Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Wonder if this movie will even get finished?

It’s a low budget western and so low budget that they’ve alienated much of the film crew in the first couple weeks.

Now there’s a fatality.

And let’s be real…..who in the hell is going to pay to see a Western starring Alec Baldwin?
 
Last edited:
M
Fearless Tower said:
Wonder if this movie will even get finished?

It’s a low budget western and so low budget that they’ve alienated much of the film crew in the first couple weeks.

Now there’s a fatality.

And let’s be real…..who in the hell is going to pay to see a Western starring Alex Baldwin?
Click to expand...
No chance.
 
I probably had some similar thoughts about the person involved in this. As I read some of the comments, I find myself thinking I’m a judgemental prick. I have never met Alec Baldwin nor have I met someone who has met Alec Baldwin yet I was buying into how he is portrayed in the media. Maybe he’s worse, maybe he’s a nice guy, f*** if I know. I do know that lowly me (and my family members and friends) has done or said enough things that could easily be hand picked to make me into complete ****at to those that don’t know me.

someone didn’t get to go home from work today and that more than sucks. Hopefully this is fully investigated in a manner that skips politics and leads to prevention.
 
PaulS said:
The union supposedly said there were live rounds in the gun. Alec should have known better, should get at least manslaughter charges for this.
Click to expand...

If a disgruntled employee substituted a live round instead of a blank, it’s not his fault.
 
kyleb said:
My sense is that he's a douche, but I wouldn't wish this on anyone. What a terrible accident/mistake/careless oversight.
Click to expand...

If there was some class one could take where one learns how to safely handle a handgun. Somebody should come up with something like that. Let's call it 'Basics of Pistol Shooting' or maybe 'FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation' where you could learn that rule #1 is to never point a firearm at something you are not willing to kill.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If a disgruntled employee substituted a live round instead of a blank, it’s not his fault.
Click to expand...
Not true, he should have checked the gun when it was handed to him, even a "cold" gun should never be pointed at anyone, and you don't just willy nilly pull the trigger on any gun, especially when you are pointing it at someone. This lady was not an actor, so he had no reason to point it at her. This is his fault, he may not be solely at fault, but he had to do a lot of things wrong for this to happen. The disgruntled employee thing is a dumb theory, but people are working overtime to make him the victim here when he failed on many levels and killed someone.
 
I’m pretty sure the gun safety rules, as we know them, aren’t operative on a film set, just like the aviation safety rules. There are rules, they’re extremely strict, and they apparently weren’t followed here. But when you say “never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot,” you might as well say “I have no idea what happens on a film set.” As for “there was no reason for him to point a gun at that woman,” you presume to know what the script says. Maybe I’m wrong, you’ve read it, and you know what scene they were working on.

No one dislikes Alec Baldwin more than I do — remember when he said the wives and daughters of pro-life Congressmen should be raped? — but it’s entirely possible that he’s innocent here. Some of us should take this opportunity to learn compassion toward a fellow man, even if he’s generally distasteful.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I’m pretty sure the gun safety rules, as we know them, aren’t operative on a film set, just like the aviation safety rules. There are rules, they’re extremely strict, and they apparently weren’t followed here. But when you say “never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot,” you might as well say “I have no idea what happens on a film set.” .
Click to expand...

A movie production doesn't mean any safety should be compromised.

Since there are crews that do in fact know how to properly handle firearms, there is no excuse for a negligent discharge. None. Nada. Zilch.

Sadly, safety procedures need to be learn every few years...
 
Bob Noel said:
Since there are crews that do in fact know how to properly handle firearms, there is no excuse for a negligent discharge. None. Nada. Zilch.
Click to expand...

I think one can make the same case for gear up landings.

As long as humans are involved in the process, mistakes can and will be made. And with all the firearms being used in movie productions around the world, this is maybe the third fatality of note we can recall? Not excusing in any way, but “brain farts” befall us all, just rarely with fatal results. Thank goodness.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I’m pretty sure the gun safety rules, as we know them, aren’t operative on a film set, just like the aviation safety rules. There are rules, they’re extremely strict, and they apparently weren’t followed here. But when you say “never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot,” you might as well say “I have no idea what happens on a film set.” As for “there was no reason for him to point a gun at that woman,” you presume to know what the script says. Maybe I’m wrong, you’ve read it, and you know what scene they were working on.

No one dislikes Alec Baldwin more than I do — remember when he said the wives and daughters of pro-life Congressmen should be raped? — but it’s entirely possible that he’s innocent here. Some of us should take this opportunity to learn compassion toward a fellow man, even if he’s generally distasteful.
Click to expand...
I've worked on film sets where guns were being used. Gun safety rules are absolutely operative on film sets. You shouldn't point guns at people, even on film sets. Even when filming. Do people forget that safety rules exist for reasons that are true even in front of cameras? Yes. Do safety rules get broken on film sets? Yes. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

If a scene or angle does require that a gun be pointed at a person, such as proximity that doesn't allow for "cheating," additional precautions must be taken to absolutely ensure it is done safely, including using fake guns and verifying with everyone involved every time that the correct props are being used.

This can't happen when everyone follows the rules. There's plenty of blame here for Baldwin and others.
 
Lindberg said:
I've worked on film sets where guns were being used. Gun safety rules are absolutely operative on film sets. You shouldn't point guns at people, even on film sets. Even when filming. Do people forget that safety rules exist for reasons that are true even in front of cameras? Yes. Do safety rules get broken on film sets? Yes. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
Click to expand...
Gun safety rules are good, but they aren't absolute, either, and there are times when a person might have assumed something was a replica that wasn't. I for one am FOR airsoft training, for example.
 
GaryM said:
It is ironic. For someone who is so very, very anti-gun, he seems to accepts paychecks for an awful lot of roles that involve him running around pointing guns at people.
Click to expand...

By that logic, historical pieces featuring Nazis or the KKK should only be produced by people who are pro-Nazi or pro-KKK, etc?
 
Katamarino said:
By that logic, historical pieces featuring Nazis or the KKK should only be produced by people who are pro-Nazi or pro-KKK, etc?
Click to expand...
This is flawed logic, also. Most of the "good guys" that guys like Baldwin plays are considered the "hero" of the story. How many of the Nazi or KKK movies portray them as good guys, vs. bad guys?
If they're really anti-gun, they shouldn't be "winning" with guns. OTOH, there is nothing in my belief system that makes it wrong for me to cast real bad guys doing real bad things accurately.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Gun safety rules are good, but they aren't absolute, either, and there are times when a person might have assumed something was a replica that wasn't. I for one am FOR airsoft training, for example.
Click to expand...
And when you do airsoft training, do you ASSume the gun someone hands you is an airsoft gun? I'd bet you don't.

Baldwin did not just take a gun without verifying what it was, he didn't just fail to determine if it was loaded, he didn't just fail to keep it pointed in a safe direction, and he didn't just fail to keep his finger off the trigger. He failed to do all of those things, any ONE of which would have prevented this tragedy.

Certainly the rule about not actually shooting someone you don't want to kill is absolute?

Other individual rules might be violated in specific circumstances, and I edited to explain a little, but it should only be done intentionally, deliberately, with everyone's consent, and then addition steps must be taken so that the intentional rule violation doesn't compromise safety.
 
PaulS said:
Found it.

Prop gun used by Alec Baldwin in shooting contained live round: union (nypost.com)
Click to expand...
The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.

The union - who's members walked off the set, seems to be (understandably) pushing a smear campaign on the non-union scab crew that replaced them.

It sounds like someone gave Alec a gun loaded with live blanks and maybe he thought he was just supposed to be dry-firing the gun.

If so, that still looks bad for Baldwin. I personally own and shoot several 19th century replica handguns. You may not be able to tell easily if there are blanks or actual bullets in the gun, but it's pretty obvious if there are cartridges of any kind loaded in the weapon.
 
fasteddie said:
Sad story all the way around. Can't help but be interested to hear what the causes were, assuming they eventually come out.

I've been around a bit of the film industry. I think about the parallels between aviation and movie-making:

The Swiss Cheese Model: I have to assume a lot of things went wrong to end up with one person dead and one injured after what was supposed to be a normal day of filming. Just like in aviation, an accident usually isn't the result of one thing, rather a lining-up of several different disparate events.

Get there-itis: Filming a movie is a complex operation, with lots of moving pieces. And when it's in the middle of production, you're usually burning money by the truckload. People get in a hurry, corners get cut, and things still work out fine, right up until they don't.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent analysis. I'm a retired IATSE Local 600 cinematographer and have shot several projects involving firearms, and TRUST me, there are protocols, procedures and required personnel for this. I have some inside information on this incident and it was indeed an unfortunate chain of events.
 
I'm confident that a historically accurate Old West portrayal would feature plenty of guns on all sides. If they didn't, you'd most likely be complaining that he'd rewritten history to suit his personal views. I think it's a pretty silly argument, frankly.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.

The union - who's members walked off the set, seems to be (understandably) pushing a smear campaign on the non-union scab crew that replaced them.

It sounds like someone gave Alec a gun loaded with live blanks and maybe he thought he was just supposed to be dry-firing the gun.

If so, that still looks bad for Baldwin. I personally own and shoot several 19th century replica handguns. You may not be able to tell easily if there are blanks or actual bullets in the gun, but it's pretty obvious if there are cartridges of any kind loaded in the weapon.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the era of the firearm, no one, including actors, is excused feom knowing and verifying the condition of a firearm he is holding. And if live rounds are being used on set, everyone is aware. And you don't point guns at people and pull the trigger!
 
Lindberg said:
Regardless of the era of the firearm, no one, including actors, is excused feom knowing and verifying the condition of a firearm he is holding. And if live rounds are being used on set, everyone is aware. And you don't point guns at people and pull the trigger!
Click to expand...

No disagreement here. Just pointing out that you’d have to be completely oblivious to not notice the cartridges loaded in one of those weapons. It’s not like a 9mm with magazine inserted.
 
Katamarino said:
I'm confident that a historically accurate Old West portrayal would feature plenty of guns on all sides. If they didn't, you'd most likely be complaining that he'd rewritten history to suit his personal views. I think it's a pretty silly argument, frankly.
Click to expand...
But movies do teach. If you're really anti gun, don't be doing a film that teaches that a good guy with a gun is a legitimate option. The left loves to call out right-wing hypocrites, and they should, but it goes both ways.
 
This was a serious f-up. Why would Baldwin point the gun at a crew member who he would have absolutely no reason to point a gun at, ever, never mind point and pull the trigger? He's a hot head, no body should deny that. There are reports this lady was one of the main people complaining about how the crew was being treated and I read another report, although unsubstantiated, that she and Baldwin had gotten into it a few hours before. Maybe he wanted to put a little scare into her? Who knows, but this should not have happened.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The media keeps using the term 'live round', but I've seen a few places that have commented that the term is used in the movie prop industry for a blank. In other words, in this case 'live round' doesn't necessarily mean projectile.

The union - who's members walked off the set, seems to be (understandably) pushing a smear campaign on the non-union scab crew that replaced them.

It sounds like someone gave Alec a gun loaded with live blanks and maybe he thought he was just supposed to be dry-firing the gun.

If so, that still looks bad for Baldwin. I personally own and shoot several 19th century replica handguns. You may not be able to tell easily if there are blanks or actual bullets in the gun, but it's pretty obvious if there are cartridges of any kind loaded in the weapon.
Click to expand...

But would a blank penetrate this lady's abdomen, exit through her back, then go through the director's shoulder?
 
PaulS said:
But would a blank penetrate this lady's abdomen, exit through her back, then go through the director's shoulder?
Click to expand...

Do we have any confirmation that is what happened?

Kind of like with aviation accidents, I’d maintain a healthy sense of skepticism at this point.

If it was an actual projectile round, I’d think LE would definitely be looking at possible sabotage by one of the union members
 
PaulS said:
This was a serious f-up. Why would Baldwin point the gun at a crew member who he would have absolutely no reason to point a gun at, ever, never mind point and pull the trigger? He's a hot head, no body should deny that. There are reports this lady was one of the main people complaining about how the crew was being treated and I read another report, although unsubstantiated, that she and Baldwin had gotten into it a few hours before. Maybe he wanted to put a little scare into her? Who knows, but this should not have happened.
Click to expand...

this has already been addressed multiple times in this thread. have you ever seen where an actor is looking directly at the camera? it's the same thing, it's the camera perspective of someone shooting right at you, and the only way to do that is for the actor to, you guessed it, shoot directly at you (you being the camera, with a camera person right behind the camera). strange that this really needs any explanation.

as to your point about the lady complaining.......did you see the video of her riding on a horse saying "one of the many percs of being on this crew is being able to ride horses every day", or something to that effect? she didn't seem to be complaining then......

the thing I don't understand is about the "crew" that walked off and was quickly and easily replaced by another "crew". is "crew" a bunch of extras that I could see being easily replaced? because I wouldn't think an actual film crew could be that easily replaced. the "crew" complained that the hotels they were put up in was too far away from the set.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Do we have any confirmation that is what happened?

Kind of like with aviation accidents, I’d maintain a healthy sense of skepticism at this point.

If it was an actual projectile round, I’d think LE would definitely be looking at possible sabotage by one of the union members
Click to expand...

I have no reason to doubt that report, she died, and the director was rushed to the hospital with injuries. But anything is possible.


I get the sabotage angle, and it may be true and should be investigated. But the story is that Baldwin, this lady and the director were discussing how a scene should be filmed. Baldwin, said "like this?" as he pulled the gun, pointed it at her, then pulled the trigger. At a minimum, that is criminal negligence, even if the gun was empty and he had verified it was empty.
 
eman1200 said:
this has already been addressed multiple times in this thread. have you ever seen where an actor is looking directly at the camera? it's the same thing, it's the camera perspective of someone shooting right at you, and the only way to do that is for the actor to, you guessed it, shoot directly at you (you being the camera, with a camera person right behind the camera). strange that this really needs any explanation.

as to your point about the lady complaining.......did you see the video of her riding on a horse saying "one of the many percs of being on this crew is being able to ride horses every day", or something to that effect? she didn't seem to be complaining then......

the thing I don't understand is about the "crew" that walked off and was quickly and easily replaced by another "crew". is "crew" a bunch of extras that I could see being easily replaced? because I wouldn't think an actual film crew could be that easily replaced. the "crew" complained that the hotels they were put up in was too far away from the set.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that if a gun is pointed at a camera and fired, the camera operator is not behind that camera. That's common sense. A scene can be rehearsed, the camera set up, and when the scene is shot, the camera is turned on, the operator gets out of the danger zone, then the action commences.

If the gun is not fired but pointed at the camera and for some reason it needs to have dummy bullets in it, the camera operator plus a host of other people confirm the gun will not fire before the scene happens.
 
PaulS said:
My understanding is that if a gun is pointed at a camera and fired, the camera operator is not behind that camera. That's common sense. A scene can be rehearsed, the camera set up, and when the scene is shot, the camera is turned on, the operator gets out of the danger zone, then the action commences.

If the gun is not fired but pointed at the camera and for some reason it needs to have dummy bullets in it, the camera operator plus a host of other people confirm the gun will not fire before the scene happens.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this info from? It may be true, I don’t know squat about filming movies, but I have to say this sounds pretty made up to me. Please prove me wrong.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Do we have any confirmation that is what happened?

Kind of like with aviation accidents, I’d maintain a healthy sense of skepticism at this point.

If it was an actual projectile round, I’d think LE would definitely be looking at possible sabotage by one of the union members
Click to expand...
They might be. But there are other really stupid ways that could happen.
 
eman1200 said:
Where do you get this info from? It may be true, I don’t know squat about filming movies, but I have to say this sounds pretty made up to me. Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm in no position to prove anybody wrong, but I can speculate with the best of them.

The info is from the many articles I've read since this happened, and twitter posts buy people who claim to be in the business. It could all be wrong, but I'm thinking not all, probably some. I posted a couple of the articles previously, if I come across something again about how these things are supposedly done, I'll post them.
 
eman1200 said:
Where do you get this info from? It may be true, I don’t know squat about filming movies, but I have to say this sounds pretty made up to me. Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
I get this info from working on sets where guns are being handled.

You don't just say, "The script calls for shooting a gun at the camera, so I guess we'll just shoot at the camera" any more than you'd say, "The script calls for a bunch of planes flying in close formation so I guess we'll just get a bunch of planes and fly them in close formation."

If a gun was to be fired at a camera, it would be under very controlled conditions, the camera would be shielded, and might or might not be remotely operated.
 
An aviation analogy:

Formation flying is outside the bounds of "normal" aircraft operations. There are normal rules that must be violated to do it effectively. As a result, when flying formation, you must take additional precautions and must actually abide by more rules than normal. Using guns on set imposes additional rules on handling than what would apply if you were at the range. More precautions, not fewer.
 
If this happened on the street…and not on a movie set, Baldwin would be in jail…Ignorance of the condition of the weapon, would not be an excuse. It will be interesting in the end if any charges are filed. And unlike many I bet this film is finished, in a tribute to the cinematographer that died…the macabre of the film will make it a financial success and profit in the end will prevail. I have no love for the players involved and the death is tragic, but their are only two victims of this disaster but all involved will claim the status…maybe we will get a #banallguns or two to make it better…it’s going to be worth following till resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top