“The show must go on.”
It’s also a way to slide a little more money towards Halyna’s family. Not being a lawyer type myself, I wonder if the money from the producer job is part of the settlement that was made with Baldwin.
For the lawyer types: Why are amounts in civil lawsuits often not revealed? Is that the standard, but participants can negotiate to have them released? Or are they supposed to be public, but part of the settlement is that it’s not released?
About completing the movie, I hope they got a real armorer and assistant director, not someone’s daughter and an asshole that ignores safety rules. At this point, they should just use rubber guns and spend a little extra on FX.
I’m not shocked they are finishing this movie.
See:
- The Crow
- Twilight Zone: The Movie
- Top Gun
- The Expendables 2
Among many others.
Wait, who died during the making of Top Gun? I don’t remember that.
Art Scholl. He flew stunt planes for the production. You know that scene where the guys says he’s in a flat spin he can’t get out of? The footage from inside the cockpit?
He really was in a flat spin he could not get out of.
The film was actually dedicated to him.
Of course it is. Any decent accountant would insist on it. Off-load as much of the settlement as you possibly can onto the film’s budget. That way you can write it off against tax and it doesn’t come out of your pocket.
That’s kind of why I wish the public could see what settlements like this contain. For all we know, Baldwin paid out nothing, just the producer title and the cash that goes along with it. Baldwin could probably just give up his producers share and wouldn’t even feel it.
A settlement is a private contract. There’s no obligation on private parties to make their contract public.
I wonder if “finishing” necessarily includes “releasing.” Like, what are the odds they are just “finishing” it because some obscure provision of tax law applies (or ceases to apply), or the insurance contract gets voided (so no payout) if the film isn’t at least completed. Like, before they can claim the loss on the film as a tax write-off, it has to be completed. Or before the insurance will pay out X-million dollars for the loss, they have to at least try completing it.
Possible. Or there could be a rights issue, like there was with the 90s Fantastic Four movie. They needed to make a film or lose the rights, but it was never released and had never meant to be.
Sure, make me look stupid with your straight forward, simple answer. 
If that turns out to be a big problem, they’ll probably reshoot the problematic scenes with him.
…said nobody ever in the entire history of movie goof nitpicking (or so I assume!).
With the last article I posted note that they are now moving from New Mexico to elsewhere (probably California), So they may have to re-shoot a significantly greater number of screens.
“Deadline hears a line producer still needs to hired for production, in addition to a new armorer, assistant director and DP.”
So they are replacing the DP (director of photography) because she is dead. And the line producer, the armorer and the assistant director are the three mentioned as most responsible for the death. [the line producer as having a careless attitude toward set safety, the armorer and assistant director for not checking the gun]
The John Wayne movie The Green Berets ends with a beautiful shot of the sun setting on the Pacific Ocean. A whole lot of people pointed out that, in Vietnam, the Pacific is to the east.
Is it specifically identified as the Pacific Ocean? Certainly there are parts of Vietnam where the sun sets over the sea.
Did the U.S. Army have a base in Rạch Giá?
No idea. I thought we were picking nits here 
The ending scene in The Green Berets was supposed to be Da Nang. So facing East, not West.