Alec Baldwin accidentally kills film crew member with prop gun
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89056
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:21 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
I just don't get why they don't take an ordinary .44 or .45 to the range, load it, then fire off six rounds. You then remove the primer from the spent rounds, and there's an obvious hole that you can clearly see. For extra protection, anodize the case, and then attach a bullet to make it look real. On a revolver facing towards the camera, the casing color would be undetectable, and everyone can clearly see a missing primer on the casing, meaning that the round is a dummy. Blanks and live ammo have primers that you can clearly see.


They often want dummies to look like they have live primers because of the rear of barter view on film. The larger issue here is not that they need to augment the look of dummies so much as they need to follow really simple really repeatable safety standards. And the simplest of all is clearing and checking and proving clear the weapon every single time with every single participant.

In this case and in the Brandon Lee and John Hexum and the others I’m aware of, it all comes down to basic safety, and in this case it really wouldn’t matter what the dummies look like if the crew is putting live rounds through the gun during breaks and no one checks it before it is used on set. As Mule said, they can dispense with most of the dangerous stuff through CGI and quite frankly, they can make these guns unable to fire anything without ruining their aesthetics. But if you’re going to use a real gun, you’re only as good as that last check of the weapon.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 49215
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:29 pm    Post subject:

Interestingly enough, there are actually replica weapons available that replicate all the practical characteristics of live fire, but are not functioning guns. But they were not put into use by productions because they didn't want to fund development.:

Hollywood Ignored a Safe, Realistic Alternative to Guns Long Before the ‘Rust’ Tragedy

Years before the “Rust” tragedy would cause urgent conversations about guns on set, Hollywood had a safe and realistic alternative that it ignored.

The proprietary technology was shown to industry leaders and movie stars in the corners of conventions and trade shows, in the sleek offices of venture capital firms, and in dazzling proof-of-concept footage posted to YouTube.

It’s called Violette, a device with science-fair simplicity, which combined propane and oxygen to create a flash, bang and physical recoil — all the sensory elements of firing a weapon that we expect to see in movies and on TV. The device lives inside a dummy gun, but isn’t a firearm.

These faux weapons or “host units,” as founders Søren Haraldsted and Daniel Karpantschof of Copenhagen Industries call them, are hollowed-out props modeled after the real thing. They can safely be held as close as two inches from their intended targets, the inventors said.

“With Violette, we removed all the restrictions of using real firearms and replaced that with a creative ability for the cast, crew, director and DP. CGI has gotten better, it’s true, but having the actual effect on set produces a better result in the camera,” Karpantschof told Variety.

Armed with their demo gun and a sizzle reel, Haraldsted and Karpantschof set out in the fall of 2015 to raise $5 million for Violette, hoping the tool would become industry standard and replace real firearms for good. Over four years, they engaged with the likes of Disney Accelerator (an incubator that develops tech for the media giant), Netflix, the Smith Family Circle (Will and Jada’s holdings company) and Avi Lerner’s Millennium Films. They heard the same response again and again, said Karpantschof: “We want the product, we don’t want to fund it.”

_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 28404

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:33 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Interestingly enough, there are actually replica weapons available that replicate all the practical characteristics of live fire, but are not functioning guns. But they were not put into use by productions because they didn't want to fund development.:

Hollywood Ignored a Safe, Realistic Alternative to Guns Long Before the ‘Rust’ Tragedy

Years before the “Rust” tragedy would cause urgent conversations about guns on set, Hollywood had a safe and realistic alternative that it ignored.

The proprietary technology was shown to industry leaders and movie stars in the corners of conventions and trade shows, in the sleek offices of venture capital firms, and in dazzling proof-of-concept footage posted to YouTube.

It’s called Violette, a device with science-fair simplicity, which combined propane and oxygen to create a flash, bang and physical recoil — all the sensory elements of firing a weapon that we expect to see in movies and on TV. The device lives inside a dummy gun, but isn’t a firearm.

These faux weapons or “host units,” as founders Søren Haraldsted and Daniel Karpantschof of Copenhagen Industries call them, are hollowed-out props modeled after the real thing. They can safely be held as close as two inches from their intended targets, the inventors said.

“With Violette, we removed all the restrictions of using real firearms and replaced that with a creative ability for the cast, crew, director and DP. CGI has gotten better, it’s true, but having the actual effect on set produces a better result in the camera,” Karpantschof told Variety.

Armed with their demo gun and a sizzle reel, Haraldsted and Karpantschof set out in the fall of 2015 to raise $5 million for Violette, hoping the tool would become industry standard and replace real firearms for good. Over four years, they engaged with the likes of Disney Accelerator (an incubator that develops tech for the media giant), Netflix, the Smith Family Circle (Will and Jada’s holdings company) and Avi Lerner’s Millennium Films. They heard the same response again and again, said Karpantschof: “We want the product, we don’t want to fund it.”


