That’s insane.
Next thing you know, you’d have makeup artists rigging explosives.
Do you mean that the entire crew has to share the responsibility for gun safety? I think having responsibility falling on people who are hired and paid to take on specifically this responsibility is a reasonable process.
Do we allow others on the set who may be placed at risk to review the safety protocols? I think that may also be fair, OTOH, it may also drag the process to a crawl and make filming impossible.
Tell me you’ve never been on a film set without telling me you’ve never been on a film set.
Well, there have to be realistic limits.
I would expect the makeup artists rigging only the explosive makeup.
This reminds me of a kids party at a home pool. Some parents want to do “everyone watches everyone’s kids”. Sounds reasonable because a shared responsibility is a light burden to everyone. But it does not work and is extremely dangerous. It’s a party and people get distracted because “someone else” is probably watching the pool at any given moment. The end result is that for many moments no one is watching the kids in the pool.
There needs to be at least one person giving their full attention to the pool at all times. And that means explicitly assigning the responsibility to one person. People can take turns, but someone is definitely the pool guard at every moment. (We’d have one parent stand by the pool with a lifesaver or hook in hand, and they’d literally hand off to someone else when done.)
While everyone on a set is responsible for safety in general, some single person has to be responsible for each specific safety concern.
Real guns shouldn’t be used on movie sets at all. This case was not about a prop gun no matter how many times that tale is told. It was a real gun. Real bullets can’t be loaded into prop guns and fired. Any realistic effect desired can be accomplished with CGI. Nobody on the set needs special training for real guns if they aren’t on the set.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Every company that deals in hazard conditions has a safety program that teaches it’s employees what is involved in properly operating under those conditions. That does not mean they make the products they are handling. It means handling them safely.
This …
I’ve never been on a film set or one of an infinite number of businesses requiring a safety program.
Film sets are no different than any other industry in that they are responsible for creating and following safety protocols. The nature of the business is irrelevant. the process is the same. Each business is responsible for developing a safety program for the safe handling of resources and the training involved. And that will vary from location to location within the same company.
This was an accident caused by not following the rules. Will an additional rule stop the next accident caused by not following the rules?
Not just gun safety, ALL safety. And it’s not a function of dispensing fault after an accident. It’s a function of increasing awareness to avoid the accident in the first place.
If it’s too expensive then the alternative is to introduce safe practices that take less time.
A really big rule, like “only fake guns are used on set” probably would make a difference. If it were against the rules to use a real gun as a prop, actors might very well refuse to act in a scene that called for using a real gun. That’s a very bright line.
Given that real guns are allowed to be used as props,
Seems like a good rule. I don’t understand how this movie filmed scenes with guns and didn’t allow the armorer on the set on those days. That just seems crazy.
I completely agree. Gutierrez-Reed bears responsibility, but I think she’s also taking the fall for Halls. Upthread, there are articles that talk about him being domineering, demanding, and more concerned with keeping the production moving than with safety. (And let’s not forget that he’s a fifty-something man, with years of experience in the industry, while Gutierrez-Reed was young woman in her mid-twenties, on her first job; it’s not implausible that Halls intimidated her. Although it’s clear that she, too, was entirely too cavalier about gun safety, allowing the live rounds on the set.)
I would hope, though, that Halls would get a reputation around the industry that would make it hard for him to find work again. Were I an actor or producer, I wouldn’t want him sharing a set with me.
Now that he’s had a second gun accident on his watch – this time fatal – you’d really hope so. I would have thought after his first gun accident he’d already have that reputation, but I guess not.
CGI can NOT fake a gun being fired well. For one thing, a gun has recoil which is hard for an actor to fake. Second, the gun may have an action that needs to cycle and eject brass. Third, the muzzle flash from the gun lights up the room.
Some productions use CGI to fake gunfire. You can always tell. Takes me right out of the show.
And if you are going to have prop guns that look exactly like real ones, you have just added another check ‘Make sure the gun can’t fire’. The movie sets already have an elaborate safety system that includes checking for real bullets. They failed.
Gun accidents on set are exceedingly rare. That shows that the developed procedures, when followed, are safe. We don’t need new rules - we need to enforce the ones we already have which are proven to work when followed.
Movie sets are dangerous places. There are numerous injuries and even deaths on movie sets. By far the most dangerous movie device is the helicopter. For example, there have been 37 deaths on movie sets between 1980 and 1990, and 24 of them involved helicopters. Why are we not focused on that? Because the gun debate fits in with our political debates and prejudices in a way that helicopter accidents don’t.
I’ll bet no one here knows that in 2020 a crane collapsed on a movie set and killed three people and injured ten more. In 2022 actor Ryan Fellows was killed in a car crash on set. In 2019 the director and AD of the film “The Story of Taiwan” wwere killed in a helicopter crash while filming.
Here’s a list of movie set accidents. Guns are not the problem. Car crashes, aircraft accidents, falls, electeocutions, stunts gone wrong and heavy things falling on people on set appear to make up the bulk of accidents.
Utter nonsense. Real gun fire conducted in laboratory conditions can be used to produce totally realistic effects. The recoil can be faked, that’s what acting is, and the recoil isn’t the same when blanks are used anyway. Prop guns that cycle and eject prop bullets can be made, although even that can be done with CGI.
An actor can’t fake recoil. It would just look like kids pretending with toys.
I do forsee a market for prop guns that use weights along with springs and/or compressed gas to simulate recoil, probably along with fake external cycling and some sort of muzzle light to help synchronize added digital effects.
Consider also: what part of Hollywood gunfights do any of y’all think are “realistic”?
Whether actors can “act” their way to realistic recoil or whether there is some kind of pneumatically- or electronically-powered alternative to producing the same is almost beside the point. Some of these actors can’t even hold a gun realistically, but I bet the vast majority of viewers either (a) don’t notice or (b) don’t care.
Yeah, “the guns are used realistically” is clearly not required.
We all have our " damn, i was just reminded this is fake" triggers. The most common for me is that the plants aren’t appropriate to the place or season the scene is supposed to be in.
Why do you assume that as an actor, Baldwin has knowledge of all of the inner workings of the safety protocols?