Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[Vermicious Knid]

CNN is reporting the DP handling the gun said it was 'cold' when he handed it off, meaning it wasn't live rounds. Also the police are executing a search warrant on the set. They also showed footage of Jensen Ackles at a SPN convention talking about gun safety on Rust. None of this is on the website yet. 

[Zella]

These articles have some more details on the safety issues:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-baldwin-weapon-rust-shooting-1235035723/

https://consequence.net/2021/10/alec-baldwin-shooting-crew-walked-off-set/

https://deadline.com/2021/10/rust-movie-gun-internal-review-safety-issues-production-camera-crew-walkout-1234860497/

The lowlights include the gun being stored alongside other weapons (making it easy to confuse which one had live ammo and which ones didn't), the assistant director who grabbed the weapon without verifying it was in fact cold being notorious for being flippant about safety on set for everything from weapons to pyrotechnics, and numerous professional armorers turning down the job to begin with because they felt the film's budget was not enough to safely handle the amount of firearms being used. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Zella

[Just Here]

@Vermicious Knid, That's based on witness statements summarized in an affidavit that was made in support of a search warrant.  The affidavit was made public earlier today and has been reported on by multiple news outlets, including in an AP wire article (the THR link in @Zella's post).

 

The affidavit provides some details on the circumstances of the incident.  Most notably it confirms that this happened during a rehearsal.  Whether any production cameras were recording has not yet been confirmed (at least publicly).  The Santa Fe New Mexican article and the AP write-up (via THR) both mention Baldwin's "blood-stained" costume, but don't confirm how the blood got on the costume (could be from splatter, could be from rendering first aid).

In these articles, there's no indication that Baldwin was doing anything other than what he was suppose to be doing, so it seems highly unlikely that he could face charges involving his handling of the prop firearm.

From the Santa Fe Reporter write-up:

Quote

The affidavit also lays out the timeline, which Cano attributes to witness statements:

The crew and actors were performing a rehearsal for a scene in Rust, Baldwin’s latest project in which he is working as an actor and producer. Cameras were set up on the scene.

The film crew’s armorer had laid three “prop guns” out on a rolling cart, and the film’s assistant director grabbed one for the rehearsal and handed it to Baldwin. (Though the armorer and the assistant director are named in the affidavit, SFR is not identifying them because neither has been accused or charged with a crime.)

That’s when the assistant director signaled to those gathered for the rehearsal that there was no live ammunition in the gun by shouting: “Cold gun.”

The assistant director “did not know live rounds were in the prop-gun,” Cano wrote in the affidavit.

After the shooting, Baldwin changed out of the “Old Western” costume he was wearing for the scene and into street clothes. The actor gave the costume to investigators before leaving the ranch.

The armorer, meanwhile, took possession of the prop-gun Baldwin fired and a spent casing. The armorer turned the gun over to detectives, who placed it in a squad car along with the other prop weapons and ammunition that had been on the rolling cart. The film is set in the 1880s, but the affidavit does not detail the type or caliber of the weapon.

Baldwin voluntarily went to the sheriff’s office after the shooting and provided a statement, sources tell SFR. It appears he is being considered a witness, not a suspect.

[WendyCR72]

10 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah I just read something that said this was the first recorded accidental shooting on a set since Brandon Lee was killed in 1993, so statistically, it is very unlikely for this to happen. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048295916/props-gun-death-injuries-rust-movie-set-rare

As stated upthread, Jon-Erik Hexum had his accidental shooting on the set of his CBS show, "Cover Up" all the way back in 1984, then Brandon Lee on the set of "The Crow" 9 years later. (Ironically, Lee's character was meant to be murdered in that scene. If I recall, in reading about it, help was initially delayed because they thought Lee just exhibited great acting. Only when TPTB realized that he wasn't getting up did anyone realize something had gone wrong.)

So between the two, in 37 years, this is still happening. Yes, it is few and far between, but it should not be happening at all. I realize CGI is expensive, but surely something - with all the technology in 2021 - can simulate gunfire with much less risk to human life.

It's all just too tragic.

My condolences to Ms. Hutchins' family as well as the family of the director, who survived his injuries.

And I, too, hope Alec Baldwin seeks professional help in coping with the aftermath (and, conversely, that the investigation thoroughly determines his culpability - if any - for the sake of Ms. Hutchins' family...).

[Vermicious Knid]

Deadline says the Jensen Ackles video has now been taken down, although Don Lemmon showed the whole thing an hour ago so CNN's got a copy. This is how he describes the gun training:

Quote

In the video, Ackles allegedly says, “I’ve got a 6 a.m. call tomorrow to have a big shootout. They had me pick my gun, they were like, ‘Alright, what gun would you like?’ and I was like, ‘I don’t know.’ and the armorer was like, ‘Do you have gun experience?’ I was like, ‘A little.’ And she’s like, ‘Okay, well, this is how you load it, this is how we check it and make sure it’s safe.'”

Ackles added that he was told by the armorer that she was “going to put some blanks” into the gun. He was then instructed to “fire off a couple rounds” at a distant piece of land.

“I walk out and she’s like, ‘Just make sure you pull the hammer all the way back and aim at your target,’ I was like ‘All right, I got it.’”

 

[Zella]

25 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I realize CGI is expensive, but surely something - with all the technology in 2021 - can simulate gunfire with much less risk to human life.

I don't disagree that it is a tragedy, but in all of these cases, following proper safety precautions on set would have saved lives. 

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

I don't disagree that it is a tragedy, but in all of these cases, following proper safety precautions on set would have saved lives. 

Yes, but the risk is always there with prop guns. Yes, rigorous training is needed. No question. Rushing and half-assed procedures lead to tragedy such as this.

But now some reports are claiming that Baldwin was told the gun was a "cold gun" before it was handed to him. Lingo for an unloaded gun. Even with all the training in the world, mistakes like this can also be a danger. Hence wishing CGI could supplement somehow. Computers have issues but are not half as fallible as humans and their mistakes can be.

[Zella]

11 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

But now some reports are claiming that Baldwin was told the gun was a "cold gun" before it was handed to him. Lingo for an unloaded gun. Even with all the training in the world, mistakes like this can also be a danger. Hence wishing CGI could supplement somehow. Computers have issues but are not half as fallible as humans and their mistakes can be.

The rule I was always taught was to assume all guns were loaded and to check them. That's Weapons 101. Multiple people failed to do their job when carelessly combined loaded guns with unloaded guns and then didn't verify what state they were in. These are the basic fundamentals of handling firearms and is instinctive to everyone I know who actually uses them, and if those basic rules would have been followed, the fact the gun was in fact loaded would have been caught. 

I'm honestly not really blaming Baldwin on this since it was the job of the crewmember who handed it to him to verify, but the AD whose job it was to check these things and didn't give a shit failed at the very basics of his job. It's like running a stoplight or a red light--it's one of the fundamental rules of driving that you don't do it for a reason. Because it's dangerous. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Zella

[PepSinger]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

The rule I was always taught was to assume all guns were loaded and to check them. That's Weapons 101. Multiple people failed to do their job when carelessly combined loaded guns with unloaded guns and then didn't verify what state they were in. These are the basic fundamentals of handling firearms and is instinctive to everyone I know who actually uses them, and if those basic rules would have been followed, the fact the gun was in fact loaded would have been caught. 

Yes. You should always assume weapons are loaded. However, something I want to quickly stress is that it is NOT the actor’s job to make sure the weapon is properly prepared. That’s why you hire people on set whose job it IS to make sure the weapon is properly prepared. Actors are not trained to make sure a gun is safe before using for a scene. In fact, if an actor messes around (checking the gun) to make sure it’s unloaded, the whole process has to be done again because the actor has fucked up in doing something that’s not their job. THIS is the difference between handling a gun in real life versus on a set.

[Zella]

Just now, PepSinger said:

Yes. You should always assume weapons are loaded. However, something I want to quickly stress is that it is NOT the actor’s job to make sure the weapon is properly prepared. That’s why you hire people on set whose job it IS to make sure the weapon is properly prepared. Actors are not trained to make sure a gun is safe before using for a scene. In fact, if an actor messes around (checking the gun) to make sure it’s unloaded, the whole process has to be done again because the actor has fucked up in doing something that’s not their job. THIS is the difference between handling a gun in real life versus on a set.

Yeah that's a good point and why I already added the paragraph I did to my comment about not really faulting Baldwin for this. I realize the actor may not know and probably isn't the best resource for that. But the person who is tasked with that on set should and clearly didn't here.

As a producer of the film, I do think Baldwin bears some responsibility for the apparent rampant security violations on set, in the same way that anyone who was in a position of power there did, but the actual shooting incident really isn't on him to me in the same way it would have been if this had happened outside of a filmmaking context. 

 

[PepSinger]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

As a producer of the film, I do think Baldwin bears some responsibility for the apparent rampant security violations on set, in the same way that anyone who was in a position of power there did, but the actual shooting incident really isn't on him to me in the same way it would have been if this had happened outside of a filmmaking cont

Since he is a producer, he does bear some responsibility for the conditions on set. Therefore, he probably can be held liable from that position. However, as you stated, as the actor, he is not at fault for what happened in that moment. I do want to note that even as a producer, while he still bears responsibility for the set, a producer’s job is not to inspect the guns. From the people I know in this line of work, what they want to know is HOW Alec was handed a gun with live rounds.

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Since he is a producer, he does bear some responsibility for the conditions on set. Therefore, he probably can be held liable from that position. However, as you stated, as the actor, he is not at fault for what happened in that moment. I do want to note that even as a producer, while he still bears responsibility for the set, a producer’s job is not to inspect the guns. From the people I know in this line of work, what they want to know is HOW Alec was handed a gun with live rounds.

Yes, it was clearly stated in one of the articles that the AD who handed him the gun was the one responsible on set for checking firearms to ensure they weren't loaded/were safe for use. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Zella

[PepSinger]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yes, it was clearly stated in one of the articles that the AD who handed him the gun was the one responsible on set for checking firearms to ensure they were loaded. 

Right. Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. They want to know how that round was in there in the first place. Did the AD not check it? Or was there a failure earlier in the chain?

[Shannon L.]

My husband used to work in the movie industry. We've been discussing this off and on as new information came out and neither one of us can think of any reason why a live round would be anywhere near a set, let alone loaded in a gun. It makes no sense. I believe the expert armorer I was listening to earlier said that it's even an industry rule that live rounds are not allowed on set.

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Shannon L.

[Zella]

Just now, PepSinger said:

Right. Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. They want to know how that round was in there in the first place. Did the AD not check it? Or was there a failure earlier in the chain?

From the local article that was linked above, it seems like the armorer left the gun in question with two other ones and then the AD pulled it from there and didn't check. I'm not really clear on what the armorer did or didn't do, but it seems like there also may have been a failure there in that it apparently wasn't clearly noted which gun was which. But if the armorer had been clearer, the AD wouldn't have pulled the wrong weapon, and if the AD had done a basic safety check, he would have realized he had grabbed the wrong one before he handed it to Baldwin and told him it was fine to use. 

[GaT]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

The lowlights include the gun being stored alongside other weapons (making it easy to confuse which one had live ammo and which ones didn't),

 

13 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

My husband used to work in the movies  industry. We've been discussing this off and on as new information came and and neither one of us can think of any reason why a live round would be anywhere near a set, let alone loaded in a gun. It makes no sense. I believe the expert armorer I was listening to earlier said that it's even an industry rule that live rounds are not allowed on set.

I was wondering why there would even be live ammo on the set anywhere. What purpose would it serve?

[Peace 47]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

As a producer of the film, I do think Baldwin bears some responsibility for the apparent rampant security violations on set, in the same way that anyone who was in a position of power there did, but the actual shooting incident really isn't on him to me in the same way it would have been if this had happened outside of a filmmaking context.

As far as Baldwin’s responsibility as a producer is concerned, I initially thought the same thing, but then I read a comment under one of the articles that said that Alec’s production company was only involved insofar as they were supplying the intellectual property for the production (and Alec got a producer credit because he, in part, developed the story), but a separate production company (not Alec’s) was responsible for the on-set production (e.g., hiring crew, scheduling the shoot, etc.).  Not sure how all of that will shake out.

[aradia22]

Quote

So between the two, in 37 years, this is still happening. Yes, it is few and far between, but it should not be happening at all. I realize CGI is expensive, but surely something - with all the technology in 2021 - can simulate gunfire with much less risk to human life.

I understand why they don't use CGI on a low-budget movie or a TV show. Use it on the Matrix and blockbusters where you can afford it. But then, with these lower budget stories, just write around it. You can write out the gun or you can edit around it so you see someone brandishing the gun but you never see it fired. It's not that difficult. 

[GaT]

Crew member yelled 'cold gun' as he handed Alec Baldwin prop weapon, court document shows

Quote

According to the affidavit, Baldwin was handed one of three prop guns by assistant director David Halls that were set up in a cart by an armorer.

Halls did not know there were live rounds in the gun, the affidavit said.

 

[Avabelle]

This is probably my own ignorance to how the film industry works but how are live rounds even allowed on the set? Maybe I’m naive but I always just assumed the guns used in movies were fake and it was sound effects and maybe a smoke machine that made them look real?

[cynicat]

5 hours ago, Zella said:

But if the armorer had been clearer, the AD wouldn't have pulled the wrong weapon, and if the AD had done a basic safety check, he would have realized he had grabbed the wrong one before he handed it to Baldwin and told him it was fine to use

These kinds of tragic situations are never due to only one error.  I'm guessing that in the end, they'll inevitably find that there were multiple mistakes and if only one of them hadn't happened, the accident would not have happened.  

[Danny Franks]

The glee that some people online are taking in Alec Baldwin's involvement is utterly disgusting. I've seen so many people drawing parallels between his stance on gun control and his politics, and this tragic event. And none of them have mentioned poor Halyna Hutchins at all. I guess it just underlines the fact that there are people who utterly lack empathy.

7 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yes, but the risk is always there with prop guns. Yes, rigorous training is needed. No question. Rushing and half-assed procedures lead to tragedy such as this.

But now some reports are claiming that Baldwin was told the gun was a "cold gun" before it was handed to him. Lingo for an unloaded gun. Even with all the training in the world, mistakes like this can also be a danger. Hence wishing CGI could supplement somehow. Computers have issues but are not half as fallible as humans and their mistakes can be.

I read something about CGI struggling to simulate the recoil of a firearm accurately, and that the actor's natural reaction to firing the gun is also very hard to imitate. I'm one of those people who believes CGI should be used as sparingly as possible in movies and TV, and have no problem with live guns being used. But the second people start taking shortcuts on safety protocols they should be booted from a production.

I assume that they were filming one of those 'actor shoots down the barrel of the camera lense' shots that aren't that uncommon in movies. The fact that there were apparently crewmembers standing in the firing line seems like another safety lapse.

6 hours ago, Zella said:

From the local article that was linked above, it seems like the armorer left the gun in question with two other ones and then the AD pulled it from there and didn't check. I'm not really clear on what the armorer did or didn't do, but it seems like there also may have been a failure there in that it apparently wasn't clearly noted which gun was which. But if the armorer had been clearer, the AD wouldn't have pulled the wrong weapon, and if the AD had done a basic safety check, he would have realized he had grabbed the wrong one before he handed it to Baldwin and told him it was fine to use. 

Apparently the AD isn't supposed to touch any of the weapons at all. The armourer is supposed to clear them personally and hand them directly to the actor. No one else should have access to them.

[scarynikki12]

5 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I understand why they don't use CGI on a low-budget movie or a TV show. Use it on the Matrix and blockbusters where you can afford it. But then, with these lower budget stories, just write around it. You can write out the gun or you can edit around it so you see someone brandishing the gun but you never see it fired. It's not that difficult. 

I agree. I cannot remember what show it was but years ago I was watching something that included a behind the scenes look with the guy who adds sounds after filming. He went through various items and one was his doorknob. He picked up the doorknob (the actual device before it joins the door to be clear) and said that it was his gun. He then demonstrated what he meant by shaking it and it made the sound that we all would associate with a gun being cocked in a movie or show. So, if the sound of a gun can be added in post then they surely can do some CGI, camerawork, or editing rather than continuing to have actors use an actual weapon. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

 

Apparently the AD isn't supposed to touch any of the weapons at all. The armourer is supposed to clear them personally and hand them directly to the actor. No one else should have access to them.

I personally think it would make more sense for the armorer to do that, but in one of the articles I posted earlier, crew members who were on set identified the AD as the person in charge of checking weapons and said he was really flippant about it. It wouldn't surprise me if this was yet another failure in the chain of safety precautions if the guy who was bad at that part of the job and didn't seem to care really shouldn't have been in charge of it anyway. :(

[merylinkid]

6 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I understand why they don't use CGI on a low-budget movie or a TV show. Use it on the Matrix and blockbusters where you can afford it. But then, with these lower budget stories, just write around it. You can write out the gun or you can edit around it so you see someone brandishing the gun but you never see it fired. It's not that difficult. 

It's a WESTERN.   If you just show someone brandishing the gun but not the resultant shoot out, you have lost something to the story.    In 37 years since Jon Erik Hexum, there has been exactly 2 deaths.   How many millions, nay billions of shots have there been without any incident.    Someone upthread said the crew was more likely to be in a car accident on the way to the set than get shot.   There is no need to ban all guns in films.    Just  like we didn't ban all helicopters in movies after the Twilight Zone disaster.   

The problem is one of safety, not the particular prop in this case.   Movie sets are dangerous places.    There are lots of electrical cords running around and heavy lights.   There's flimsy walls that could fall over, etc.    The whole point of having an armorer and someone in charge of safety on set is to ensure the props are handled safely.   If you ignore that, someone is going to get hurt -- period.   Doesn't matter if there is not a single gun in use on the set.   

I do wonder if they are reporting "live round" as meaning blanks because people don't know the difference and Baldwin was supposed to have an empty gun,  or if they really were using live rounds on the set.   

[Ms Blue Jay]

Not everyone agrees real guns are needed for the movies.

Xander Berkeley has some tweets detailing how dangerous movie sets have been for him and how he doesn't agree real guns need to be used.

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Rose Quartz]

5 hours ago, Avabelle said:

This is probably my own ignorance to how the film industry works but how are live rounds even allowed on the set? Maybe I’m naive but I always just assumed the guns used in movies were fake and it was sound effects and maybe a smoke machine that made them look real?

I saw some comments on Twitter that in Hollywood terminology a live round also includes blanks. That would certainly explain a lot but I can't find any news articles which confirm this.

[Shannon L.]

ABC’s ‘The Rookie’ Bans “Live” Gunfire On Set In Wake Of Fatal ‘Rust’ Shooting

You can read Hawley’s memo in full below.

The tragic events in New Mexico yesterday have shaken us all, and our hearts go out to the friends and family of Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza.

As of today, it is now policy on The Rookie that all gunfire on set will be Air Soft guns with CG muzzle flashes added in post. There will be no more “live” weapons on the show. The safety our cast and crew is too important. Any risk is too much risk.

As always, if you ever feel unsafe or witness anything that concerns you, please don’t hesitate to report it.

My door is always open.

Alexi Hawley

[MerBearHou]

12 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

My husband used to work in the movie industry. We've been discussing this off and on as new information came out and neither one of us can think of any reason why a live round would be anywhere near a set, let alone loaded in a gun. It makes no sense. I believe the expert armorer I was listening to earlier said that it's even an industry rule that live rounds are not allowed on set.

 

I have been asking this -- why is a live round anywhere on a movie set?  I've seen reports that say it was a "bullet" that passed through Halyna and hit the director.  Not a prop blank, but a bullet.  

Edited October 23, 2021 by MerBearHou

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rose Quartz said:

I saw some comments on Twitter that in Hollywood terminology a live round also includes blanks. That would certainly explain a lot but I can't find any news articles which confirm this.

This is what I am wondering. There is a lot of terminology being thrown around without any explanation of exactly what it means. I’ve heard that live rounds on sets can also be blanks because blanks can be very dangerous. More details are coming out but we still don’t know exactly what happened. 

The two previous shooting deaths involved badly mishandled blanks. Jon-Erik Hexum shot himself in the head with a blank while playing Russian roulette on set (not during filming). Very tragic but not particularly relevant to the discussion. Brandon Lee was killed when a improperly handled gun had a broken part of a bullet in the barrel. Also tragic and a very good argument that real bullets should never be used on sets. I’m not sure I agree with eliminating all guns and blanks on set at the moment. 

[PepSinger]

Point of clarification: “live rounds” includes blanks.

