to Bill. According to Thurman, she was uncomfortable driving the car and asked a stunt driver to do it; Tarantino assured her that the car and road were safe. She lost control of the car and hit a tree, suffering a concussion and damage to her knees.
I notice stories about Baldwin being difficult and abusive on other productions are surfacing.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 28 November, 2021, 09:54:27 PM
I notice stories about Baldwin being difficult and abusive on other productions are surfacing.
This is not the same thing as being handed a prop weapon that has been declared safe by the person whose job it is to certify a weapon as safe to handle.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant there's obviously some shitty PR starting against him
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 28 November, 2021, 10:15:10 PM
This is not the same thing as being handed a prop weapon that has been declared safe by the person whose job it is to certify a weapon as safe to handle.
I grew up around guns (mainly shotguns and airguns), and being handed a gun and told that it's safe
is no excuse. The person who is going to pull the trigger is, in my view, entirely responsible for making sure the weapon is safe. (Checking the load and firing a couple of test shots at an inanimate target would suffice - even if this had to be done under close supervision.)
I also grew up around guns* and wouldn't expect an actor, someone who spends their working day immersed in fiction and special effects, someone who pretends to do all kinds of things from the most mundane to the impossible, someone who is surrounded by people whose job it is to do everything for them that doesn't involve acting, people whose job it is to make sure everything is comfortable and safe for them so they don't have to worry about anything but pretending convincingly, to be held accountable for eff all when handed something and told it's safe.
Because the actor potentially hasn't grown up around guns. Anyone handing a gun to an actor should always assume that the actor is an ignorant moron.
* I haven't actually fired one since I was a child, (and that's not a joke).
And the actor being handed the gun should always assume that the person handing it to them is a human being capable of making mistakes.
Quote from: M.I.K. on 29 November, 2021, 11:12:23 AM
I also grew up around guns* and wouldn't expect an actor, someone who spends their working day immersed in fiction and special effects, someone who pretends to do all kinds of things from the most mundane to the impossible, someone who is surrounded by people whose job it is to do everything for them that doesn't involve acting, people whose job it is to make sure everything is comfortable and safe for them so they don't have to worry about anything but pretending convincingly, to be held accountable for eff all when handed something and told it's safe.
Because the actor potentially hasn't grown up around guns. Anyone handing a gun to an actor should always assume that the actor is an ignorant moron.
* I haven't actually fired one since I was a child, (and that's not a joke).
Pretty much what I'd say - I grew up among some guns (not to a US survivalist extent more a British rural context) and I wouldn't expect somebody who hasn't grown up around guns to know gun etiquette especially when everything else you deal with is fake (false doors, building facades, why would you expect a weapon to be the genuine article?)
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 12:11:21 PM
And the actor being handed the gun should always assume that the person handing it to them is a human being capable of making mistakes.
The armourer is paid to not make mistakes. It's literally their whole job. They're paid to make sure no one kills anyone with the weapons on set. If I get on a plane, I assume that both the pilot and co-pilot are capable of getting the plane off the ground, keeping it on course to its intended destination, and getting it back on the ground without killing everyone. It's really not an unreasonable assumption.
Quote from: sheridan on 29 November, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
...why would you expect a weapon to be the genuine article?
Why would you expect a mix-up to be impossible? All the situation requires is a day's (or even half a day's) training for any actor expected to "fire a gun."
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 29 November, 2021, 12:16:36 PM
If I get on a plane, I assume that both the pilot and co-pilot are capable of getting the plane off the ground, keeping it on course to its intended destination, and getting it back on the ground without killing everyone. It's really not an unreasonable assumption.
Pilots are expected to check their aircraft before take off, even if it's just come out of the maintenance hangar after being worked on by expert aviation engineers.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: sheridan on 29 November, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
...why would you expect a weapon to be the genuine article?
Why would you expect a mix-up to be impossible? All the situation requires is a day's (or even half a day's) training for any actor expected to "fire a gun."
It's my understanding that the reason real firearms with blanks are used on film sets, is because they're the cheapest, simplest way to film a firearm discharging. If your A-list actor has to go on a course, even just for half a day, that's time they're not on set, filming is delayed and I don't think a big-name actor is going to go on a training course for free. Or even accept that they need the training in the first place. So by that point it would probably be simpler and cheaper to start using replica/decommissioned firearms and special effects and have no live weapons on set at all.
