Alec Baldwin Insists He ‘Didn’t Pull the Trigger

[PureX]

Of course the most resonable action would to have nonfunctional replics of a firearm and use computer editing to provide the sound.
But that cost money....

Prop guns are often used to fire blanks. So they are functional. And they are FAR faster and cheaper to use than special image and audio effects.

 

[Kooky]

My girlfriend cooks.

Which could potentially set your entire home on fire.

 

[F1fan]

Prop guns are often used to fire blanks. So they are functional. And they are FAR faster and cheaper to use than special image and audio effects.

One design feature about prop guns is that they don't chamber actual ammo, there are special blanks that only fit these. Of course the cost is considerable.

 

[Estro Felino]

Real pistols on a set?
Omg...

 

[Revoltingest]

One design feature about prop guns is that they don't chamber actual ammo, there are special blanks that only fit these. Of course the cost is considerable.

Have any links?
I'd like to read about them.
It's a great idea.

 

[PureX]

One design feature about prop guns is that they don't chamber actual ammo, there are special blanks that only fit these. Of course the cost is considerable.

Movie-makers don't generally have to buy their props, they either build them or rent them from large prop warehouses or even retailers. Perhaps because of the time period of this movie such special prop guns as you mention were not available in the style needed. And it would be quite expensive and time-consuming to have one made.

I suspect you're more likely to be struck by lightening making a movie than to be shot by a prop gun. But it has happened before, and will probably happen again given our love of movies that involve gun-play. And because there is the possibility of foul play or gross negligence in this instance, a thorough investigation is called for. All we can really do is say a prayer for the family of the woman that was killed, and hope this doesn't ever happen again.

I really don't see how blaming Alec Baldwin does anyone any good. Just imagine what he must be feeling, already.

 

[Heyo]

All accidents are avoidable in hindsight.
Just this year, nearly a hundred Americans were shot dead by little children.
(I presume by accident, but you can never know with certain kids)

My driving instructor said: "There are no accidents, only minor and major ****-ups."

 

[Heyo]

Being a prop gun for a western movie

Everybody keeps talking about "prop" guns. The one used in this case wasn't. It was a real gun used as a prop. A prop gun is made for movies and doesn't shoot live rounds.

 

[PureX]

Everybody keeps talking about "prop" guns. The one used in this case wasn't. It was a real gun used as a prop. A prop gun is made for movies and doesn't shoot live rounds.

Potato/potato. Most movie props are functional. Guns included. But they are sometimes altered to serve their purpose in the play or movie. So claiming that Baldwin 'must have pulled the trigger' because that would be the case on a normal gun is a baseless claim. Especially for a prop gun used in western movies.

The point is no one here has any idea if the gun was altered, how it was altered, or how a live round got put in it. So the truth is no one here has any idea if Baldwin or anyone else is responsible for that woman's death. But the gun lovers all love to imagine that they have special knowledge of guns, and of what must have happened, because they own guns, and are tweeked by how important and special that makes then feel.

 

[esmith]

Potato/potato. Most movie props are functional. Guns included. But they are sometimes altered to serve their purpose in the play or movie. So claiming that Baldwin 'must have pulled the trigger' because that would be the case on a normal gun is a baseless claim. Especially for a prop gun used in western movies.

The point is no one here has any idea if the gun was altered, how it was altered, or how a live round got put in it. So the truth is no one here has any idea if Baldwin or anyone else is responsible for that woman's death. But the gun lovers all love to imagine that they have special knowledge of guns, and of what must have happened, because they own guns, and are tweeked by how important and special that makes then feel.

What you do not seem to understand is the cardinal rule is "that all firearms are to be treated as loaded".
If you insist on furthering your argument, most owners of firearms will take anything you say as garbage.
The only ones you will convince you are even half-right are the uneducated about firearms and safety.

 

[PureX]

What you do not seem to understand is the cardinal rule is "that all firearms are to be treated as loaded".

A rule that is and must often be ignored in the making of movies that rely on the illusion of gun-play.

In the making of movies, people do all kinds of exceptionally dangerous stuff. They jump off buildings, and crash cars. The stand in front of large moving objects and jump out of the way at the last second. And all of these behaviors have "cardinal rules" that tell us not to do them. But we do them, anyway, because that's what makes the movies fun to watch.

So assuming that this "cardinal rule" applied to Alec Baldwin in the making of a 'gunfighter' movie is just stupid. None of the normal rules involving safety apply to movie-making. That's why they have to go to extraordinary lengths to try and ensure everyone's safety when doing these things. But, occasionally those extraordinary measures fail, and people get hurt or even killed. Making movies is just not the safest of occupations.

If you insist on furthering your argument, most owners of firearms will take anything you say as garbage.
The only ones you will convince you are even half-right are the uneducated about firearms and safety.

It's just that they seem so overly self-righteous, and then defensive about it. And we all know that guns are a HUGE fetish in this country. In no small part because of a long history of movies just like the one that was being made in this instance.

 

[Heyo]

A rule that is and must often be ignored in the making of movies that rely on the illusion of gun-play.

Movie making is dangerous because it is on the edge between reality and fiction, exactly there were it is most probable and most potentially harmful when someone can't distinguish between reality and fiction.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you do not seem to understand is the cardinal rule is "that all firearms are to be treated as loaded".

It seems that this isn't so when the killer is a left
leaning opponent of gun rights. Would defense
of dangerously unsafe gun handling be so fervent
if Charlton Heston shot an innocent? Nah.

Ref...
Alec Baldwin has a history of opposing the NRA and gun rights activists

 

[PureX]

Movie making is dangerous because it is on the edge between reality and fiction, exactly there were it is most probable and most potentially harmful when someone can't distinguish between reality and fiction.

I think they can distinguish between reality and fiction just fine. The problem is that to create a convincing illusion of shooting someone on film requires that the actors and their doubles do things that people would not normally do because it's unsafe. They try to take precautions so that no one gets hurt but even the best precautions can still fail. It's unfortunate but it happens. Unless Alec Baldwin put a live round into that gun I don't see that he's responsible for what happened while he was using it, as directed, to make a movie. And It's extremely unlikely that he put the live round in the gun, as there re many precautions prohibiting that.

 

[Callisto]

I've heard there was no reason for him to have a gun on the set, real and loaded or as a prop.
So what was he doing with it? Playing around? Very careless.
Why was the gun there, especially one "prone to misfiring" as claimed?
Of course being a celebrity, who holds celebrities accountable.

It's a Western, so many (prop) guns would be present. He was filming a scene in which he pulls a gun crossbody and points towards the camera.

The issue here was multiple levels of incompetence and lack of protocol with multiple persons responsible in various ways for why a senseless death occurred.

 

[Callisto]

I seriously doubt a gun can discharge by itself. I consider guns to be an inanimate object. My .357 Magnum is a very reliable device that shoots when I press the trigger, and it doesn’t shoot when I don’t press the trigger.” Hence, I am rather quite dubious of Baldwin’s claim he didn't pull the trigger.

Though in this instance, I think part of the investigation should be how these guns were modified. The LA Times reported there were 3 previous instances on this set when guns accidentally went off. In one of those cases, the person injured herself when the gun went off (and she worked in the props department). There seems to have been a great deal of incompetence (replacing union workers who walked off with people lesser qualified) and a general disregard for protocol and safety. One person they seriously need to look into is the line producer, she's got a megaton of explaining to do.

 

[Callisto]

There was supposed to be a technician overseeing every moment and every movement of a live firearm on a movie set. I know it's fun to blame Alec Baldwin, but a whole chain of responsibility failed, here, somehow.

That's the armorer, who was not truly qualified for the job, especially on a set that, apparently, was disorganized and disregarded protocols. A seasoned armorer would have found it challenging, let alone someone with minimal experience. This was her second time as an armorer and, from the sounds of it, she lucked out on her first gig, being on a well-run set with veterans to mitigate any novice slip-ups she would have had.

edited typo.

 

[Callisto]

I agree. The whole thing is a very sad and unfortunate incident. But this is America where someone has to be blamed, and hung up, always, or what are the lawyers and TV pontificators for?

They should start with the line producer and work out from there. The LP is the person who is responsible for the hiring & firing of personnel and overseeing daily operations. I've not seen anyone talk about this yet, it's all about going after Baldwin. While he certainly has culpability in the matter, he's not the sole party nor necessarily primary party or responsible for everything that contributed to the tragedy. But, he is the most recognizable name involved so that's what everyone/media is focusing on.

 

[Callisto]

If it could come from another gun then that would be another reason not to convict. I'm not for convicting if there is doubt. After all this is our actor from Hunt For Red October. I'd really rather not have him convicted of manslaughter if it isn't necessary.

Baldwin might not be found negligent. In his capacity as the actor who fired the weapon, he's not responsible for whether it was properly prepared. A similar situation is when the actor Michael Massee accidentally killed Brandon Lee, the court found the prop crew responsible for negligence, not the actor.

However, if he pulled the gun and did other than he was directed and that resulted in Hutchins being shot, then he most definitely added to the negligence that lead to her death.

 

[Callisto]

If computers can make superman fly, Spiderman shoot webbing, autobots come to life, they could make it look like a gun fired.

CGI is getting better at it but it's long been difficult to mimic the realism and recoil of a gun being fired. In many productions, that wouldn't truly matter. There are some productions where realism is a priority and they'll opt for practical effects (not just regarding weapons but other objects, creatures, etc.). I don't know much about Rust, but I don't think from what I've read that it falls into the latter category.