Mindysan, where’s that gif?
I’m so glad he’s learning and growing from his experience manslaughtering an innocent woman. I’m sure her family is really happy for him. Especially how much he talks about himself and how he was affected by his manslaughtering.
He really should just shut up already.
(Filling in while Mindy’s on her break.)
Even if he werent a co-producer, he would have been sued, as a matter of course. But as a producer, he definitely has potential liability, and would be the first person they’d go after.
What does he expect? The plantiffs to give him a “mulligan” on this one?
His (continued) tone deafness is extraordinary. Or is some manager/PR handler feeding him an [inept] strategy “to get ahead of this”? If we never have a followup on the distress Baldwin suffers from his killing someone and the resultant civil lawsuits, it will be too soon.
I have no idea whether or not he has any civil or criminal liability in this case, but even if he is 100% in the clear legally, morally, and ethically, he really does need to just shut the fuck up. It’s not helping him. It’s gotta be painful for the family to hear. It’s not even helping to change things in the film industry. If I were his lawyer (ugh), I think I might threaten to walk if he opened his big, fat mouth one more time. I’m amazed that people in these situations can’t put themselves in the other party’s shoes. He has several family members involved in the film industry. His daughter is a model. Is he saying that if something similar happened to one of them, he wouldn’t sue the fuck out of whoever might have any liability?
If you think your job can be frustrating just imagine being one of Alec Baldwin’s lawyers every time he gives one of these ill-advised interviews.
Remember when we all thought Billy was the worst Baldwin?
Narcissistic asshole can’t beyond his own point of view?
Apparently, he was the perfect person to portray 45 - not much acting involved.
Oh man, he really needs to stop talking…
He cocked the hammer, He pulled the trigger. Now the only question that I have is did He load that round.
Better questions to ask:
- Was putting the armorer on double duty as an assistant propmaster a good idea?
- Were there any red flags with the armorer, such as lack of experience and lack of due diligence, prior to the incident, that any responsible producer might consider replacing her?
- Whose idea was it to use real guns that take real ammo on a movie set?
- Did anyone on the crew have the bright idea of playing with the guns in target practice prior to the incident?
- Did the actor, who also happened to be Alec Baldwin, have any instruction about who not to point the gun at when rehearsing or filming a scene?
- Shouldn’t the cinematographer and director have been behind a bulletproof screen regardless of whether or not the guns on set were loaded?
- Were there any corners cut in the production of the movie? And wouldn’t getting it wrong potentially be way more expensive, not to mention extremely hazardous?
The actor in question might reasonably excused from liability but the producer of the movie should have some serious explaining to do. Alec Baldwin never really did own up to his responsibilities as producer, did he?
if this guy had any shame (and decent legal advice) the answer would always be “I’m sorry, I really can’t talk about this.” but then nobody would want to talk to him at all.
As someone who has performed that role on set for a movie (filmed in New Mexico, even), lemme take a shot at these questions:
1.) No, it was a terrible idea.
2.) I will state that I do not know this armorer personally, but, my understanding is that this was her first experience as the lead, and I’m thinking it may possibly have been more than she was ready for.
3.) Yeah, absolutely not ideal. Either use actual, bona fide prop guns that take blanks and only blanks (though, as we’ve seen before, even those can be fatal if you f— around with them) or real firearms, and render them mechanically incapable of firing. I’ve removed and re-installed a lot of firing pins over the years.
4.) I can’t speak as to the details of what occurred on that set, but that’s typical, yes.
5.) No, actually. (It would be basically impossible due to any number of factors.) But the armorer is why the rest of the cast can get away with violating the rules of safe gun-handling. It is the armorer’s responsibility to take charge of the whole environment, to avoid situations like this.
6.) I wasn’t on set here, so I can’t say for certain, but from what I’ve read about the surrounding story, it certainly sounds like that was the case. Unfortunately, while getting things wrong is potentially significantly more expensive, it’s pretty typical to cut corners on movie sets. It’s a gamble. A lot of the time it pays off. I think they picked the wrong part of things to not go with proven staff for and this time it bit them in the ass.
We’re talking about someone whose primary job is to look pretty and say clever lines that other people have written. It’s not exactly rocket surgery.
Why do movie and television productions need to use actual firearms? Why not have all guns be fake props?
The sound of real guns don’t record well and have been overdubbed or replaced in post throughout the history of talkies. Inoperable prop guns made of plastic, foam, or rubber are already often used in stunts. Muzzle flash and smoke can (and often are) added digitally in post, just as “laser beams” are added for shots fired in science fiction. Squibs, small pyrotechnic charges, and compressed air blasts built into the set provide a controlled, low-risk method of simulating bullet hits in the scene precisely when and where the director wants, which is why they are already long used. Movie and television actors have to act and react to all sorts of visual effects using their only their imaginations. The heft and recoil of a real firearm can be acted.
Surely the extra cost of prop production and post processing for fake firearms could be recouped in lower insurance costs.
“But the firearm enthusiasts will notice the tiny inaccuracies. The lack of authenticity will pull them out of the story!”
(1) I don’t care.
(2) Every production has inaccuracies in their simulation of reality. Why should some viewers have to grit their teeth when a character onscreen hacks a system (via a beeping keyboard!) in a nonsense way? Why should everyday people with driving licenses have to endure the illogicality of seeing their heroes driving brand new cars without rear-view mirrors or headrests or with dashboard lights so bright that you can see them from space? What about elevator repair people who know that the doors are opened by the elevator car and thus they would never just open to let some distracted character from stepping into an empty elevator shaft? Why are we okay pulling those people out of the story while coddling the those who know how a [insert gun model] really glints when hit by moonlight?
If we could get the real weapons out of the majority of film and TV production, it would save some lives. (I’m not proposing government regulation, but simply industry acknowledgement that there’s lower risk in a western if the actors all have non-operational plastic replica guns.
And then we’d never have to hear a celebrity go on about how their life was changed by their involvement in the death of a crew member.