Are original Colt Single Action Army guns from the 1870s-1890s cheap?
I mean, would a production on a budget (as this one seemed to be) buy such guns? Or, would they be likely to be lying about in a prop locker at some studio?
Are there replicas of these guns that are less expensive and, hopefully, safer since they would be aware of the problems the original had and fix that?
Or, are originals of these guns dirt cheap?
I have no clue myself.
I believe most props are rented.
You don’t need an original for the movie, you can just buy one from Colt.
That’ll set you back $1800. You can get replica Colts for around $500 and up, new. You wouldn’t need many, though. The problem is all the paperwork, plus now you have permanent handling and storage hassles and a bunch of potential liability. Better to rent when needed.
Would these new versions have the same dangers as the older versions mentioned above?
Some have better passive safety. Ruger makes a replica SAA that has a drawbar safety that prevents the gun from firing when dropped or the hammer hit, with a cartridge under the firing pin… But they all function the same way as the original gun, with the same limitations. They are slow to load/reload and harder to inspect.
According to the DA, there was ammunition all over the set. She called it an “enormous amount” but didn’t specify what kind. Also, Gloria Allred has managed to worm her wAy into the case so it’s going to be kept in the media for awhile.
Apparently Santa Fe County district attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and sheriff Adan Mendoza will be holding a news conference for the media on Wednesday morning, so we may get some more information.
The language you had a problem with came from the guy who had just held Halyna Hutchins in his arms as she died; you remember that right?
For sure. But again, I think this is an incredibly small, tiny possibility. I just don’t see where anyone is focused on that at all.
Yes, that was my point, although you framed it much better than I did. I would not be surprised to discover that Hall was a misogynist, and that that contributed to the tragedy.
Guiterrez Reed does bear responsibility, because maintaining and ensuring the safe use of guns on set was her job; but Halls bears equal responsibility, because maintaining a safe set for all actors and crew was his.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that anyone with authority who knew “crewmembers” were putting real bullets in the prop guns for recreational shooting is at fault. The first time that happened, everyone involved should have been fired, as in “escorted off the set”.
The other failures of responsibility matter, too, but that was the critical failure.
Totally agree.
A picture of the actual set shortly before the accident:
Hmm… makes me wonder if the reason the props were on a cart outside the building was due to the small interior. Between the pews and the people there’s just not a lot of room in there.
Yes, COVID precautions indoors has been mentioned as a likely factor, and may possibly absolve the armorer of not being in the room at the time (but not of a bunch of other serious transgressions).
More complaints about Gutierrez-Reed.
After firing a gun near the cast and crew for a second time in three days without warning, Brumbaugh said that Cage yelled at her, “Make an announcement, you just blew my f—ing eardrums out!” before walking off set in a rage. “I told the AD, ‘She needs to be let go,’” Brumbaugh, adding, “After the second round I was pissed off. We were moving too fast. She’s a rookie.”
Off the article, Gutierrez Reed describes her new career:
“The best part about my job is just showing people who are normally kind of freaked out by guns how safe they can be and how they’re not really problematic unless put in the wrong hands.”
What are the chances that the movie, or some version of it, gets released, like The Crow was after Brandon Lee’s death?
Anyone know how far into filming they were with the movie?
I think a large part of the blame rests on the people who tried to cut costs at the expense of safety, by hiring someone who wasn’t up to job.
They didn’t want to pay for an experienced armorer, and they didn’t want to hire enough people to do all the prop work as well, so she was doing both. They ignored her failures and the complaints about her, and they had no right to do so.
On the other hand, she’s an adult, and she didn’t seem to be trying very hard to do a good job. She didn’t learn anything from earlier mistakes. Being careful and conscientious is a fundamental job requirement for an armorer, and she was consistently irresponsible, as the earlier incidents on set show.
Her father is a famous name in the business, so she should have had at least some insight into the job, and known what was required. If she was in any doubt, you’d think she would have called her father and discussed it.
I think it’s relatively low because it’s a $7m budget movie and there will likely be so much civil litigation that it screws up the entire financial structure of the film. I believe the Crow was close to having been completely finished filming, and was a big budget movie (inflation adjusted budget of $40m in 2020 dollars), so it kind of had to limp to the finish line.
Filming started on Oct 6 and it was supposed to take 3 weeks.
Chance of it being released? Approximately zero, I would think.
Thanks.
Incident happened on October 21, so just over two-thirds of way through filming.