Jeez, it's a pittance for these guys...
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:46 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
I just don't get why they don't take an ordinary .44 or .45 to the range, load it, then fire off six rounds. You then remove the primer from the spent rounds, and there's an obvious hole that you can clearly see. For extra protection, anodize the case, and then attach a bullet to make it look real. On a revolver facing towards the camera, the casing color would be undetectable, and everyone can clearly see a missing primer on the casing, meaning that the round is a dummy. Blanks and live ammo have primers that you can clearly see.


They often want dummies to look like they have live primers because of the rear of barter view on film. The larger issue here is not that they need to augment the look of dummies so much as they need to follow really simple really repeatable safety standards. And the simplest of all is clearing and checking and proving clear the weapon every single time with every single participant.

In this case and in the Brandon Lee and John Hexum and the others I’m aware of, it all comes down to basic safety, and in this case it really wouldn’t matter what the dummies look like if the crew is putting live rounds through the gun during breaks and no one checks it before it is used on set. As Mule said, they can dispense with most of the dangerous stuff through CGI and quite frankly, they can make these guns unable to fire anything without ruining their aesthetics. But if you’re going to use a real gun, you’re only as good as that last check of the weapon.



I'm not familiar with the term "barter view" on film. Would you mind explaining it to a lay person?

In terms of the dummies, they are not mutually exclusive safety measures. You should do both. Obviously whatever safety standard was not in place, and has not been in place despite the Brandon Lee and John Hexum accidents, so why would you believe that everyone in the industry suddenly adheres to basic safety standards?

Adherence is great, at least until the next accident. So why not have the film industry self-regulate by having armors color code casings, and degrade the casings? You cannot see a hot pink casing minus a primer when a revolver is pointed at the camera. It looks like a real bullet. Now you could argue that Baldwin, the assistant director, and the prop-master wouldn't have checked anyway, but it is one more safety measure that can reduce the probability of an accident, and one that wouldn't be caught by audiences watching the finished product.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9334

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:18 am    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
So why not have the film industry self-regulate by having armors color code casings, and degrade the casings?


Does that solve this problem? There's still the element of human error which is what happened here.

The armorer here loaded the weapon with rounds from a box marked "dummy". One of the rounds happened to be a live bullet.

Now, if we have this same armorer sit there and color code the casings, she can still color code a live round. What would be the difference?

And I would argue that instead of adding an extra layer of safety, having the armorer color code the casings now weakens the safety chain.

For example, dummy rounds are already inherently different from live rounds. If a person actually inspects the rounds, they'd be able to tell due to these inherent differences.

But, once you have the armorer color code the casings, now everyone after her will no longer inspect the rounds for the actual differences. They'll just be inspecting for the color coding now. So, the safety chain is now reduced to the armorer. If the armorer makes a mistake on the color coding, everyone in the safety chain after her will also make the same mistake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:53 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
So why not have the film industry self-regulate by having armors color code casings, and degrade the casings?


Does that solve this problem? There's still the element of human error which is what happened here.

The armorer here loaded the weapon with rounds from a box marked "dummy". One of the rounds happened to be a live bullet.

Now, if we have this same armorer sit there and color code the casings, she can still color code a live round. What would be the difference?

And I would argue that instead of adding an extra layer of safety, having the armorer color code the casings now weakens the safety chain.

For example, dummy rounds are already inherently different from live rounds. If a person actually inspects the rounds, they'd be able to tell due to these inherent differences.

But, once you have the armorer color code the casings, now everyone after her will no longer inspect the rounds for the actual differences. They'll just be inspecting for the color coding now. So, the safety chain is now reduced to the armorer. If the armorer makes a mistake on the color coding, everyone in the safety chain after her will also make the same mistake.



If a film crew is hell bent on disregarding safety in order to shorten the film production cycle, then it may not make a difference. But color coding the casings reduces the level of expertise even further, so that a novice can quickly verify that there are no live rounds. For example, there were live rounds reportedly found lying around the set. I think a safe assumption would be that law enforcement found those rounds. I would imagine the film crew saw non color-coded rounds they'd ask the director, AD, and prop-master to take action immediately, perhaps even reprimand the armorer for carelessness. That could have given everyone ample warning, and it might have prompted Baldwin to check the loads in his revolver before firing at the camera.

