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

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2021 1:54 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
This movie is cursed. More tragedy on the set:

Quote:
Worker closing down Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ set bitten by poisonous spider, may lose arm

A production worker on Alec Baldwin’s tragedy-marred flick “Rust” was bitten by a poisonous spider while helping to close down the set after its fatal accidental shooting — and may now lose his arm.

Lamp operator and pipe rigger Jason Miller was bitten by a venomous brown recluse while helping wrap up film production after Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on Oct. 21, Sky News said.

A JustGiving fundraising page said Miller has experienced necrosis of his arm and sepsis as a result of the bite.

“He has been hospitalized and endured multiple surgeries each day as doctors do their best to stop the infection and try to save his arm from amputation,” the page says, according to Sky News.

There is a chance “under worse circumstances he loses his arm,” the page said.



So someone may disarm after the shooting?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:38 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
The lawsuit was filed in LA Superior Court. This is odd since it happened in New Mexico.


Not really -- probably just that the production company is located there


True.

In the case of an out of state car accident:

Quote:
Where do you file a personal injury lawsuit after an out-of-state car accident?

In general, a person injured in a car accident can file a lawsuit in the state where:

The defendant resides, or
The car accident occurred.


So there are multiple defendants in this case. I wonder if they're all in LA? I'm sure the Plaintiff feels it's more advantageous to file in LA rather than New Mexico.
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 10, 2021 2:45 pm    Post subject:

My guess is that all contracts were signed in California and likely had a clause that specified Los Angeles as the legal venue.
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: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:25 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

I looked up what a gaffer is: the chief electrician in a motion-picture or television production unit.

The lawsuit was filed in LA Superior Court. This is odd since it happened in New Mexico.


A lot of crew people are hired as LA crew working on location. So it's not as odd as you'd think. For example, I am currently working on show that is shot in Chicago, but I am paid as an LA employee (and even weirder in this pandemic world, am working remotely in the state of Washington).
_________________
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
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


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

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:51 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
The lawsuit was filed in LA Superior Court. This is odd since it happened in New Mexico.


Not really -- probably just that the production company is located there.

Quote:
Guess they are also suing Baldwin for failing to inspect the gun.


I'm interested in DMR's feedback here. Previously he said the actor's job in this scenario is to act. Are there any industry or legal requirements for him to have verified himself that it was a cold gun?

And if there were, does an actor typically have the technical competence to be able to make that determination?


I can't recall exactly what I may have said in the early discussions, and in the context of what was being discussed at the time. But on the surface, that is true—the actors are relying on the crew to follow safety protocols. That said, I have also learned a great deal about protocols since this thread started from my wife because she is a line producer—the person who oversees the Unit Production Manager who oversees all the onset activities. When the process is working properly, the actors are involved in that final checkoff in regards to not only being told the gun is safe, but being shown the guns is appropriately safe for the purposes of its use.

The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.
_________________
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
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11023

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:36 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


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

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.


In that regard, there is no specific industry regulation that requires an actor to inspect the gun. It is however routine on most productions, but as my wife has said to me, that is more to assure the actors and crew that the weapons being used by the cast are safe, not an assignment of final responsibility.
_________________
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
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:23 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.


In that regard, there is no specific industry regulation that requires an actor to inspect the gun. It is however routine on most productions, but as my wife has said to me, that is more to assure the actors and crew that the weapons being used by the cast are safe, not an assignment of final responsibility.


Very well put.
_________________
“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
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 11:12 am    Post subject:

A few thoughts:

1) I wonder why they filed the civil suit now instead of waiting until after criminal charges are filed. It would surely help the civil suit if some of the defendants were convicted criminally.

2) Serge Svetnoy is suing for severe emotional distress. He claims that he was very close to Halyna who died in his arms. Now, I wonder how far this extends? How many other crew members on that set can sue for emotional distress and claim that they'll be "haunted forever".

Quote:
The civil suit was filed Wednesday in Los Angeles on behalf of Serge Svetnoy, who was described as the chief electrical technician on the film and a close friend of Hutchins.

Swetnoy was present during the October 21 incident in which Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun containing a live round, killing Hutchins and injuring Souza. Went. This memory, says the complaint, “will haunt (Svetnoy) forever.”

“Rust” was the ninth film in which Swetnoy and Hutchins worked together, and he took the job for less pay than he had asked her. “She was my friend,” Svetnoy said at a news conference on Wednesday.


3. Halyna Hutchins' husband has hired a wrongful death lawyer. He'll probably join this lawsuit.

Quote:
Halyna Hutchins’ Husband Hires Lawyers Specializing in Wrongful Death Cases

Matthew Hutchins has hired the LA law firm Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 12492

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:05 pm    Post subject:

that guys lawsuit sounds like a shameless money grab
_________________
(bleep) Kawhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:21 pm    Post subject:

audioaxes wrote:
that guys lawsuit sounds like a shameless money grab


Yeah severe emotional distress from a friend does sound kinda iffy. I mean this opens it up to severe emotional distress for her family, parents, siblings, other close friends, coworkers, etc.
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: Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:26 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.


In that regard, there is no specific industry regulation that requires an actor to inspect the gun. It is however routine on most productions, but as my wife has said to me, that is more to assure the actors and crew that the weapons being used by the cast are safe, not an assignment of final responsibility.



This is along the lines of one of my earlier posts. I wouldn't think that an actor would have expertise in handling firearms, but just the same this cannot be the first time Baldwin handled a firearm on a set. Since he knew he wasn't receiving the revolver from the armorer or prop master, the concept of "ordinary care" might apply: Had Baldwin ever used a single action revolver as a prop before? As I mentioned earlier, I would think that an armorer or prop master would demonstrate to the actor that the revolver was indeed "cold" by having them both inspecting the rounds together during the hand off.

That brings up another point. The assistant director said he didn't "spin the drum". Are the dummy rounds really identifiable by BBs in the casings? If so, "spinning the drum" (first safety engaged, gate open) wouldn't have revealed a dummy round anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds like placing BBs in the casings isn't a universal practice. The only way to inspect a single action revolver is to eject the rounds one by one, inspect them individually, then reload.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:42 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.


In that regard, there is no specific industry regulation that requires an actor to inspect the gun. It is however routine on most productions, but as my wife has said to me, that is more to assure the actors and crew that the weapons being used by the cast are safe, not an assignment of final responsibility.



This is along the lines of one of my earlier posts. I wouldn't think that an actor would have expertise in handling firearms, but just the same this cannot be the first time Baldwin handled a firearm on a set. Since he knew he wasn't receiving the revolver from the armorer or prop master, the concept of "ordinary care" might apply: Had Baldwin ever used a single action revolver as a prop before? As I mentioned earlier, I would think that an armorer or prop master would demonstrate to the actor that the revolver was indeed "cold" by having them both inspecting the rounds together during the hand off.

That brings up another point. The assistant director said he didn't "spin the drum". Are the dummy rounds really identifiable by BBs in the casings? If so, "spinning the drum" (first safety engaged, gate open) wouldn't have revealed a dummy round anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds like placing BBs in the casings isn't a universal practice. The only way to inspect a single action revolver is to eject the rounds one by one, inspect them individually, then reload.


I dont think there’s an argument to be made that an ordinary person can not tell the difference between a dummy round and a live round.

Alec Baldwin’s only defense is that he was told the gun was cold and therefore, trusted the AD. Also, he can say he didn’t inspect because he wasn’t required to inspect. But he can’t claim that even if he did inspect, he wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference between a live round vs a dummy round.
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: Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:01 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The problem in Baldwin's case is that he was not just an actor, he is also an executive producer and it was his production company at the helm of the shoot.


Sure, but I was commenting on the accusation that Baldwin failed to inspect the gun, which wasn't directed against him in his role of executive producer or head of the production company. It was directed against him in his role as an actor and the last person in the chain of custody of the gun.


In that regard, there is no specific industry regulation that requires an actor to inspect the gun. It is however routine on most productions, but as my wife has said to me, that is more to assure the actors and crew that the weapons being used by the cast are safe, not an assignment of final responsibility.



This is along the lines of one of my earlier posts. I wouldn't think that an actor would have expertise in handling firearms, but just the same this cannot be the first time Baldwin handled a firearm on a set. Since he knew he wasn't receiving the revolver from the armorer or prop master, the concept of "ordinary care" might apply: Had Baldwin ever used a single action revolver as a prop before? As I mentioned earlier, I would think that an armorer or prop master would demonstrate to the actor that the revolver was indeed "cold" by having them both inspecting the rounds together during the hand off.

That brings up another point. The assistant director said he didn't "spin the drum". Are the dummy rounds really identifiable by BBs in the casings? If so, "spinning the drum" (first safety engaged, gate open) wouldn't have revealed a dummy round anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds like placing BBs in the casings isn't a universal practice. The only way to inspect a single action revolver is to eject the rounds one by one, inspect them individually, then reload.


I dont think there’s an argument to be made that an ordinary person can not tell the difference between a dummy round and a live round.

Alec Baldwin’s only defense is that he was told the gun was cold and therefore, trusted the AD. Also, he can say he didn’t inspect because he wasn’t required to inspect. But he can’t claim that even if he did inspect, he wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference between a live round vs a dummy round.



Disregarding Baldwin's responsibilities as as Executive Producer, I don't think Baldwin's defense with that firearm is that simple. While this isn't a case of gross negligence for Baldwin, it could be a case of ordinary negligence. I am not familiar with Baldwin's filmography, but if he's been in films with firearms it could be argued that he should have known to check the revolver first before using it. That's a common practice per DMR, and it was something I suspected was a practice as well. If it's a common practice, then Baldwin as a veteran actor should have inspected the piece before playing with it. That to me constitutes a potential case of ordinary negligence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:07 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
Disregarding Baldwin's responsibilities as as Executive Producer, I don't think Baldwin's defense with that firearm is that simple. While this isn't a case of gross negligence for Baldwin, it could be a case of ordinary negligence. I am not familiar with Baldwin's filmography, but if he's been in films with firearms it could be argued that he should have known to check the revolver first before using it. That's a common practice per DMR, and it was something I suspected was a practice as well. If it's a common practice, then Baldwin as a veteran actor should have inspected the piece before playing with it. That to me constitutes a potential case of ordinary negligence.


Yeah that’s what I said. It’s going to be about whether he should have checked the gun or not.

It won’t be about his ability or inability to tell the difference between a live rd vs a dummy rd.

Now what’s going to hurt him the most is that there were 3 accidental discharges on the set already. Is it reasonable to trust the AD telling you a gun is cold when there already were 3 previous accidental discharges?
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 11, 2021 9:06 pm    Post subject:

I don’t think they really need to establish that Baldwin the actor was negligent. He’s a producer and executive producer, and the obvious authority that got the move made in the first place. And he’s the name. And there is a massive trail of production mismanagement. Much of which has a definable direct bearing on the circumstances of who was handling the firearms and how. And he’s all wrapped up in that. Concentrating on his negligence as an actor is like trying to figure out if the guy you have on video robbing the bank was driving the car the robbers used to get there and away.
_________________
“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
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32577

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:57 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I don’t think they really need to establish that Baldwin the actor was negligent. He’s a producer and executive producer, and the obvious authority that got the move made in the first place. And he’s the name. And there is a massive trail of production mismanagement. Much of which has a definable direct bearing on the circumstances of who was handling the firearms and how. And he’s all wrapped up in that. Concentrating on his negligence as an actor is like trying to figure out if the guy you have on video robbing the bank was driving the car the robbers used to get there and away.



Morally? Sure, but legally? No. In both criminal and civil action the opposing counsel will pile on as many charges as possible. It provides leverage for a settlement, and in the event this goes to trial, let the judge toss whatever charge or claim he deems inadequate.

Baldwin is definitely in trouble as Executive Producer, but his conduct could well fall under the definition of ordinary negligence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:31 am    Post subject:

DA Carmack-Altwies came on Good Morning America to give some updates on the case:

1) She says she knows who loaded that gun, but she doesn't say who:

Quote:
Ms Carmack-Altwies said she knew who loaded the gun that Baldwin discharged while rehearsing on set, but declined to comment further on the subject.


2) The armorer already claimed that she was the one who loaded the gun.

Quote:
The armourer has claimed that she loaded the gun from a box of rounds labelled “dummy,” indicating they were blank rounds.


3) The DA dismisses the armorer's sabotage theory, but added that sabotage would lead to murder charges:

Quote:
While discussing the case on Wednesday, Ms Carmack-Altwies said: “I know that some defence attorneys have come up with conspiracy theories and have used the word ‘sabotage’. We do not have any proof.”


Quote:
If sabotage is found, the district attorney’s office would consider “certainly a higher level of murder charge than we would potentially be looking at with the facts we have now,” she said.


4) They did find more live rounds on the set:

Quote:
Carmack-Altwies acknowledged that more live rounds were found on the set but didn’t say how many. She said it was “concerning” that live rounds were found at all.

“We still don’t know how they got on the set. And how they got there, I think, will be one of the most important factors going into a charging decision,” she said.


5) They are also looking into the armorer's qualifications:

Quote:
Carmack-Altwies said authorities are looking at Gutierrez-Reed’s qualifications for the job as part of their investigation.


6) She says Dave Halls did give the gun to Alec Baldwin, despite his attorney denying this:

Quote:
She also denied the claim that Rust assistant director David Halls did not handle the prop gun on the day of the shooting.

It has been reported that Mr Hall signalled that the gun was “cold” and handed it to Mr Baldwin, after grabbing it off a prop cart.

“Yes, that does seem to be the case,” Ms Carmack-Altwies confirmed, when asked if Mr Halls was the person who gave the 63-year-old actor the gun.


7) This is what they're focusing their investigation on:

Quote:
Ms Carmack-Altwies explained: “It’s probably more important to focus on what led up to the shooting because the moment of the shooting, we know that at least Mr Baldwin had no idea that the gun was loaded, so it’s more how did that gun get loaded, what levels of failure happened and were those levels of failure criminal?”


8) The investigation could take months more because the DA is still waiting on the sheriff's department to hand over all of their evidence to the DA.

9) DA says this is a hard case because there's no precedent for this type of case in NM.

10) Approximately 100 crew members were on set that day. Over 55 have already been interviewed. DA says intially everyone was very cooperative but once you add in all the lawyers, it's gotten more complicated.




https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-da-gun-b1955619.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/additional-live-rounds-found-rust-set-santa-fe-da-says-rcna5079

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4AzDHbohc&ab_channel=GoodMorningAmerica
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: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:03 pm    Post subject:

Did they drug test any of these idiots? Any plebe truck driver faces an immediate drug test after almost any accident that involves property damage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:15 am    Post subject:

Geroge Clooney:

Quote:
"Every single time I'm handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it too, I show it to the crew," Clooney said. "Every single take." Then, "You hand it back to the armor when you're done."

He said, "Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows" that is the protocol to follow. "Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that. But the problem is dummies are tricky because they look like real [rounds]. They got a little tiny hole in the back [from which] somebody's [removed] the gunpowder."

Clooney said because of the likeness, he doesn't just inspect the gun visually.

George Clooney calls the fatal shooting on the set of Rust "infuriating" and "insane."

On the WTF With Marc Maron podcast, the Oscar-winning actor weighed in on last month's movie set disaster in which a gun discharged by Alec Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza. Clooney said the deaths of actors Brandon Lee in 1993 and Jon-Erik Hexum in 1984 — who were both friends — made gun safety on the set of the utmost importance, so he's in disbelief over what transpired with Rust.

The 60-year-old actor, who said he doesn't know Baldwin very well, said he doesn't think there was "any intent by anybody to do anything wrong," describing it all as "a terrible accident."

However, he said there is a very specific protocol actors follow — similar to sentiments expressed by Matthew McConaughey.

"Every single time I'm handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it too, I show it to the crew," Clooney said. "Every single take." Then, "You hand it back to the armor when you're done."

He said, "Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows" that is the protocol to follow. "Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that. But the problem is dummies are tricky because they look like real [rounds]. They got a little tiny hole in the back [from which] somebody's [removed] the gunpowder."

Clooney said because of the likeness, he doesn't just inspect the gun visually.

"I mean every time I get handed a six-gun," or a gun that holds six cartridges, "you point it at the ground and you squeeze it six times," Clooney said, noting "It's just insane" not to.

Clooney discussed the finger-pointing, including at first assistant director David Halls allegedly being the one to declare the gun a "cold gun" and giving to Baldwin, who considered it safe to use.

"I've never heard the term 'cold gun,'" Clooney said of his years of movie-making. "I've never heard that term. Literally. They're just talking about stuff I've never heard of. It's just infuriating."

He said he's "been on sets for 40 years and the person that hands you the gun, the person who is responsible for the gun, is either the prop person or the armorer. Period."



Matthew McConaughey:

Quote:
"There's a safety protocol, and if it's followed, it can be safe on set," McConaughey said Thursday in the interview, conducted via Zoom.

.........

"I've been on many sets where I'm dealing with firearms. There is an understood protocol.

"When any firearm is handed from one person to another, when it gets on set, there's a means of communication.

"One of the beautiful things about how film sets work -- the organization is incredible. And they missed protocol. Somewhere. I don't know if they were in a rush."

....................

While not criticizing Baldwin, McConaughey said he "personally would try to always take even more steps" as an actor using a gun, including checking the weapon himself.

"You hear 'cold' -- now I want a visual," said the Texan star.

"If you and I are in a scene together, I need to give you visual. If it's a six shooter, do you see light through all six holes?

"Let me look you in the eye, you confirm, and you yell it out, 'cold.'"

He added: "You can't over-confirm it."

...................

"What do I think about that? I think you should follow protocol. And it should be non-negotiable," said McConaughey.
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 8:28 am    Post subject:

^
I literally was about to start listening to that very Marc Maron WTF episode.
_________________
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
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 32805
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:56 am    Post subject:

So if you point the gun at the ground and pull the trigger six times, does that not “use up” the blank?
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 9337

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:34 am    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
So if you point the gun at the ground and pull the trigger six times, does that not “use up” the blank?


This would only be for dummies (no gunpowder in it).
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: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:48 am    Post subject:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 35443

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:00 am    Post subject:

After the past accidental on set shootings, I'm still surprised the people whom the guns are pointed at aren't protected. By this meaning they are wearing a bulletproof vest or behind a protective shield of some sort. Seems insane to me that even though the prop gun might not have a live bullet in it 99.9% of the time, accidents on rare occasions do happen.
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  Next
Page 8 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