Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
This could cause gun control upheaval or be buried in deep remorse. Politics vs. star power. The chain-of-custody for the firearms on set will be put under an electron microscope to deliver up blame. How is this going to be explained?
It's a terrible tragedy. Precious lives have been lost and the staple of contemporary cinema (the gunshot) will now fight for its life as well.
There will be some money involved since justice in America revolves around payouts. Not sure what justifies all those millions of $$$ paid to the families of victims of various crimes but I guess it helps with healing process.
I don't care for Alec B and his views, but his tears may be sincere. I don't get the gun culture and common comfort with killing around here.
" Oh yeah, the robber tried to steal my collection of stamps, so I shot him dead and went on with my breakfast. Next day the whole family came to visit and congratulate me on my quick resolve, and we all waited for the FOX crew to show up and make us famous"
Been paying extra attention to how often guns are pointed at people in films, how often rifles are swung around in the paths of people in films about hunting, and how often guns are pointed directly at the camera with visible dummy rounds visible?
I have also been observing how sometimes a gun fires and there's no kickback, indicating sound had been added later, yet other times the gun has kickback and the shooter reacts in a way that is highly unlikely to be faked.
I've becomes hyper aware lately!
Did I hear correctly that the gun had a LIVE ROUND in it?
If so? What is a LIVE ROUND doing within 10 miles of a movie set? I know you can get hurt with blanks, too.
Too much is never enough
the guns were taken by crew members earlier in the day so they could go shoot cans and bottles in the desert. they brought them back and one of them still had a live round in it.
Yes, it was an actual bullet.
So.....one might conclude that it was NOT a 'single point of failure' but rather a cascade where
several things had happen for there to be a Terrible Accident........
This is what I've heard about airplane crashes. Several things not quite 'up to standard' and culminate in a non-recoverable error.....
Maybe a future rule? Guns are to be kept LOCKED with only the armorer and ONE other person with the key. Double verification of firearm status BEFORE being released to the custody of the set handler....
Something like that? MIght that work?
Too much is never enough
"So.....one might conclude that it was NOT a 'single point of failure' but rather a cascade where
several things had happen for there to be a Terrible Accident........"
A perfect storm of stupidity and failure to follow protocols every step of the way. *Every step.*
"This is what I've heard about airplane crashes. Several things not quite 'up to standard' and culminate in a non-recoverable error....."
My brother was a helicopter pilot his entire career. He learned the trade in Vietnam and retired a few years back in his late 60s. Most helicopter pilots don't retire of you know what I mean. He has always held that his success was due to an obsessive commitment to following all protocols to the letter. He says that just about everything that could go wrong has gone wrong at one time or another and he was able to survive it because he followed all safety protocols.
"Maybe a future rule? Guns are to be kept LOCKED with only the armorer and ONE other person with the key."
That is a current rule. Only it is just the armorer. there is no second key holder
"Double verification of firearm status BEFORE being released to the custody of the set handler...."
The armorer is the set handler. And any gun does go through multiple verifications. The armorer and the prop master double verify.Then they show on set that the barrel is clear and what if anything is being loaded into the gun for final verification. They show the actors and offer anyone else on set to see for themselves if they wish. This is where there seems to be some confusion regarding Baldwin's responsibility. Actors are shown the gun is clear. they are not obligated to look just as the rest of the crew on set are not obligated to look. They are offered that. And they definitely are not even supposed to open up a gun themselves on set to check. They also are not allowed to even keep it on their person or in their costume between takes. But I have seen that rule not enforced many times. It is a pain in the ass for an amrorer to jump in and handle a gun that is empty between takes.
"Something like that? MIght that work?"
All rules rely on being followed to work. That was the problem. The rules were not followed at *every* step of the way. Not just one or two steps.
"Too much is never enough'
As Ron White says. "You can't fix stupid."
thanks for good info.
And yes, my instinct when dealing with aircraft SEEMS to be right. Multiple things must go wrong for their to be The Big Accident......
Remember Francis Gary Powers? Survived a U2 shootdown over the Soviet Union.
Died in a Helicopter crash while working as a News Copter pilot....right up the road in Los Angeles....
My personal poliicy is to NEVER get in a rotary wing aircraft.....But that's just ME.....
