Reply to Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.[/quote]

He was practicing the action that was in the scene.  That's not "fiddling with the gun".  That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon.  But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here.  The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job.  On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.  [/quote]

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.[/quote]

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules. [/quote]

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?[/quote]

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded.  Then it's on him as the final safety check[/quote]

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer. [/quote]

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director. [/quote]

Exactly. It's already widely said the armorer, and AD will be liable. Unless they find someone tampered with the gun.[/quote]

It’s possible it will be on someone else as well, but the armorer’s job is to watch the gun and check it immediately before handing it off.  “I checked it before the lunch break”’doesn’t cut it.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics