Yeesh - Alec Baldwin just plopped into a world of hurt

[Baby Lee]

Breaking - details forthcoming

Discharged a 'prop' weapon that resulted in a death and another severe injury.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...c47b69ce5.html

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by jdubya

And lastly if I am the actor, I open the action and declare the weapon safe for myself.

Just one quick technical note. If, as has been suggested, this was a revolver - that would effectively require the actor empty and re-load the gun. In which case, why have an armorer and an AD?

At a point someone has to be willing to trust the people responsible.

But man, I really like the point Baby Lee made. If someone handed you a gun and said 'Cold Gun' and asked you to point it at a spouse or child, would you do it without double-checking? No, you absolutely would not. I mean I've heard Baldwin's voicemails and HE might - but a normal human being wouldn't.

And if he's treating his cinematographer differently than he would a loved one in that situation, that sure suggests some level of indifference.

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I don't think we've heard for sure. I believe that it came out that there were a few guns on a table. The AD grabbed the gun in question, said "cold gun," and handed it to Baldwin for the scene. The details beyond that have yet to be reported, so all we can do is come up with a hypothesis about what happened:

- The crew went out and used the guns to play around with target practice. This is probably a failure on the entire operation for allowing this to happen at all with guns that were going to be used for the film.
- They (presumably) unloaded the guns and put them on the prop table, but at least one round didn't get unloaded. This is probably a failure on the armorer for not quadruple checking that all of the guns were properly unloaded.
- The AD grabbed the gun in question and didn't actually check it before declaring it cold and handing it over. This is an abysmal failure as the last line of defense. Maybe he just looked at the round from the rear and couldn't tell the difference, but regardless I have no idea how anyone could ever say "cold gun" without being absolutely, 100% sure that the gun was indeed cold.

At least that's how it seems like it probably went down to me.

My initial thought when this broke, without knowing anything about prop guns or control protocols in place, was that someone likely took it shooting and didn't empty it. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be many other logical explanations other than foul play.

But man, that storm gets even more perfect if there was just one live round in just one of the guns. Which I guess becomes less random if the gun is unique to his character and one of the more desirable guns to fire if you have the opportunity. Kind of like swinging Excalibur while sweeping up the set after everyone goes home for the night. I assume it will be disclosed at some point after the investigation. My morbid curiosity would like to know.

[stumppy]

I would think the last line of liability would be with the armorer. If the gun has been declared "cold" by the professional then the actor (amateur) pulls the magazine or cylinder then the blanks/bullets then you no longer have a "cold" gun because it's been tampered with after it after the armorer checked it out.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But man, I really like the point Baby Lee made. If someone handed you a gun and said 'Cold Gun' and asked you to point it at a spouse or child, would you do it without double-checking? No, you absolutely would not. I mean I've heard Baldwin's voicemails and HE might - but a normal human being wouldn't.

To be fair, I'm not sure I'd be willing to point a real gun directly at another person no matter what the circumstances. I still have no idea why they didn't have him aim off to the side a bit just out of an abundance of caution.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaFace

To be fair, I'm not sure I'd be willing to point a real gun directly at another person no matter what the circumstances. I still have no idea why they didn't have him aim off to the side a bit just out of an abundance of caution.

Like I said - typically they do.

And Baldwin is an experienced actor. I can't give you the man's catalogue here, but he shot the shit out of that cook in Hunt for Red October so he's done some work with guns on sets before.

He messed up. I just can't come up with a situation where that's NOT the case. But as I said this morning, the issue becomes one of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that mistake. I can't see any jury determining that a once in a generation outcome was a foreseeable consequence of that decision.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DaFace

To be fair, I'm not sure I'd be willing to point a real gun directly at another person no matter what the circumstances. I still have no idea why they didn't have him aim off to the side a bit just out of an abundance of caution.

Nerf gun yes, real gun no.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by penguinz

You think this is a funny comment but it just lets everyone know that your and idiot.

Pull your panties out of your crack you whiny bitch it was a joke. I doubt anyone expected the armorer to be a 24 year old woman.

Women don't TYPICALLY know much about guns. Its not my fault you have no sense of humor.

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Pull your panties out of your crack you whiny bitch it was a joke. I doubt anyone expected the armorer to be a 24 year old woman.

Women don't TYPICALLY know much about guns.

I'm sure you have never made any jokes about women in your sanctimonious life. Your response is way more pathetic than my joke you didn't like.

Triggered much?

You can hear your pounding on the keyboard over the interwebs.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by penguinz

Triggered much?

That's a pretty hilarious pun you apparently didn't intend to make in this thread, I'll give you that even though it was unintentional.

But maybe you should find a mirror considering your reaction to my very mild woman joke.

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That's a pretty hilarious pun you apparently didn't intend to make in this thread, I'll give you that even though it was unintentional.

But maybe you should find a mirror considering your reaction to my very mild woman joke.

So what got your panties in a bunch? Or are you just an overall angry person?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by penguinz

So what got your panties in a bunch? Or are you just an overall angry person?

Is this a serious question? Do you not remember what you posted a little ways back?

And my response really wasn't much, I believe it was asking you to pull your panties out of your crack for calling me out on a woman joke. I mean that's pretty ****ing standard fare for this place is it not?

Yet somehow I am an angry guy? I think your response has nothing to do with this thread and more to do with DC.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Like I said - typically they do.

And Baldwin is an experienced actor. I can't give you the man's catalogue here, but he shot the shit out of that cook in Hunt for Red October so he's done some work with guns on sets before.

He messed up. I just can't come up with a situation where that's NOT the case. But as I said this morning, the issue becomes one of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that mistake. I can't see any jury determining that a once in a generation outcome was a foreseeable consequence of that decision.

Funny you should mention that scene. The actors are not in the frame together when Baldwin pulls the trigger. The only time you see Baldwin pointing the gun he doesn't actually fire, so that weapon is probably a dummy.

The scene seems continuous because it's a great, well-edited film, and we forget that it's actors on a set and not the hero and the villain in the missile bay of a nuclear sub.

I just rewatched the scene from the Godfather where Michael kills Sollozzo and the police captain. Even in that scene, Pacino never directly discharges the revolver in his hand at either actor when they're in the same shot. When Sollozzo is hit you see the squib on his forehead go and the spray of fake blood from behind his head, but no muzzle flash from the revolver. And when Michael shoots McCluskey, when you see him pull the trigger and there is a muzzle flash, both times the camera is focused on Pacino and Sterling Hayden is not in the shot. I had never realized that before.

Seems likely that in both these famous scenes the guns with blanks weren't fired at anybody; it just seemed like they were.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Funny you should mention that scene. The actors are not in the frame together when Baldwin pulls the trigger. The only time you see Baldwin pointing the gun he doesn't actually fire, so that weapon is probably a dummy.

He pulls the trigger



It's difficult to see the motion with his finger because of the recoil, but you can see the slide move when the muzzle flashes. That seems to be a pretty perfect example of an actor pointing a gun and firing a blank 'at' someone when he really isn't.

Side note: There's a group of people who can't watch Lethal Weapon anymore because of Mel Gibson and his...uh...idiosyncrasies. I can comfortably question that level of angst since I pretty much hate Baldwin and will ALWAYS love The Hunt for Red October.

[DJ's left nut]

Just watched the Godfather and you're absolutely right - when he shoots Sollozzo the gun doesn't really recoil naturally and there's no muzzle flash. That's a prop gun that they don't even fire, whoever's holding it just fakes a recoil and someone fires off the squib (the gunshot sound is dubbed over it).

And they do some really fast cuts between Michael pulling the trigger and McClosky getting hit.

Kinda gets back to what we were talking about earlier - I've seen both of those movies dozens of times and never made that connection. There's just no to have to fire a blank directly at someone. Cameramen have been puling this slight of hand for decades and we simply don't catch it.

EDIT: Correct my vision here if you want, the gun that fires the blanks in both shots at McClusky is black but when Michael and McClusky are both in the frame at the same time, the gun he's pointing at him is nickel plated. May be a light trick, but it also may just be a completely different prop used for safety when it's actually being pointed at the actor.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Just watched the Godfather and you're absolutely right - when he shoots Sollozzo the gun doesn't really recoil naturally and there's no muzzle flash. That's a prop gun that they don't even fire, whoever's holding it just fakes a recoil and someone fires off the squib (the gunshot sound is dubbed over it).

And they do some really fast cuts between Michael pulling the trigger and McClosky getting hit.

Kinda gets back to what we were talking about earlier - I've seen both of those movies dozens of times and never made that connection. There's just no to have to fire a blank directly at someone. Cameramen have been puling this slight of hand for decades and we simply don't catch it.

I'll wreck another Godfather scene for you - in the tollbooth scene, none of the Thompsons are ever actually shown firing while aimed at James Caan. There is one shot where a guy is firing and Caan is in the shot, but if you look closely you can tell the gun is actually aimed at a point beside him. I've probably watched that scene a hundred times and never noticed that before.