It's another layer of safety that should be instituted among working armorers. Given the consequences I think an additional layer of safety is in order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9334

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:33 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
If a film crew is hell bent on disregarding safety in order to shorten the film production cycle, then it may not make a difference. But color coding the casings reduces the level of expertise even further, so that a novice can quickly verify that there are no live rounds. For example, there were live rounds reportedly found lying around the set. I think a safe assumption would be that law enforcement found those rounds. I would imagine the film crew saw non color-coded rounds they'd ask the director, AD, and prop-master to take action immediately, perhaps even reprimand the armorer for carelessness. That could have given everyone ample warning, and it might have prompted Baldwin to check the loads in his revolver before firing at the camera.

It's another layer of safety that should be instituted among working armorers. Given the consequences I think an additional layer of safety is in order.


Let me give you an example then.

Armorer Gutierrez, AD Halls, and actor Baldwin.

A) Scenario 1:

1) Armorer Gutierrez loads the weapon, mistakenly puts in a live round. She hands it off to AD Halls.

2) AD Halls can't tell the difference between a live rd and a dummy rd, so he has to physically inspect all of the rds. AD Halls then hands it off to actor Baldwin.

3) Actor Baldwin can't tell the difference between a live rd and a dummy rd, so he has to physically inspect all of the rds.



B) Scenario 2: Color code ammo

1) Armorer Gutierrez color codes all the ammunition orange, mistakenly color codes a live round. She hands it off to AD Halls.

2) AD Halls visually inspects that all the rounds are orange, and assumes they're all dummy rounds. AD Halls hands the gun off to actor Baldwin

3) Actor Baldwin visually inspects that all the rounds are orange, and assumes they're all dummy rounds.


See, in scenario 1, you have to pass through 3 physical inspections (or you should have). In scenario 2, you only have 1 physical inspection (the armorer who color codes them). The rest just do a visual inspection, relying on the armorer to not make a mistake.

If you make enough movies, there will be an armorer that color codes a live rd as a dummy rd. It's just bound to happen. And when this happens, there won't be another safety backup since everyone will trust a color coded rd to be what it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:58 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
If a film crew is hell bent on disregarding safety in order to shorten the film production cycle, then it may not make a difference. But color coding the casings reduces the level of expertise even further, so that a novice can quickly verify that there are no live rounds. For example, there were live rounds reportedly found lying around the set. I think a safe assumption would be that law enforcement found those rounds. I would imagine the film crew saw non color-coded rounds they'd ask the director, AD, and prop-master to take action immediately, perhaps even reprimand the armorer for carelessness. That could have given everyone ample warning, and it might have prompted Baldwin to check the loads in his revolver before firing at the camera.

It's another layer of safety that should be instituted among working armorers. Given the consequences I think an additional layer of safety is in order.


Let me give you an example then.

Armorer Gutierrez, AD Halls, and actor Baldwin.

A) Scenario 1:

1) Armorer Gutierrez loads the weapon, mistakenly puts in a live round. She hands it off to AD Halls.

2) AD Halls can't tell the difference between a live rd and a dummy rd, so he has to physically inspect all of the rds. AD Halls then hands it off to actor Baldwin.

3) Actor Baldwin can't tell the difference between a live rd and a dummy rd, so he has to physically inspect all of the rds.



B) Scenario 2: Color code ammo

1) Armorer Gutierrez color codes all the ammunition orange, mistakenly color codes a live round. She hands it off to AD Halls.

2) AD Halls visually inspects that all the rounds are orange, and assumes they're all dummy rounds. AD Halls hands the gun off to actor Baldwin

3) Actor Baldwin visually inspects that all the rounds are orange, and assumes they're all dummy rounds.


See, in scenario 1, you have to pass through 3 physical inspections (or you should have). In scenario 2, you only have 1 physical inspection (the armorer who color codes them). The rest just do a visual inspection, relying on the armorer to not make a mistake.

If you make enough movies, there will be an armorer that color codes a live rd as a dummy rd. It's just bound to happen. And when this happens, there won't be another safety backup since everyone will trust a color coded rd to be what it is.



Scenario 1: All anyone had to do was open the loading gate, click the revolver to the safety position, and rotate the cylinder. All you should see are brightly colored casings with big holes. The entire intent is to make it as simple as possible for a novice to check. Now Baldwin and the AD might have been too lazy or too rushed, but it is fast and expedient. If you're pressed for time you don't even have to eject the dummy rounds one at a time and then reload, which if you've ever handled a single-action revolver, takes some time.

Here's the important part of color-coding dummy rounds. This accident could have been averted had the film crew seen non-color coded rounds lying around the set. Without color-coded rounds, the film crew might have assumed they were dummies. With the armorer, Baldwin, the director and assistant director realizing that live ammo was casually strewn about the set, they all might have had a lot more respect for safety protocols.


Scenario 2: Impossible. Not sure how she'd anodize a live round, or have a metal shop anodize a live round. She'd have to be blind drunk or stoned out of her mind, especially if the spent dummy rounds have a hole where the primer used to be and the bullet was absent from the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9334

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:26 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
Scenario 2: Impossible. Not sure how she'd anodize a live round, or have a metal shop anodize a live round.


Yeah, I'm not familiar with how to color code rounds.

Quote:
She'd have to be blind drunk or stoned out of her mind, especially if the spent dummy rounds have a hole where the primer used to be and the bullet was absent from the case.


Maybe she was blind drunk or stoned out of her mind when she loaded the live round into the gun thinking it's a dummy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3759
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand

PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:18 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Scenario 2: Impossible. Not sure how she'd anodize a live round, or have a metal shop anodize a live round.


Yeah, I'm not familiar with how to color code rounds.

Quote:
She'd have to be blind drunk or stoned out of her mind, especially if the spent dummy rounds have a hole where the primer used to be and the bullet was absent from the case.


Maybe she was blind drunk or stoned out of her mind when she loaded the live round into the gun thinking it's a dummy?



Yeah that would never happen on a movie set. I echo my previous question, were drug tests taken on everyone and what was the out come?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:50 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Scenario 2: Impossible. Not sure how she'd anodize a live round, or have a metal shop anodize a live round.


Yeah, I'm not familiar with how to color code rounds.

Quote:
She'd have to be blind drunk or stoned out of her mind, especially if the spent dummy rounds have a hole where the primer used to be and the bullet was absent from the case.


Maybe she was blind drunk or stoned out of her mind when she loaded the live round into the gun thinking it's a dummy?



Yeah, I'm using the term "anodizing" loosely. Technically you don't use an anodizer to color brass, but there are other (even easier) techniques to color brass (Poly had an anodizer in metal shop). A local metal bashing shop that works with sheet metal and fittings would be able to do it quickly and cheaply. You just allow the metal to absorb a reactant, imparting a color, which is what an anodizer does via an electric current.

She could have been blind drunk or loaded out of her gourd when she drew rounds from the dummy box. If we're to believe that contention, then she definitely lost custody of the revolver and someone put live rounds in the cylinder, probably for recreational shooting. That's what I've suspected all along, that she left the firearm(s) out for the enjoyment of others, purely to ingratiate herself with others (social networking). My theory is that one or more members of the crew had fun with the weapon by plinking beer cans, and carelessly left a live round in the cylinder.

Despite what the rednecks say, drinking and shooting do not go together. A somewhat common cause of accidental death is when someone tries to clean their weapon while tipsy, before checking to see if they left it loaded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 89056
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:45 am    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
I just don't get why they don't take an ordinary .44 or .45 to the range, load it, then fire off six rounds. You then remove the primer from the spent rounds, and there's an obvious hole that you can clearly see. For extra protection, anodize the case, and then attach a bullet to make it look real. On a revolver facing towards the camera, the casing color would be undetectable, and everyone can clearly see a missing primer on the casing, meaning that the round is a dummy. Blanks and live ammo have primers that you can clearly see.


They often want dummies to look like they have live primers because of the rear of barter view on film. The larger issue here is not that they need to augment the look of dummies so much as they need to follow really simple really repeatable safety standards. And the simplest of all is clearing and checking and proving clear the weapon every single time with every single participant.

In this case and in the Brandon Lee and John Hexum and the others I’m aware of, it all comes down to basic safety, and in this case it really wouldn’t matter what the dummies look like if the crew is putting live rounds through the gun during breaks and no one checks it before it is used on set. As Mule said, they can dispense with most of the dangerous stuff through CGI and quite frankly, they can make these guns unable to fire anything without ruining their aesthetics. But if you’re going to use a real gun, you’re only as good as that last check of the weapon.



I'm not familiar with the term "barter view" on film. Would you mind explaining it to a lay person?

In terms of the dummies, they are not mutually exclusive safety measures. You should do both. Obviously whatever safety standard was not in place, and has not been in place despite the Brandon Lee and John Hexum accidents, so why would you believe that everyone in the industry suddenly adheres to basic safety standards?

Adherence is great, at least until the next accident. So why not have the film industry self-regulate by having armors color code casings, and degrade the casings? You cannot see a hot pink casing minus a primer when a revolver is pointed at the camera. It looks like a real bullet. Now you could argue that Baldwin, the assistant director, and the prop-master wouldn't have checked anyway, but it is one more safety measure that can reduce the probability of an accident, and one that wouldn't be caught by audiences watching the finished product.


Sorry, that was a spellcheck error. It was supposed to say quarter view. From a quarter away from directly behind.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB