I have no idea what that has to do with what I said. This would be a newsworthy event whether Alec Baldwin was involved or not.
Did you read the links I posted? Here’s another:
https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/how-actors-should-handle-prop-guns-72859/
That is the protocol for a rubber gun.
I already posted Canadian, Australian, and AFTRA rules explicitly calling out the actor as needing tombe shown that the gun is safe, plus multipke links from Ameicannprop master and armorers saying the same thing.
It may not be illegal not to do so, but for civil liability I think it just needs to be shown that training rules were violated and standard safety protocols breached.
OK, perhaps I should use “pointed at” instead of “aimed at.” I can’t imagine Baldwin would deliberately aim a gun at someone (even one he was assured was empty) and pull the trigger. But it’s quite possible he did.
If we freeze that moment in time: Baldwin is holding the gun, it is pointed at the woman, and he pulled the trigger. That’s pretty close to being aimed.
You’re trying to discount other standard safety rules in an attempt to justify what happened as an accident. That’s not how it works. I would say you never point a weapon at someone. there’s no reason to.
But on a movie set where you’re explicitly portraying someone shooting someone else, of course you’re pointing a gun at someone else.
About a billion cop/action/western/gangster/horror films would disagree with you. Which is the whole point.
Hell, sometimes you’re holding the barrel of the gun directly against the person’s head.
If you think there are more guns discharged in film than real life then cite it.
…uh what? Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
How many times are guns used in film, vs how many are used outside of film in the same time frame.
What relevance does that have to pointing a gun at someone in a movie?
If he was practicing a cross-draw the pistol’s muzzle would have been sweeping from left to right, assuming right-handed. Assuming (again) an accidental discharge, had it been 100 milliseconds later or earlier it would have been a bad scare, not a death.
I can’t claim to be a genuine expert but I have read No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan. In it he specifically mentioned a lack of enthusiasm about the cross draw because that sweep puts bystanders at a higher risk and it takes longer to complete the draw and take an aimed shot.
Depends on the film, doesn’t it? Some are incredibly violent compared to the real world; some have no guns at all.
I mean, are we talking Commando or The Notebook?
And count me as another who doesn’t get what this has to do with the fact that - in movies as opposed to real life - you sometimes are indeed supposed to point a gun at somebody.
It was in response to the idea that the numbers are low in film.
The numbers of what are low in film? I don’t know what you think you are replying to.
point something that looks like a gun but is incapable of taking any form of cartridge.
[Deleted]
Only John Dillinger biopics going forward.
The local news just reported that he was aiming the gun at the camera, which tracks.
My understanding is that you don’t ever (at least not since The Crow) point a gun that is capable of firing any type of load directly at a person. They fake it with camera angles, fake guns, and CGI.
Speaking of The Crow, I wonder how often they check guns that are shot more than once in a scene. Like bam bam bam. It’s possible for something to get stuck in the barrel after the first bam that wouldn’t have been found by the initial check.