The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

https://deadline.com/2021/10/alec-baldw ... 234860500/

That is a real tragedy for so many. I heard about the incident on the set of "The Crow" where Brandon Lee got killed.
But I don't understand how a prop gun like here kills a crew member and injures another one.
Was something in the gun barrel? I mean as I would think a prop gun doesn't fire a projectile out of the gun barrel.
*EDIT* Ok, yes some blast wave does come out of course.

A lot of things must have gone terribly wrong on that set. Especially the guy who was responsible for the guns on set.... screwed up big time.

reminds me of that scifi show (leapers I think or some time traveller show) where the hunk star was playing with prop guns that had blanks in it and for gags put it to his temple and fired. He didn't know it does eject a wad at a hefty velocity.

Man, this is really sad, both for the life lost, the ones left behind, and possibly for the ones who may have been responsible.

Yes, blank firing weapons still discharge "something". In order to go "bang" something needs to burst open under pressure (from a chemical reaction) and while there is no intentional projectile like in a regular round, the casing that held the "blank" together will still emit something forward. It's this sort of stuff that has been responsible for much sorrow :(

Frustratingly, one of the key advantages of using blanks is that they can give a realistic cycling of the weapon, something a period western weapon doesn't really even need to do as far as I know.

Abductorenmadrid wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Man, this is really sad, both for the life lost, the ones left behind, and possibly for the ones who may have been responsible.

Yes, blank firing weapons still discharge "something". In order to go "bang" something needs to burst open under pressure (from a chemical reaction) and while there is no intentional projectile like in a regular round, the casing that held the "blank" together will still emit something forward. It's this sort of stuff that has been responsible for much sorrow :(

Frustratingly, one of the key advantages of using blanks is that they can give a realistic cycling of the weapon, something a period western weapon doesn't really even need to do as far as I know.

OK, a blast comes out of the barrel. But isn't that very short-ranged? I mean how did it kill her and injure the director as well?
Seems like they were standing right in front of the gun as it fired. But aren't there some safety measures?
Many questions!

Can't imagine how this must be feeling for Baldwin. He fired the gun (accidentally) and is also the producer of the movie, so somehow responsible for general safety as well.
Even gun safety is the job of some specific guy/girl on set.

But of course, for all the loved ones of Halyna...it's even worse.

Yes terrible tragedy. With Lee the gun had previously been used and a live round had lodged in the barrel which was then expelled by the blank firing. I think one of the changes brought in after that tragedy was that gun wranglers had to check the guns after each scene so you would hope that sort of mistake hadn't happened again
It's too early to speculate on whether it was a blocked barrell, mis loaded or a misfire but a dreadful tragedy regardless. And terrible for Baldwin to live with, I know.

This seems like something that should be avoidable.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

reminds me of that scifi show (leapers I think or some time traveller show) where the hunk star was playing with prop guns that had blanks in it and for gags put it to his temple and fired. He didn't know it does eject a wad at a hefty velocity.

I believe you are referring to the actor Jon-Erik Hexum who starred on the time traveling series Voyagers! in 1982. In October of 1984 he was shooting another series called Cover Up, Hexum was bored from a long day of shooting, jokingly put a prop .44 magnum revolver to his head and pulled the trigger, the gun fired, wadding from the blank cartridge shattered his skull and the man later died from his injuries. I wonder how Baldwin's often stormy relationship with the press will inform on the coverage of this tragic accident. How does something like this happen?

bushwackerbob wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I wonder how Baldwin's often stormy relationship with the press will inform on the coverage of this tragic accident. How does something like this happen?

Baldwin will initially get ripped by the press until more information comes to.

It happens because people don't think. They assume a prop is "safe" because it doesn't have real bullets. People die often enough on sets. There was the Vic Morrow and two children on the Twilight zone movie due to explosives.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ale ... 57857.html

IndieWire reports IATSE Local 44, which covers prop masters, sent an email to its members early on Friday morning saying that the gun used in the scene contained "a live round." The production's propmaster was purportedly not a member of Local 44. Yahoo Entertainment reached out to the group for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Also:

While filming 1993's The Crow, actor Brandon Lee, son of Bruce Lee, was killed by his co-star after he was shot with a .44-caliber bullet. The prop gun was supposed to only have blanks, but there was a bullet lodged in the barrel. Lee was only 28.

Isn't Baldwin anti-gun?

So we're just going to let that sit there, like a steaming turd, and say nothing?

Baldwin's views on guns have nothing to do with this tragedy, gun control is not what this thread is about. A talented woman has lost her life, let's not derail this thread and trivialize this tragedy by making it political.

...and as Alec Baldwin is the famous one who everyone knows, here is a picture of Halyna Hutchins, who died at the age of 42:



R.I.P.

They reported on the Beeb that she had complained about on set safety, but they didn't give any details of her complaint.
Such a terrible, senseless waste.

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/a ... afety.html

If this article is to be believed, the union crew complained of long working hours and not getting paid on time, then got replaced by a non-union crew.

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3 ... oaded-gun/

The armorer was apparently inexperienced and the shot they were doing was straight into the camera.

A MOVIE armorer who allegedly laid out the loaded gun Alec Baldwin accidentally killed the cinematographer with had just completed her first film and worried "she wasn't ready".

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed reportedly admitted this in a podcast interview before working on the movie Rust where Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed on Thursday.

As someone who shoots one a regular basis you NEVER pick up a gun and use it until you know the state of it, whether its chambered, what's in it etc. And even IF the gun has a wad in it vs a live round, why were the camera and director in front as opposed to a standing camera left on its own. Even the wad can be dangerous.

This to me lends more credibility to the Batwomen set issues being a thing and Hollywood in general is a hit and miss risk. Again his movie apparently has lots of gun shooting and no one else got shot BUT that doesn't mean things were totally safe. Same with Rose, could be she just got a streak of unlucky issues.

The general vibe around working conditions being rough as shit across the industry suggests safety is a widespread problem.

There really is no reason to use actual guns any more either. The additional safety bullshit that goes along with them just eats up time and makes everything that much work, which lends itself vulnerable to corners being cut.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3 ... oaded-gun/

The armorer was apparently inexperienced and the shot they were doing was straight into the camera.

I don't know industry protocols, but this stuck out to me:

A search warrant said Gutierrez-Reed laid out three prop guns on a cart outside the filming location.

Unaware that it was loaded with live rounds, the first assistant director Dave Halls then allegedly grabbed the gun.

Before handing it to Baldwin he shouted “cold gun” which was the phrase to signal the weapon was safe to fire, the warrant said.

The First AD assumed the state of the weapon, and everyone else assumed the First AD was right.
Was the First AD supposed to check the guns?

A linked article says the gun was "handled by a replacement staff" and states TMZ got a 911 recording from the script supervisor saying: "This motherf***ker. He's supposed to check the guns. He's responsible for what happened."

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3 ... er-safety/

This to me lends more credibility to the Batwomen set issues being a thing and Hollywood in general is a hit and miss risk. Again his movie apparently has lots of gun shooting and no one else got shot BUT that doesn't mean things were totally safe. Same with Rose, could be she just got a streak of unlucky issues.

Yeah, I think so too. Even if Ruby Rose was supremely difficult on set, other producers have to maintain reasonable working conditions, and there are too many comments from too many people in too many interviews about set conditions from across the industry to think Batwoman producers are blameless. That said, it sounds like there's plenty of blame for all producers as a group for flying so close to the sun.

--edited to add:

Dogfish wrote: ↑

2 years ago

There really is no reason to use actual guns any more either. The additional safety bullshit that goes along with them just eats up time and makes everything that much work, which lends itself vulnerable to corners being cut.

I bet they use actual guns because they're cheaper overall. Nobody has to make realistic and durable fakes of whatever weapon the director wants, and capturing practical stuff in camera probably delivers better cheaper results than sending everything to CG. Are you going to CG slide action? Or fake it mechanically?

I do wonder what reasons there are to have actual live ammo on set, though. Slow-mo of bullets leaving barrels, what else? Anybody know?

This goes back for the reason there was almost a strike by film crew workers. Poor pay, longer working hours, poor safety, and telling people the had to work past legal hours to keep working. When union crew members left this set they were replaced with non-union.

There was a story a few weeks ago where people were fired or lost job opportunities because they were sick from set conditions.

