I’m sure that someone screwed up big time but I don’t know how IATSE would have the insider details about a live round being in the gun. As they stated, they didn’t have any union members on set. The sheriff’s department said it was too early to know what happened.
2 Likes
“I’ve got a 6 a.m. call tomorrow to have a big shootout. They had me pick my gun, they were like, ‘Alright, what gun would you like?’ and I was like, ‘I don’t know?’ and the armorer was like, ‘Do you have gun experience?’” he told the crowd in a fan-captured video (below) from the Denver-based event, which took place between Oct. 15-17. “I was like, ‘A little.’ And she’s like, ‘Okay, well, this is how you load it, this is how we check it and make sure it’s safe.’”
5 Likes
I think you’re right; this could well have been supposed to be a point-of-view image, looking down the barrel of the gun, so, of course the gun is being pointed into the camera, behind which the DP and director may have been huddled (though they should not have been if a weapon was pointed at the lens; there are highly sophisticated remote viewing and operating tools available). I suspect more details will emerge. If the film is finished (which I suspect it will be), if this POV shot winds up in the movie, I’ll be surprised.
I have worked in both camera and art department positions on a ton of films, commercials, and TV movies over the years, with budgets ranging from about $50,000 (direct to video) up to about $50,000,000 (major feature film with major star power), and all of the productions — union or non, big or small budget — focused on safety. Accidents are going to happen — one movie saw one of the crew drive a picture car into a ditch where a tree-branch pierced the windshield (fortunately on the empty passenger side) while just moving the car to the location — but the crews have always done their best to make sure the crew and cast are safe. I feel terrible for everyone affected here, particularly Hutchins and her loved ones, Souza, the prop master, and yes, Baldwin.
7 Likes
To clarify, I meant the current incident, but everything you wrote is still relevant.
1 Like
Just to clarify so-called prop guns are still real guns. Blanks are still packed with gunpowder. All can be deadly.
10 Likes
Maybe it’s time to ask why any kind of live ammo is used in film-making?
Can’t we CGI a damn smoke-puff from a barrel?
I mean, we already fake the sound of the gunshot, so…
1 Like
It’s very possible to CGI gunshots and many movies do this these days. As to why more don’t, maybe it’s cost (convincing CGI is still expensive and time consuming), or maybe it’s some sort of “but my authenticity!” stance from the director.
1 Like
I can’t find the video that mentioned what I mentioned above, specifically. But I did find this video which I watched a long time ago, and re-watching now.
They mentioned putting “restrictors” in the barrels to build up more pressure to better operate semiautomatics, as well as have more powder burn and a better flash for revolvers. I am not familiar with how those are mounted, perhaps that is what was failed and launched out? (ETA - ah, looks like those are screwed in. The threads would have to strip out, which is pretty unlikely. Unless they use other methods sometimes.)
4 Likes
“Blanks” themselves frequently cause injuries.
There’s a lot of stuff comes out with the blast, even when there’s no lead-load.
Somebody was killed by a lorry driver outside my house and the amount of times people’s first response was “that poor guy will live with that for the rest of his life”.
Yeah well she won’t. She’s dead. My two neighbours giving CPR to a rotorvated corpse? I feel sorrier for them. Even the Guard looking after the scene who was crying telling me about it. I feel sorry for her too.
I might feel sorry for the driver. I might not. I’m not quite sure what happened.
9 Likes
Well he’s more famous than her so, ya know… priorities! TBH it’s easier for most people to care about some one they’ve heard of than some one they haven’t.
And… well… that drives engagement I guess.
/sadness
7 Likes
Some is cheap and obvious, but to be fair, I only was aware of some of it because I saw rough footage from “behind the scenes” bits, where what I noticed was a conspicuous absence of bangs.
2 Likes
Good on you for focusing on the victim and her family, rather than Baldwin (a rich White guy) or the goddamn firearm itself.
13 Likes
That’s what they had to do for the likes of James Caviezel on Person of Interest: he was such a method actor (that is, deluded wack job), he kept gratuitously walloping cast members when any action sequence was in the script. It got so bad, they’d routinely have him wear a mask/hood for the action scene, switch him out, and have stunt doubles do all such sequences. He wasn’t even allowed to drive a car in the final seasons. So, Caviezel with a loaded prop gun? No way.
4 Likes
Shows mechanics of using actual Tommy gun firing live bullets in a scene. If you look at the wall before it’s torn up by bullets: you can see the results from previous takes. All those facade “bricks” are undoubtedly plaster of paris: Hollywood studios aren’t quite crazy enough to risk machine gun bullets ricocheting off granite.
Per @Mister44, source is: James Cagney: Top of the World, a 1992 TNT documentary narrated by Michael J. Fox. Full movie:LINK Supplementary Info:LINK
6 Likes
8 Likes
What documentary is that snippet from? I have seen that clip as an example of live fire used in movies. Not sure I have seen that exact documentary or not. It might have been that.
James Cagney was who I was thinking of, who through the SAG, lobbied for better safety standards on set.
4 Likes
Probably because some proportion of the audience for this sort of movie thinks thay can tell a real gun from a Hollywood fake, and won’t shut up about it.
4 Likes
17 Likes
I didn’t know he was a method actor. Oh my, just thinking about it, a method actor doing the role of Jesus…
1 Like