Too much is never enough
If you are at a crosswalk and the sign changes to walk, do you look both ways anyhow before proceeding? If someone hands you a gun, do you feel compelled to aim it at someone and pull the trigger for no apparent reason other than you are playing around? Sorry Baldwin apologists, the guy should do time. Especially AS and gary.
Your analogy doesn't work nor does it reflect the law. If you are at a cross walk do you look both ways? Yes.But if you don't and someone comes around the corner at 90 mph and hits you are you legally at fault? No.
Should Baldwin have insisted on inspecting the gun? Obviously in retrospect yes. Was he legally obligated to inspect a gun that was declared cold by the 1st AD? No. It's his option not his legal responsibility. The armorer and the 1st AD should do time. They were the ones who completely ignored and broke protocols.
Good 90 mph strawman. When it comes to person safety forget laws, a little common sense should prevail. When in London always remember to look right before crossing the street. Hopefully you don't need a law to do that.
As far as "legal obligation," I doubt rules on a film set apply as law in court. Again, a little common sense. The rainbow elephant in the room is why the hell did he pick up a gun, aim it at someone, loaded or not, and click the trigger? Someone needs to answer for that.
Forget NRA rules or whatever, you pick up a gun, YOU are responsible from then on. As someone who is diametrically opposed to your, and Gary's, political views will take some enjoyment seeing smart Alec go down. Sad that it was at that girl's expense.
You are making crap up. Do tell us what the on set safty protocols are for handling guns on set if you know so much? Tell us how they apply in court when there is an accident? Time to do a google search right? Cause you don't know do f*** all do ya?
God, why are audiophiles such assholes?
... how this issue is determined in the court has little to do with on set safety measures. This was no accident, it was an irresponsible thing to do by an idiot that did it. Still no answer on why he picked up a gun, loaded or not, aimed and pulled the trigger. Involuntary manslaughter is what he will get. BTW, you seem to have a fixation with assholes.
Bullshit. do your homework. It is very much a matter of safety protocols that have been carefully drawn up between film labor unions and producers. States don't have any laws on the books about gun safety on film sets. They rely on the protocols you obviously don't know f*** all about if you think for one moment that Baldwin is going to do time for this.
You are talking out your ass. You obviously don't **** about those protocols or the laws regarding gun safety.
I am not debating safety protocols on the set with you, dipstick. They are what they are, and I am sure they are valid for the set. FOR THE SET. Law one of gun safety... you pick up a gun, you are responsible for that gun. Maybe that isn't the rule on your set, but it sure as hell will be when old Alec is on trial. You still didn't answer what compelled him to aim the gun at that girl. Oops, my bad. Am I saying that he wanted to harm her? The answer is no, but no reasonable person would pick up a gun and click the trigger. The operative word is reasonable, of which neither of you are.
A third search warrant from the Magistrate Court County of Santa Fe released on Wednesday said that the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, examined the on-set guns on the day of the incident to ensure that they were not "hot," an industry term meaning loaded with ammunition or blanks.
The guns were then secured in a safe on a "prop truck," per the warrant. However, during lunch, ammunition was left unsecured on a cart on the set.
According to the search warrant, Zachry, who is believed to have served as the prop master on "Rust," removed the guns from the safe in the truck after lunch and handed them to Gutierrez, Gutierrez said.
Gutierrez, 24, told authorities that only a few people knew the combination to the safe. She also said that she handed the gun to Baldwin multiple times and also handed it to assistant director Dave Halls. Halls handed the gun to Baldwin before the fatal shooting, per the warrant.
who will get caught with the hot potato?
Plinking during lunch was not a brilliant idea.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A lawyer for the armorer who oversaw weapons used on the "Rust" movie set suggested Wednesday that someone deliberately put a live round into the gun used by Alec Baldwin when he accidentally shot dead a cinematographer.
Jason Bowles said his client, Hannah Gutierrez, had pulled ammunition from a box that she believed contained only dummy rounds that were incapable of firing. He said he thought it was possible that someone purposely placed real bullets, which look similar to dummies, into the box.
"We're afraid that could have been what happened here, that somebody intended to sabotage this set with a live round intentionally placed in a box of dummies," Bowles said on ABC television's "Good Morning America."
"We're not saying anybody had any intent there was going to be a tragedy of homicide," he added, "but they wanted to do something to cause a safety incident on set. That's what we believe happened."