This is all just speculation* of course, because I know the square root of fuck all about Hollywood/California gun laws and the insurance implications for studios, or how any of that impacts on A-list actor contract negotiations.
*and by that I mean worthless bullshittery
Quote from: sheridan on 29 November, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
... why would you expect a weapon to be the genuine article?
Many moons ago when I was stationed at Brize Norton we were live armed on guard duty. As Brize was (is?) the parachute training school the paras would be back and forth. One Friday night an inebriated para decided as a bit of a joke to pull a water pistol out at the main gate.
The guard in the sanger providing cover didn't think twice before chambering a round and the muppet nearly got a 7.62mm trepanning for his trouble. It was dark and the alert status was generally incredibly high what with the activities of Irish 'tourists'.
Given the number of reports we hear on this side of the pond of US police killing someone who has pulled a replica / imitation firearm it would appear that the better question is "why would you expect a weapon
not to be the genuine article."
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 12:23:01 PM
Pilots are expected to check their aircraft before take off, even if it's just come out of the maintenance hangar after being worked on by expert aviation engineers.
That's
exactly my point.
I am not a pilot — it's not for me to check the pilot's skills before I get on a plane. An actor is not an armourer, it's not for the actor to check the armourer's skills before accepting a weapon which it is the armourer's
literal job to ensure is safe.
The pilot is not an aviation engineer, just as the actor is not an armourer, but the pilot is expected to check the 'plane before flying it just as the actor (the person pulling the trigger), in my view, is expected to check the weapon before firing it even if it was handed over by the best armourer in the world.
Given the number of films/shows in which guns are used, it's impressive how few incidents like this happen. Still, one is too many so an extra layer of safety (the actor checking the gun) would be pointless ~99.99% of the time but still good practice in order to try and get that pointlessness down to 99.999%.
Further, I don't say that the armourer is blameless in this case, far from it, but neither is the actor.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 02:52:03 PM
...the pilot is expected to check the 'plane before flying it just as the actor (the person pulling the trigger), in my view, is expected to check the weapon before firing it even if it was handed over by the best armourer in the world.
But how can the actor be expected to know what to look for?!
I thought the plot to Captain America: Civil War was pretty weak (in terms of motivation for conflict within the group), but now...
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 02:52:03 PM
Further, I don't say that the armourer is blameless in this case, far from it, but neither is the actor.
For fuck's sake: yes, the actor is blameless. They were handed a prop weapon and told it was safe by the person
whose entire job it is to make sure that prop weapons are safe. This is 100% on the armourer who is trained, qualified and paid to ensure that no prop weapon is put in the hands of anyone in a state where it might be dangerous.
I have literally no idea why you're arguing this point. It's like saying "Well, the Health & Safety man said the scaffolding was safe but I, with no experience or expertise in scaffolding, should take it upon myself to check the scaffolding because they might make a mistake."
I'm not saying no one ever makes mistakes, I'm saying that when a qualified professional gives you advice relating to something directy within their remit and which you have lesser or no skill/knowledge of, you're
supposed to defer to their expertise.
I'm arguing the point because I believe in personal responsibility. If an expert handed me a gun, assured me it was safe and then told me to shoot somebody with it, I'd check that gun first. I hope you would too, if only to prove the expert right.
And yes, I'd check scaffolding too, at least give it a shake and keep an eye out for faults. Just blindly trusting people is not always the best policy - as the case we are discussing demonstrates.
No no - I'm with Shark on this one. When I enter an aircraft, I always insist on checking the tire pressure, taking chemical samples of the food for traces of salmonella, breathalyzing the pilot and carrying out a psychiatric evaluation of the copilot.
OF COURSE!
That's a false equivalence - you're comparing the pilot, who has responsibility for the 'plane and the safety of the passengers ("Is the aircraft I'm responsible for safe?"), with the passenger, whose only responsibility is personal ("do I want to trust my life to this airline?").
The person holding the gun is responsible, as TJM's post demonstrates. Had the muppet with the water pistol been shot at, his defence could never be, "well, the guy in the toy shop's an expert on toys and told me this water pistol was safe so the sentry had no right to shoot at me." A gun is a gun and demands respect from everyone who handles it.
The two sides of the argument seem to be:
A. People put their trust in experts all the time, in situations that could be deadly if the expert has either made a mistake or been lax in their duties.
B. People should become experts on everything that could potentially be deadly, that they operate. So - blank-firing guns on film sets, cars, gas appliances...
That's fine if you want to go with B, but I just don't see how it makes any sense.
I think that's an over-simplification.
To put a statist spin on it, people do not need to be experts on cars to drive a car but they do need a driving license, people do not need to be experts on gas boilers to install a gas boiler but they do need to be certificated to install them - so perhaps actors required to fire guns should be licensed also, or at least trained to a sufficient standard.
To me, the two major poles of this argument seem to be that a) the armourer bears sole responsibility (Jim's position, I think - I don't want to put words in your mouth so please accept my apologies if I've misunderstood) and b) armourer and actor share the responsibility, which is my position.
There is no need to go straight to the extreme of demanding that everyone become an expert at everything they intend to do but, especially when another life is in potential jeopardy (in this case the actor who was shot), some level of proficiency would seem to be in order. The argument "how was he supposed to know, he's only an actor?" holds no water for me. I'm a campsite handyman and gardener's assistant with no special training or in-depth knowledge but I know that guns are dangerous, even toy guns, and should never be taken lightly.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 07:33:58 PM
I think that's an over-simplification.
Except it really is that simple.
Its the armorers job to check the security and safety of any weapon props. Dude was SEEN goofing off with it, firing live rounds from a device that he knew was going to be used in a film he was working on.
That is, by any and all measures, a profound failing of his responsibilities.
Films are a collaborative effort, nobody should be expected to do everything.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 04:48:27 PM
I'm arguing the point because I believe in personal responsibility. If an expert handed me a gun, assured me it was safe and then told me to shoot somebody with it, I'd check that gun first. I hope you would too, if only to prove the expert right.
But how? By firing it into the air? At which point you have ruined the take and they need to reset the gun again. Which you test by? At some point, the actor has to fire the gun in the general direction they have been asked... And then they can only trust the expert who handed it to them.
Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 29 November, 2021, 07:57:29 PM
Films are a collaborative effort, nobody should be expected to do everything.
Hence the shared responsibility.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 29 November, 2021, 08:16:06 PM
But how? By firing it into the air? At which point you have ruined the take and they need to reset the gun again.
Actor and armourer work on setting up the weapon together before the scene is shot? Actor learns to tell the difference between blanks and live rounds? I'm not a fan of the ad-hoc, "oh, the scene's about to start, maybe I should check this thing now at the worst possible moment" scenario you suggest. There are myriad ways in which such procedures could be worked into a (probably already wide-ranging) production schedule.
Since this incident, I argued more or less in Baldwin's favour. The armorer, AD did a really shitty job, that's a fact. But I argued with some folks who were telling me "no, Alec should personally check the gun","Alec shouldn't point the gun in camera's direction" (even though they were rehearsing a scene), I blew a fuse. I mean, I like guns - in movies. Irl, I detest them and hope I'll never get a shot to fire a shot. Probably it's why personal checking a gun won't be an operation I'll perform. Nor I am legally required.
The armorer? She reportedly got her job through her Daddy who is some big name in the industry. But she already proven she's not up to her task, scaring Nic Cage off the set when she nonchalantly flaunted around with the guns she was holding. I expect this case of negligence to be persecuted and hopefully, that Hollywood will learn something out of it.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 29 November, 2021, 07:57:29 PM
Films are a collaborative effort, nobody should be expected to do everything.
Hence the shared responsibility.
Except this isn't how it works when someone is literally EDUCATED and PAID to be responsible.
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.
So, to Hell with the victims? It was too complicated a task to protect them? I'm not buying that.
Just because someone is educated and paid does not make them responsible, infallible or, indeed, even competent - again as this incident clearly demonstrates.
Baldwin pulled the trigger. Sure, he was handed an incorrectly loaded weapon by an armourer who seems to have been incompetent (as well as trained and paid), and so the armourer bears the brunt of the responsibility, but Baldwin pulled the trigger. I'm not saying he (Baldwin) must be prosecuted, I'm saying that this incident, isolated though it is, highlights a need for actors pulling triggers to be competent, responsible and involved.
I dunno, this whole discussion just seems like solutioneering
So many blanks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4jgX6WXL4U), with nobody getting hurt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gne8v9aj45w), would suggest that, in general, safety protocols that are in place work well the vast majority of the time.
The specifics around the tragic incident on the set of Rust will no doubt come to light over time - there are certainly a few court case irons in the fire, and a police investigation.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 09:06:42 PM
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.
Quote from: sheridan on 30 November, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested that, so why are you pretending they have?
Because that's the
entire schtick — strike a contrarian position on a fairly uncontroversial topic and then ratchet up the debate by erecting increasingly ludicrous strawmen and attempt to claim the moral/philosophical high ground by opposing statements that
literally nobody made.
So you're saying we should just destroy the entire planet with a giant space gun?
Quote from: Funt Solo on 30 November, 2021, 03:18:46 PM
So you're saying we should just destroy the entire planet with a giant space gun?
Yes, and be done with it.
Feels like an intervention is called for here.
"Legendary Shark, can you show us - using this vintage action figure from the 1994 movie The Shadow - what the bad man Alec Baldwin did to you?"
Harold Lloyd (who you'll know from BBC2 at 6pm in the 80s*) nearly killed himself with what he thought was a prop bomb - he lit the fuse with his cigarette and blew off a couple of fingers.
* Not as good as Monkey or The Water Margin, but there you go.
I agree with Shark, TBH.
The armourer must take some blame. Whoever let the gun be used for target practice should take some blame.
But if you are handed a gun and told, even by someone whose job it is to know, that it is empty... and it turns out not to be empty... and you kill or injure someone... then surely there has to be some personal blame?
"I was told it was safe," does not allow you to abdicate responsibility in other situations.
This was a weapon, FFS. Not an airline meal.
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 01:48:53 PM
The armourer must take some blame. Whoever let the gun be used for target practice should take some blame.
Also the armourer.
Quote"I was told it was safe," does not allow you to abdicate responsibility in other situations.
It most certainly does when the person telling you bears legal responsibility for ensuring that safety.
The Health & Safety officer signing off on scaffolding, as I mentioned before. If you're not a scaffolder, and you paid an appropriately skilled scaffolder to put the thing up, then got a H&S officer to confirm it's safe, how is it conceivably your fault if it falls down and kills someone...?
"My doctor told me it was safe to give my child these tablets," as another example. Turns out they weren't safe. How were you supposed to know? You're not qualified to make that judgement, which is why you defer to the expertise of someone with a legal responsibility to make it on your behalf.
One of the reasons I'll never go on those fairground rides where you appear to be attached by one bolt/link, tightened by an uninterested teenager with a joint in his mouth...
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 01:48:53 PM
I agree with Shark, TBH.
To be fair, I can see where Shark's coming from, as well. The questions around this case revolve around all sorts of issues to do with the culture on set, whether Baldwin (as both the person firing the gun and also one of the producers of the film) is partially culpable, whether anyone else is and so on.
I still think there's a valid point to be made (and it has been already of course) regarding one's personal responsibility where the safety of something has been guaranteed to you by a trusted expert. It was perhaps frivolous of me to link to an A-Team clip, but on the other hand do you really think Howling Mad Murdoch (I realize he's acting) was checking each clip before firing his automatic rifle out of a bullet-proof dustbin?
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 01:48:53 PM
"I was told it was safe," does not allow you to abdicate responsibility in other situations.
Doesn't it, though? I got sold a car and was told it had never been in an accident. Later, it broke down, and the mechanic let me know the problem - the radiator was bust because it had been in an accident. He also discovered that the driver's airbag was non-operational for the same reason. I contacted the seller, who I persuaded to pay for all the repairs. They did so because (well, because they realized they were lucky I wasn't suing them) it was their responsibility - because they'd told me it was safe (in writing, on official-looking paper and signed by their trained mechanics).
If the worst had happened, and I or someone else had died because of the failed airbag, your argument is that it would be my own fault? Have you checked the validity of the airbag in your car? Or do you just trust that it's operational?
---
That U-Toob lawyer guy goes on about the Rust case here (https://youtu.be/wXmAeMQCvZQ). (Of course, he makes money from views, so from one perspective he's just enriching himself by jumping on board the gossip bandwagon. He even uses gunfire SFX on his vid, which is, kindly, tasteless.)
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 01:48:53 PM
But if you are handed a gun and told, even by someone whose job it is to know, that it is empty... and it turns out not to be empty... and you kill or injure someone... then surely there has to be some personal blame?
Nobody would have told the actor that the gun was empty - they'd have told the actor that the charges in the gun were blank, so as to make light and/or sound, but not to shoot out a projectile. Seeing as the rest of your reply seems to hinge on that falacy I'll ignore it from there.
Thinking about my own experience with firearms in the RAF, I suppose the points about personal responsibility are valid to some degree. You were responsible for every round, the state of your rifle, its storage and carriage. "Negligent Discharges" (ND's) were / are treated with the utmost severity regardless of outcome. If a round was chambered without justification there were serious consequences. Even pointing a firearm at someone else in jest could lead to disciplinary action.
That said, this is all around live armed practice. We weren't handling weapons with blanks. In that instance you do need to have a complete focus on the consequences of actions so there is no room for flippancy. The rules were enforced to underscore this.
A film set is completely different though, isn't it? This is about make believe / fantasy. There are no lasting consequences and a general attitude that mistakes can be rectified / repeated.
I guess my point is that if I were an actor handed a firearm and told it was safe then my attitude would be completely different to when I did live armed guard duty back in the day. I would be listening to the instructions I was given and assuming that they were being given by someone competent. Ultimately though I would do things like pointing the weapon at someone based on the premise that this did not pose the same risk.
Rust: US Police to search arms supplier over fatal film shooting (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59490286) - some suggestion here of negligence in the supply chain - live ammo mixed up with dummy rounds.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 01 December, 2021, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 01:48:53 PM
The armourer must take some blame. Whoever let the gun be used for target practice should take some blame.
Also the armourer.
Quote"I was told it was safe," does not allow you to abdicate responsibility in other situations.
It most certainly does when the person telling you bears legal responsibility for ensuring that safety.
The Health & Safety officer signing off on scaffolding, as I mentioned before. If you're not a scaffolder, and you paid an appropriately skilled scaffolder to put the thing up, then got a H&S officer to confirm it's safe, how is it conceivably your fault if it falls down and kills someone...?
"My doctor told me it was safe to give my child these tablets," as another example. Turns out they weren't safe. How were you supposed to know? You're not qualified to make that judgement, which is why you defer to the expertise of someone with a legal responsibility to make it on your behalf.
I get you in all that regard, and I am not trying to be an arse, and I see your points. My retort is "but it was a gun."
I suppose that's the nub of the issue. If you can check something, shouldn't you? You can't check a prescription or scaffolding.
I don't feel that strongly about it. Not enough to prolong this debate. But I do feel that Sharky is trying to make that point - "but it was a gun" - and is maybe being shot down too fiercely, maybe because of other arguments.
How do you check a round to see if it's live or a blank?
Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 December, 2021, 08:53:06 PM
I don't feel that strongly about it. Not enough to prolong this debate. But I do feel that Sharky is trying to make that point - "but it was a gun" - and is maybe being shot down too fiercely, maybe because of other arguments.
As Sheridan notes upthread — it was not meant to be an unloaded gun, it was meant to be a gun loaded with blank cartridges instead of live ammunition. That means rounds in the clip/cylinder even if the weapon was safe.
Are you suggesting that an actor should
remove rounds from a firearm handed to them in order to inspect them and make sure they're blanks...? Squeeze a couple off into a nearby wall, just to be sure? This is
patently ludicrous.
Quote from: Richard on 01 December, 2021, 09:20:28 PM
How do you check a round to see if it's live or a blank?
Normally, like this:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/D712/production/_121185055_blank_cartridge_2x640-nc.png)
But with revolvers, you can see the bullets in the chamber, so where the camera would see that, you use dummy rounds instead of blanks - blanks have no tips (but do have propellant), dummy rounds have tips (but no propellant).
So, in the case of dummy rounds, they pretty much look just like a live round, except their primer (the base of the bullet) is dimpled, and they make a rattling sound when you shake them.
All of this leads us back to the armorer, who should have ensured that the round in the gun was either not in the gun (if it wasn't called for in that scene) or that it was a dummy round (by checking the dimple and the rattle).
My sidelines guess is that she looked at the box she'd been given that said "dummy rounds" on the side and figured it was all good to go.
---
Baldwin's now saying he didn't pull the trigger, either - that the gun just fired.
---
I agree with X that things got a bit fierce towards Shark and there was a bit of a pile on. Sorry, Shark.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 01 December, 2021, 10:45:37 PM
I agree with X that things got a bit fierce towards Shark and there was a bit of a pile on. Sorry, Shark.
I would respectfully suggest that if Shark didn't wade in with ludicrous strawmen, such as suggesting that
anyone in the discussion had said "to hell with the victim", then responses might have been more temperate.
The gun that Alec tragically used is the same one used for shooting practice several hours ago (crews call it plimping, me thinks), for shooting beer cans in the spare time. Someone messed up when loading the weapon. Prop fellas, the armourer...whoever it is, wields the most responsibility. If you are not up to your job, get the fuck out. Then again, this was maybe a disaster waiting to hapšen, since they hired non union local crew (after firing the unioners).
I see Dwayne Johnson advocates for the use of airsoft guns lmao. Take it away, big guy.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 01 December, 2021, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 01 December, 2021, 10:45:37 PM
I agree with X that things got a bit fierce towards Shark and there was a bit of a pile on. Sorry, Shark.
I would respectfully suggest that if Shark didn't wade in with ludicrous strawmen, such as suggesting that anyone in the discussion had said "to hell with the victim", then responses might have been more temperate.
Well, without wanting to start an argument with you, it had been quite heated before that point, with some F-bombs strewn around. Anyway, I agree with X's general sentiment and it doesn't cost me much to apologize. I mostly started to feel bad for Shark when he got droid-shamed, tbh.
Edit - I realized just after posting that you're a droid as well, Jim. Still feels like new information in this old head.
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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?
Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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?
Finger guns or nothing!
Quote from: sheridan on 02 December, 2021, 11:10:02 AM
Finger guns or nothing!
Or we're back to Laura Dern going "PEW! PEW!" every time she fired her blaster in The Last Jedi... :-)
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 December, 2021, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: sheridan on 02 December, 2021, 11:10:02 AM
Finger guns or nothing!
Or we're back to Laura Dern going "PEW! PEW!" every time she fired her blaster in The Last Jedi... :-)
I will never not share this BTS clip of Rie Ota performing a roar as Baragon in GMK 2001.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEVrogZOJzA)Special effects work can be pretty stressful so levity is always a joy to see.
Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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.
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
Quote from: rogue69 on 02 December, 2021, 10:19:51 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.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 02 December, 2021, 10:34:39 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.
Sorry, lagging behind - been a bit busy.
Quote from: sheridan on 30 November, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 November, 2021, 09:06:42 PM
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...
Jim - the Coen Brothers are nice. And Scorsese.
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.
No wine, then. Only vinegar.
When all else fails ... DRAMA!
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 02 December, 2021, 11:39:14 PM
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).
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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?
Quote from: Tjm86 on 03 December, 2021, 06:37:04 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sqSQ5Vu8vM&t=15s)
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:32 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.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:32 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.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 02 December, 2021, 10:34:39 PM
Quote from: rogue69 on 02 December, 2021, 10:19:51 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.
Quote from: Tjm86 on 03 December, 2021, 06:37:04 AM
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!!
Quote from: Mister Pops on 03 December, 2021, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 03 December, 2021, 06:37:04 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 December, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 02 December, 2021, 12:04:13 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sqSQ5Vu8vM&t=15s)
Better than 90% of the action in Expendibles 3.
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).
Just to be clear, when I advocate for the personal responsibility of the actor I am not calling for prosecution or punishment but for the exploration of the idea that personal responsibility transcends legal requirements.
presumption of innocence is definitively over now, isn't it?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 04 December, 2021, 12:08:07 PM
Just to be clear, when I advocate for the personal responsibility of the actor I am not calling for prosecution or punishment but for the exploration of the idea that personal responsibility transcends legal requirements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59499237 (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59499237)
"According to court records, Mr Baldwin was handed the weapon by the film's assistant director, Dave Halls, who did not know it contained live ammunition and indicated it was unloaded by shouting "cold gun"."
Hmm.
It might help you all if you specify which type of responsibility you are talking about. It seems clear from reading the thread that some of you are debating who is legally or criminally responsible while others are debating who is morally responsible.
I think Baldwin should share some of the responsibility for his part in this - yes maybe the dummy rounds were faulty and maybe the armourer handed him the weapon and told him it was cold but he still chose to point a real gun (being used as a prop) at a fellow human being and pulled the trigger.
For good guy directors I've heard only good things about Christopher Nolan .... David Lynch slightly tarnished for me after I heard the Isabella Rossellini break up story.
The 2007 film Kingdom, the end credits of the movie dedicates it to Tom Aguilar, Lance Gunnin and Nick Papac, all crew members who died during production. Tom Aguilar (prop maker) died one week after being admitted to the hospital for stomach pain and subsequently discovering he had prostate cancer. Lance Gunnin (construction worker) was killed in a motorcycle accident on his way to the set. Nick Papac (prop master) died in an on-set collision between his Gator all-terrain vehicle and an SUV.