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I bet they use actual guns because they're cheaper overall. Nobody has to make realistic and durable fakes of whatever weapon the director wants, and capturing practical stuff in camera probably delivers better cheaper results than sending everything to CG. Are you going to CG slide action? Or fake it mechanically?

I do wonder what reasons there are to have actual live ammo on set, though. Slow-mo of bullets leaving barrels, what else? Anybody know?

Makes sense to use a real gun since modelling one would be super expensive. I read that they get guns then stuff or jam metal/solder in them to make them non-fireable but still work to rack and load. Could be the armorer grabbed a gun that was disabled and plugged and though it would be fine to fire a black from then when it fired it forced the plug out. That plug may have been a bullet wedged in the gun from the person they bought it from since the gun was now defective.

Also someone brought up why was the director right in front? If she wanted a front shot they could set the camera up and just role with her off the side. Could be she didn't follow safety either.

Baldwin still maybe charged. If I accidentally discharge a gun and it hits someone I'm still liable. Whatever happens with the gun you're holding is your fault.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rust-assista ... 00887.html

The assistant director had a history of unsafe working conditions. Looks like the blame will go here.

In this video, a propmaster talks briefly about protocols.



I've read that the First AD was new to the set that day, along with a lot of other crew. It seems to me the whole chain bears responsibility, from the armorer to the new First AD to the producers.

Regarding functional fake guns, I think it's possible to use airsoft guns, as they mimic the firing action of a real weapon. You do have to add brass and whatnot in post but the slide etc works. I think the John Wick movies were done with airsoft guns.

Jason Lee was killed by a prop bullet that lodged in the barrel and was propelled by the discharge of a blank cartridge. They already use fake guns on set, when ever a character throws one or gets pistol whipped, they are likely use rubber. CGI gunfire has limitations, the actors won’t react realistically to somebody going “bang, bang”. A problem they had with the later Star Wars movies was that the actors would make their own light saber noises.

The person that checks the weapon to see whether it is hot is the one who can announce it is a cold weapon. The AD told the actor and the crew the weapon was cold. Unless he was handed to him by the armorer or checked himself, he fucked up. That he ever touched the gun is kind of surprising, I would think the only person to touch the gun would be the prop master and the actor.

Dogfish wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Regarding functional fake guns, I think it's possible to use airsoft guns, as they mimic the firing action of a real weapon. You do have to add brass and whatnot in post but the slide etc works. I think the John Wick movies were done with airsoft guns.

The TV show "The Rookie" switched to airsoft guns in case of this recent event.
https://www.vulture.com/2021/10/abcs-th ... n-set.html

Well, IF it looks convincing in the final movie, that would be a good step.
Otherwise, all folks who work with the guns on set "just" need to take the necessary precautions they need to make that such things as with Halyna won't happen.
If they had, it wouldn't have happened. This was a tragic accident.

It's widely reported there were two other accidental gun discharges on set on Oct 16th prompting complaints to supervisors.
So sad they didn't tighten up safety after those incidents.

tallyho wrote: ↑

2 years ago

It's widely reported there were two other accidental gun discharges on set on Oct 16th prompting complaints to supervisors.
So sad they didn't tighten up safety after those incidents.

If this had been a UK factory environment and those "accidental gun discharges" were, I don't know, fires or small explosions, the HSE would have been all over the place already demanding answers. I had it told to me over breakfast that there is a report the incident weapon had been used for a live (real rounds) firing recently? Sounds like they had the real wild west going on over there in what should have been a highly monitored situation.

I read it was a revolver so then the magazine swap and leaving a live round chambered theory is out.

Quite simply, this was a cross draw shot - with the gunshot itself fired pretty much directly into the lens, hence the DP being directly in front of the gun with the director standing behind her to see the monitor.

Pretty horrific for all involved, most-so for Mr Baldwin potentially - fully expecting to safely discharge a firearm, and instead killing a personal friend.

It does sound like a rush job set - the AD should have directly got permission from the head armorer (they may have, but it's not clear from the reporting).

That doesn't excuse a live round in the revolver in-question however.

All-round horrific, would it have happened if this hadn't been the lead armorer's second movie in that role? It can't be said for sure, but I would suggest a contributing factor.

Worth noting there were gun safety concerns on her first movie - perils of hiring based on a candidate's heritage (her dad's a renowned armorer). Perhaps not her fault at all, but the optics certainly aren't good!