[Crashcourse]

Out of all the hundreds (thousands?)of movies/tv shows that have been made over the years--war movies, westerns, crime movies, etc.--I've never heard of accidental shooting incidents* on the sets. 

*other than the few mentioned

Edited October 23, 2021 by Crashcourse

[PepSinger]

This is a GREAT Twitter thread to understand why what happened on Thursday is so horrific and why failures like this are incredibly rare.

 

[RealHousewife]

Halyna Hutchins' husband put up a post on Instagram. My heart goes out to him and their little boy. 

https://people.com/movies/halyna-hutchins-husband-matthew-honors-late-wife-alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-death/

[Anela]

A friend of mine works in the prop department on TV shows and movies. She shared a video from him, a few days ago, showing his support for those who were going to strike. 

https://www.facebook.com/tyler.mills.73932646/posts/267773671933439

[aradia22]

Quote

It's a WESTERN.   If you just show someone brandishing the gun but not the resultant shoot out, you have lost something to the story. 

Not every Western has a shoot out. And even with those sequences, you can edit around it. I just watched In Bruges. It gets very gory at times but the bulk of the action scene is just Ralph Fiennes running around with the gun. I just rewatched two clips of character deaths in Set It Off. The impact of the scenes is in the bullets tearing through the bodies. A lot is done with lights and sound and the tension of holding the guns before the shooting starts. You could edit out the shots where there is the clear recoil of a gun being fired and not really lose anything. If you can't afford the safety measures to properly handle guns, there are ways to be creative without compromising the story.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

If you can't afford the safety measures to properly handle guns, there are ways to be creative without compromising the story.

If they can’t afford safety measures to properly handle guns they probably shouldn’t be handling any stunts. Other stunt injuries are way more common than prop gun related injuries. Eliminating guns is just patching one rare symptom of a much deeper issue. 

[magdalene]

11 hours ago, Avabelle said:

This is probably my own ignorance to how the film industry works but how are live rounds even allowed on the set? Maybe I’m naive but I always just assumed the guns used in movies were fake and it was sound effects and maybe a smoke machine that made them look real?

Yes, this.  Why would there be ever live ammunition on a film or TV set?

[Vermicious Knid]

It's sad that no one ever seem to remember Jon-Erik Hexum unless a tragedy happens on set.

[aradia22]

I was afraid she might have changed but she's still absolutely mad.

[Crashcourse]

I think she's pitiful.  Rich, but pitiful.

[DearEvette]

13 hours ago, Avabelle said:

This is probably my own ignorance to how the film industry works but how are live rounds even allowed on the set? Maybe I’m naive but I always just assumed the guns used in movies were fake and it was sound effects and maybe a smoke machine that made them look real?

From what I have been reading around the interwebs these last coupla days, the most oft repeated justification is "authenticity" and money.  Apparently, tv show people swear that they need to use the live rounds -- and make no mistake, a blank is a live round as it has the same cartridge with sometimes only 1/2 load of the same gunpowder in the same  shell casing as a bullet -- because they want the loud bang, they want the actor to feel the real recoil (apparently actors can't "act" enough to recoil, dontcha know)  and they really want the muzzle flash.  And they claim it is cheaper to use the real thing than to re-create it in post.

Personally, I think most movie and tv directors just like to play with guns and blow shit up.  And, frankly, Guns are the least of it, there are explosions and dear God, remember poor Victor Morrow?  All because John Landis wanted "authenticity" in the shot.

[JustHereForFood]

26 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I was afraid she might have changed but she's still absolutely mad.

I might be missing something obvious, but I don't see what is wrong there? (Except that I am now hungry for British food, not that there is anything wrong about that.)

Edited October 23, 2021 by JustHereForFood

[Stats Queen]

13 hours ago, cynicat said:

These kinds of tragic situations are never due to only one error.  I'm guessing that in the end, they'll inevitably find that there were multiple mistakes and if only one of them hadn't happened, the accident would not have happened.  

Just like checklists that pilots go through or the many times I’ve had surgery and at least 5 people made me give my name, DOB, what they are doing today, I would assume that filming had those same types of protocols in place for safety (not just guns, but stunts, fights, etc.). 
 

If so, then many people in the “chain of custody” mismanaged all of this. The fact that crew were walking off the set because of safety concerns may reflect that.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Stats Queen

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

And, frankly, Guns are the least of it, there are explosions and dear God, remember poor Victor Morrow? 

Heck, remember Michael Jackson and the Pepsi commercial?   The explosions were a little close and it caught his hair gel on fire.

But yet, we haven't gotten rid of explosions on set even though LOTS more goes wrong with those than with prop guns.  

[aradia22]

Quote

I might be missing something obvious, but I don't see what is wrong there?

Nothing. I meant she's crazy... in a fun way. I didn't like Chasing Pavements at first when it was everywhere but I saw her on Never Mind the Buzzcocks with her wild cackling laugh and looked up her music and I've been a fan ever since.

Quote

Personally, I think most movie and tv directors just like to play with guns and blow shit up. 

Yup

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Stats Queen said:

Just like checklists that pilots go through or the many times I’ve had surgery and at least 5 people made me give my name, DOB, what they are doing today, I would assume that filming had those same types of protocols in place for safety (not just guns, but stunts, fights, etc.). 

From washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/22/alec-baldwin-shooting

Quote

In New Mexico, according to a post on the website of Local 480 IATSE, the film technicians’ union, a licensed armorer must be on set when weapons are used.…   
[But]   
An affidavit filed by a Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office detective states that armorer Hannah Gutierrez had set up three prop guns in a gray cart that, because of pandemic restrictions, was kept outside a church-like building where filming of the western “Rust” was taking place in New Mexico. Assistant director Dave Halls grabbed one and took it to Baldwin.

“Cold gun,” Halls yelled, according to the court record, indicating it did not contain a live round.

Unbeknown to him, the affidavit states, it did…

I don’t know if the armorer being “kept outside” violated the rule of being “on set,” but it seems like that’s where things went wrong. The armorer should have had a negative Covid test, if needed, to be able to  be the person “inside” announcing “Cold gun!”   
or not.😞

[Guest]

‘Rust’ armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed once gave unchecked gun to 11-year-old actor: report

Quote

“She was reloading the gun on the ground, where there were pebbles and stuff,” one source told the outlet. “We didn’t see her check it, we didn’t know if something got in the barrel or not.”

Gutierrez-Reed reportedly handed the gun to child actress Ryan Kiera Armstrong, forcing concerned crew members to intervene, the report said. The gun was then checked for barrel obstruction, according to the sources.

“She was a bit careless with the guns, waving it around every now and again,” a source said.

“There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.”

A “Rust” production source described Reed as “inexperienced and green,” to the outlet, adding that there had been two other incidents of accidental discharges by crew members.

Two other “Rust” production sources questioned if Assistant Director Dave Halls followed proper procedure before the tragic incident.

“He’s supposed to be our last line of defense and he failed us,” one source told The Daily Beast. “He’s the last person that’s supposed to look at that firearm.”

Halls was named in the affidavit calling out “cold gun,” indicating its safety before giving the weapon to Baldwin.

Another source confirmed that it should be the assistant director’s job to test each gun for being “hot” — loaded with live rounds, or “cold” — loaded with blank rounds.

“This check alone should’ve prevented this incident,” the person told The Daily Beast.

 

15 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

From washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/22/alec-baldwin-shooting

I don’t know if the armorer being “kept outside” violated the rule of being “on set,” but it seems like that’s where things went wrong. The armorer should have had a negative Covid test, if needed, to be able to  be the person “inside” announcing “Cold gun!”   
or not.😞

I actually disagree that the armorer should be the one making that announcement. Ideally they would be there but having a second or third person physically double check seems safer then relying on one person to get it right. 

[Crs97]

Hope Alec is talking with someone, and the fact that Daily Mail contacted Ms. Hutchins' husband to give a comment bothers me beyond belief:

https://people.com/movies/alec-baldwin-canceling-other-projects-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-death-source/

[Captain Carrot]

This clip from Rachel Maddow talking to a weapons safety expert explains all the procedures put into place to ensure accidents like this don't happen. At the 7:30 mark he makes it clear that it would have taken breaking multiple rules for this tragedy to occur.

It's also been mentioned that some productions have already moved to CGI prior to this. Maddow specifically mentioned Mare of Eastown. To my mind the only argument for continuing to use blanks that I give any credence to is the fact that actual recoil makes for more realism.