1. Don't point a gun at anyone (unless you intend to use it).
2. Make sure the gun is unloaded. Don't take someone else's word for it. But you still don't point it at anyone.
Then, of course, there is modern technology. Fake guns plus CGI can do wonders. There is no need to fire guns with live ammunition (including blanks).
Obviously the basics of firearm safety were not observed (1 and 2 above), and that includes Baldwin, not just the person who handed him the gun and those responsible for keeping track of the guns.
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
My guess is many of today's actors have no experience with firearms. Reeves is a exception. That is why a armorer is always part of films with firearms.
This is a sad deal where two levels of checking were supposedly in place to do the checking.
They point their guns at each other all the time, just like in life.
Actually guns are quite rarely pointed at humans on a film set unless the gun is empty. Even with empty guns they are pointed at humans less often than not. The magic of cinema.
and how it came to be that an actor was handed a loaded gun and was told it was cold is a matter of criminal neglect on the part of the armorer and the first AD. I was just on a set with a gun just a few weeks ago. And our prop master and amrmorer are real pros. They made the actors both look at the gun as per the protocols before every take.There was a point where we were all kind of rolling our eyes.
rest assured when this horrible accident happened most of the crew and the actors on our show took time to thank out propmaster for his professionalism.
It's easy for an actor to not worry about a gun on set and trust the crew. They are often very focused on the performance. and it's really really rare when something goes wrong. So as much as we respect those protocols there are moments, like take 15 with the same gun that we get lazy.
Recoil is almost impossible to duplicate with a 'make believe' or 'fake' gun. And recoil is essential in actions gun scenes.
This is probably a dumb question but why doesn't someone invent a gun that can't fire real bullets but can only be "noise makers" (blanks or whatever that can't kill anyone) - is this really that tough to design?
I think the answer is two fold. It's not easy to mimic gun action without that kind of explosive force. Could it be done? I think it could. But I think we are talking about a pretty expensive prop.Not just for the internal mechanisms but for the authentic exterior as well. And there are a lot of different kinds of guns needed for movies.
That leads to the second issue. The market. Given the cost of building such a gun how many would such a prop maker be able to sell?
Not a dumb question and IMO a good idea. Might not be a good business venture though. But...there might be a future for it. Essentially that was the idea behind blanks. But that was a relatively cheap and fast solution.
Well, that makes sense - it's all about profits after all - so perhaps there is a simple solution. At first, I thought maybe they need to be more clearly marked/differentiated but blanks seem to look quite a bit different than a regular bullet.
I can't see how one could mistake a real round from a blank from the above photo
they didn't. What happened was the armorer left the guns unattended. Members of the crew took the guns, went out in the desert and shot cans with live rounds. They returned the guns and left a live round in the one gun. The armorer was not present when the scene was being shot. The first AD who is a notorious A-hole brazenly grabbed the gun in haste to move things along, claimed it was cold without checking and... you know the rest.
It was a perfect storm of idiocy, incompetence and arogance. BUT a fake gun that simulates the action of a real gun would have prevented this from the start.
Definitely not a dumb question. I suspect there may be a push to eliminate the use of any actual guns on movie sets.
The dummy ones look exactly like the real ones, but usually have a hole in them. They are used for the scenes showing ammo, such as someone wearing a bandolier, or loading a magazine.
For shooting on a scene blank rounds are used, and these look different, as they have no bullets, these are hard to confuse.
But apparently possible... as I find it hard to believe in a mischief.
BTW, in sport ANY ammo is banned from the "safe tables", where the participants are allowed to handle weapons. Even the bright orange plastic snap caps, and the only time the shooters are allowed to load guns is during the course of fire, under the DIRECT supervision of a range officer.
Like in any other sport, accidents do happen, but they are very, very rare, and so far have been limited to wounds. I once stood just behind one such shooter, who, while holstering a loaded gun, shot himself in the thigh.
real bullets. And there is never any good reason to have them on any set.
Live rounds mixed with blanks, not with dummy rounds.
apparently you think you know what an unnamed armorer meant when they said what they said. ESP?
In this case the accident happened with live rounds not blanks. So live rounds means live rounds. Nobody "mixed up" anything for anything else. It was a live round in the gun and nobody checked before Baldwin was handed the gun. Nobody mixed up anything they just didn't do what they were supposed to do which is to monitor the gun and check it before handing it to an actor.
Anamazing amount of stupidity, irresponsibility and incompetence went into the making of this horrible tragic accidenct. but mistaking live rounds, dummy rounds and blanks was not one of them.
My post commented on her statement.
how much I hate audiophiles.
Gnerally I post and read posts to try to get info on all things audio. I can probably predict where this is going and I will just say that it's another reason I hate audiophiles.
conclusion was a little strange.
there was no narrative. I just find most audiophiles to be socially inept, quite unpleasant and in many cases just terrible people. This thread showed us a few of the latter. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I feel the same way about classical music fans and Yes fans. And I am a fan of both. It is unfortunate that so many unlikable and sometimes disgusting people share my hobbies and passions. Shit happens
The one thing I do like about them is when I am actually in the presence of a large group I am usually the best looking and most physically fit guy in the room. ;-)
I've met four of 'em, and though it's a small sample size, I've found them to be likable, intelligent.
I imagine you can find disagreeable people among lepidopterists, philatelists, birders, and all manner of other hobbyists. The original poster is a product of his region and time (Mississippi; boomer). That's behaviorism for you!
and in person they do tend to be better behaved than in audio forums. But that is typical of a certain personality type. In person you have to be more responsible for your manners because the person you disrespect is literally right there in front of you. No one can ever punch you inthe face over the internet.
Not that I am saying it's something I would do....but I do think that it really is the difference in many instances between people being polite in person and utterly shitty online. Audiophiles as a group among other things are not particularly athletic if you know what I mean. I think alot of audiophiles were the guys who got wedgys, had their milk money taken from them and were scorned by the cheerleaders in school. Makes for a lot of anger issues in life.
The same can be said for classical music fans and Yes fans IME. Particularly Yes fans. Not a bunch of gym rats. Although you see more oxygen tanks at a classical concert than a small hospital....so it seems at times
You may well be the disagreeable one here.
We all judge. Maybe you are doing it here in the post I am responding too????? Why so many question marks in my response????? just to let you know I know the difference between a real question and a passive agrressive comment parading as a question. Do you know the difference?????????
I have no doubt I am disagreeable for the very people I am "judging" here. Outside of socially inept and disfunctional circles as are the circles of audiophilia and Yes fans, I get along just fine in the world. As for the socially disfunctional neophytes that plague classical music fandom, they seem to have just enough self awareness to limit their shitty behaviour to internet forums. While I do run into all kinds of human turds in the concert halls they are the exception more than the rule. If the classical music forum neophyte know it alls are showing up at the concerts I go to they are not interacting with me all that often. OR.....they have enough self awareness not toa ct the same way in person.
You Scotty are a narcissistic asshole. I don't think we need to take a vote on that, your behavior has sealed that deal.
And I love how you paint ALL audiophiles with a fire hose. But hey that's what narcissist do.
I'm going to guess you have more than 25 selfies on your phone, you've bragged about how fit you are, so mirrors all over the house, A gym membership with all the beautiful people and an obvious over inflated self image. You have been divorced at least twice and have cheated on women your whole life.
Tell me I'm wrong.
I would take your lunch money and stuff you in a locker...twice.
I'm gonna be in Vegas next week, would you like to meet me?
I am 6'2" 225 pounds with 13% body fat, former Army ranger that taught hand to hand combat AND an audiophile.
I'm staying at the Mirage starting Tuesday-Friday. I am more than happy to meet you. Just message me Sweetheart, would love to hear from you.
Hey, I know... let me give you my flight number and you can pick me up at the airport. The lockers there are pretty small but I bet I could get you to fit.
So all audiophiles are couch potatoes with no social skills...aka..nerds correct? My bad, let's not forget we're generally terrible people too.
As I said to the grunts; I'll hit you so hard your kidneys will play leapfrog with your liver.
Bring it fuck nuts. A keyboard Warrior bully troll, let's see if that's the persona in the real world.
He's just a hairdresser. A pseudo intellectual with a bad hair cut. Everyday is a bad hair day for Scott.
do some poor woman's makeup.....
You are a poster child for why audiophiles are so pathetic. Without having ever met you please do tell. How far off is this from being you?
