I would hope that the victim here meant more to her family than temporary co-workers at the job she got killed at. Why can’t that be the most important? Does everyone yearn on their deathbeds to spend more time at the office now? Or is it that wife and mother is seen as an insult?
Have you seen the remake of Steve McQueen’s The Getaway with Baldwin and Kim Basinger? He knows about guns.
If they’re using a functional gun with blanks then painting it green doesn’t show how it’s loaded.
But is she really being widely described in this way? Almost all of the reporting I’ve seen about her leads with describing her through her professional status and role on the film. They certainly also mention her husband and child, which seems appropriate.
I think I would differentiate between media reporting a story and expressions of sympathy or memorializing. Any news story should lead with her profession, because it’s what’s relevant to the incident. Expressions of sympathy and memorializing generally prioritize the deceased’s relationship to those most directly impacted by his or her passing.
That won’t help if people take the “prop” gun out after hours for recreational shooting.
Tenerife. Changed so much in aviation since that fateful day when one experienced but impatient and overbearing captain took the wrong decision to take off.
Make loading anything but blanks into a green-tip functional prop gun a fireable/criminal offence.
It doesn’t paint a very good picture of Assistant Director Hall. Why was he acting as armorer?
To have people quit over safety issues related to accidental discharge of a prop takes on new meaning if the prop is a functional weapon.
I tend to think he’s the most responsible for safety. He runs that set. The misfires from last week indicated the armorer needed extra supervision. The crew walk out certainly signals a major problem.
It’s my understanding the AD double checks the condition of the guns before the Armorer brings it on set
AD Hall should have checked the guns even more carefully and wrote her up as needed. Perhaps even replace Gutierrez-Reed with a more experienced armorer.
.
The half dozen crew members who quit the morning before the accident seemed to think it was exceptional.
That was my thought. If I was the armorer I would be, “This is my gun and it goes into this locked cabinet when not on set. If you want to shoot, get 'cher own gun.”
Even so, if Baldwin’s pistol was used for live shooting – presumably the day before – there should have been a half dozen times it was verified to be unloaded before being put back on the set.
Which was nearly thirty years ago, and was produced before Brandon Lee died making The Crow, which led to a lot of the current practices around using firearms on sets.
Do we need green tips? Make loading real bullets into any gun being used on a set the offense, if it needs to be criminal. I feel like it may already be, under gross negligence.
It’s also one of the most violent movies I’ve ever seen. Are you saying it didn’t teach Baldwin a great deal about the use of firearms?
Too much room for error, otherwise. Just have 2 rules:
-
Only blanks can be loaded in green-tip guns
-
Only green-tip guns are allowed on set.
If either rule is broken, law enforcement must be called.
I’d still like to know more about the previous misfires.
A pretty unpleasant picture is emerging.
It seems that Halls has a past record of breaking safety rules, and not caring about safety on set in general. He was casual about gun safety in particular. He was contemptuous of the unions and their standard safety procedures, and regarded them as unnecessary.
Gutierrez-Reed was far too inexperienced (but presumably cheap to hire), and also didn’t pay much attention to gun safety – although that was basically her entire job – either on her previous movie or on this one.
The previous accidental discharges on the set show clearly that she was not doing her job competently. Nothing was done about those accidental discharges despite formal complaints, and procedures were not tightened up.
Add to that, shooting off live ammo for fun after hours with the same guns used in the movie, and storing live rounds and blanks together in the same place on set.
Neither of them had bothered to check the gun that Halls handed to Baldwin, which had a live round in it, presumably from recreational shooting the previous night.
As assistant director, Halls was ultimately responsible for all safety on set. He had no business handing the the gun to Baldwin in the first place, and especially without checking it. Gutierrez-Reed was responsible for placing that gun on the trolley without checking and clearing it first.
More facts will come out in the next few days, but it’s looking like both of them should be charged with criminal negligence. They and the production company are most certainly liable to be sued for civil damages. I’m certain that both their careers are over.
A lot of the quoting of those earlier news reports only makes it more patent that the reporter/editor was still unclear of what happened – and even about just plain good wording. I mean “ammunition flew toward the trio”? I’d normally write “he discharged the gun in their direction”. I suppose that’s why I am not a working journalist these days…
It is interesting how most people with knowledge reiterate for us that in the case of Westerns the standard practice is that since it’s mostly single action revolvers and lever-action rifles, you use period-replica weapons, and if/when needed use inert dummies for close-ups, and blanks for shooting if you can’t or won’t do it in post prod effects. Seeing as it’s news when a discharge on set kills or badly injures someone, that suggests the safety protocols work if and when they are followed. They obviously weren’t here. BUT the reports also suggest something far more disturbing: that as long as nobody is badly hurt, failure to follow the safety protocol is unreported and swept under the rug. THAT should worry anyone in the line of work.
One answer is 'cause these days there will always be some pro nitpicker out there posting all over how “that’s not how that rifle works” or “that is not period-accurate”, or “you can see through that it’s unloaded”; only now aided by HD freeze-frames. Which yeah, you and I will tell them to get a life, but they’re out there.
And also, there’s a very wide range of weapons out there so that just about anything can be a working gun (ok, so that one was more infamous for not working, but still, it was real). So you’d still have to go through the protocols just to make sure what you have IS the inert prop. Because the average actor/filming crew will not know how to tell one from the other.
Right, the repeating of that word order looks to be the result of serial re-quoting of Baldwin’s tweet. Which in the case of those closest to the incident, it would not be surprising if they were thinking more of the direct human toll than about the deceased’s accomplishments. (Reminds me of the Watts family’s announcement when Charlie passed, where in the opening statement he was first a father and grandfather and the last thing mentioned was that he had been in the Stones.)
It may have. 30 years ago. It’s not proving your point. Learning a perishable skill decades ago means nothing.
Please explain how the use of a firearm has changed in the last 30 years? I still shoot the way my dad taught me in 1960.