First off I abhor Star Trek! Secondly, your pictured person is about 150 pounds more than I am.. But since you're so fond of pictures, I will share one of my supposed doppelganger.
if only you had his charm and talent....
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Allowing a situation where live ammo can be inserted into a prop gun is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Give us a break!
doesn't deserve a break. On top of that everyone is an armchair Monday morning expert. Yep, can't stand most audiophiles.
just sharing a little perspective:
there are protocols in place for who does what & when in film making
very strict ones when firearms or explosives are involved
one of them states 'live' props are never used in rehearsals
all of them state that the actor themselves do not touch those type props until handed to them and then only to the extent that's scripted
the prop master and stage specialist have a lot of explaining to do
but Baldwin simply can't be at fault ... union rules and whatnot
but since he had the temerity to play a role insulting to the persona of the former guy it's 'knives out' from his loyalist while being troll fodder for those of that persuasion, one of whom you've just addressed
so, there that going on
I understand where it is coming from. I am not unfamiliar with the tribalism of politics and how ugly it has become. however it is also a measure of a person's individual character that they would exploit tragedy to mock someone over political differences from the safety of their keyboard.
'tribalism of politics and how ugly it has become'
... alas the more genteel days when pols would cane one another on the floor of the senate, have duels at the crack of dawn or dynamite would be tossed into a crowd of protestors has passed ... we look back in fondness at the days when Pinkerton would knock on doors in the evening, and by dawn folks would have a change of heart
though that might make a comeback
we tend to forget how truly ugly things were back in the day
there's certainly no shortage of characters to measure these days eh?
anyway, I share your sentiments and applaud your articulating them
actors, and directors.
Shall I dare mention he was of the conservative persuasion? (okay, reactionary)
he ruined some lives and drove some 'underground' but didn't silence his critics
J. Edgar could actually silence his critics AND extract an apology
and blackmail is supposedly illegal
Absolutely agreed. I'm as capable of flinging venom as anyone else but had something similar happened to someone whose politics I abhor, like Donald Trump, I don't think I'd be celebrating, online or otherwise. If there ever really were restraints which supported civility and respectful behavior they're long gone.
'If there ever really were restraints which supported civility and respectful behavior they're long gone'
nah, you spoke up, Scott spoke up, I spoke up ... others did too
the pundits spoke up in 'the press', politicians from their platforms
I'll bet more than a few 'sky pilots' from the pulpit
similar to what there probably ever was anyway
not that it deters the nastier of the nasty shits
ah well, civilization isn't static it takes civics & civility I guess
not that I'm above being shitty to make a point, just not just for shit's sake
or maybe shits and grins?
guns and CGI will the used instead.
I would thing Actors would also be happy to eliminate the noise, esp in close quarters.
Terrible show. Pure propaganda.
'A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on'. -Mark Twain
But, when you look at films like the John Wick series (or other violent films) it is amazing that the law of averages hasn't happened more often.
The main question is: How did live rounds get onto the set? This is a case for Columbo.
All that automatic weapons fire must damage their hearing.
It's called SOUND EFFECTS for a reason. Machine Gun Fire is NOT recorded live on the set but I suspect ADDED to the 'sound mix' in 'post'.......
Too much is never enough
aren't they firing blanks during the filming?
It's still going to be Loud.
Maybe it doesn't bother them.
You know, I don't know WHAT they fire. I've seen some ash/ sparks come out of the barrel of some guns which tells me a paper wad over a SMALL charge of powder. Still dangerous at very short distances.
Even firing JUST an empty cartridge with good primar is LOUD....
I suppose that these days it is even THEORETICALLY possible to use animation for some gun scenes.
I know the set / production company EMPLOYS an armorer who has the responsibility for ALL firearms used in a production.
This whole thing is going to spiral out of control and we'll be lucky to still have Honest Violence in the movies in 5 years.....
Too much is never enough
In order to make it function with no bullets, a special device is put over the muzzle, and as result their report is quieter.
Right.....need some BACKPRESSURE to cycle the action.......'Recoil Operated'.......
Normally, the time the bullet spends IN the barrel is able to generate such pressure to cycle.
I don't know if adding the sound is the responsibility of the 'special effects' guy or the Foley.......
Too much is never enough
Who do you think they'll get to play Baldwin?
He's fathered many children just the past few years, apparently he doesn't shoot blanks.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: