This movie could be the next Tombstone and I'd still have no desire to see it. Entire thing is tainted by what came out during that trial. Just so many levels of incompetence across the board....
This movie could be the next Tombstone and I'd still have no desire to see it. Entire thing is tainted by what came out during that trial. Just so many levels of incompetence across the board. Cost cutting and doing things the easy way when they shouldn't be - and someone lost their life for it.
Yeah - this is based off my memory as I don't have time to look up sources right now. The producers (of which Alec Baldwin was one) hired an armorer that had known issues on another production....
Yeah - this is based off my memory as I don't have time to look up sources right now.
The producers (of which Alec Baldwin was one) hired an armorer that had known issues on another production.
There were failures to secure the weapons appropriately - which also included mixing live ammo and prop ammo together.
There were some other safety concerns brought forth during trial as well, not related directly to the firearms but other working conditions.
Then on top of that, just the kind of general "It's not my fault" approach taken by Baldwin when this first happened really didn't sit well with me. While I'm not sure there wasn't some prosecutorial overreach (and eventually why the case was dropped, I think) it was still an issue of negligence IMO (IANAL).
I'm going to preface this with that I was never going to see the movie anyway as I'm personally not a fan of his acting. I say this just to clarify that the following is not from the perspective...
I'm going to preface this with that I was never going to see the movie anyway as I'm personally not a fan of his acting. I say this just to clarify that the following is not from the perspective of a defensive fan.
The media coverage surrounding that case was, in my opinion, a complete circus. They wanted to attach as much blame as possible to the biggest name possible because that drives engagement. It was easy for them in this case both because he was holding the gun and was attached as a producer. My suspicion is that if he wasn't famous the story would've rapidly blown over as a tragic accident, but one that is quite rare in the industry.
I'll first address the holding the gun bit. In general, actors do not mess with the guns. They specifically do not tamper with them and leave safety precautions to the on-site expert. Generally, this is how it should be on a properly operating set. Actors opening things and trying to apply personal knowledge is not typically advisable and can reduce safety due to the state no longer necessarily matching with the expert's judged state (imagine a case like a revolver loaded in a particular order being unexpectedly changed by the actor). So, when one is handed a gun they're told is safe they trust that it is. This causes the standard rules of firearm safety, such as to never point it at anyone, to overridden by "except under the direction of an expert" so the acting can actually occur. This applies to a lot of stuff on film sets relating to stunts or action scenes.
Onto the producer bit: people way overstate what this means. Actors take producing credits to get more creative control or as part of a desired career expansion. While this will often lead to influence over on-screen casting choices, hiring and management decisions for technical staff are not something an actor producer would normally get involved in. Maybe if they had a bad interaction personally they'd make a stink about someone on crew they don't like, but generally that stuff will fall to more technical producers or even just department heads.
Ultimately this was the fault of a bad armorer that seemingly skated into the role, and held it through previous issues, via nepotism. Her father is, or at least was, a famous figure in the world of Hollywood armory. A single act of negligence should have been enough to have the armorer replaced. Rightfully, the armorer was jailed for the death caused by her negligence. And, if I remember this bit of the case correctly, her father should be absolutely ashamed of his behavior over the course of the trial and blacklisted from the industry over his defense of her negligence.
Whoever her actual supervisor was got pretty lucky from a media perspective. It almost certainly wasn't Alec Baldwin, but someone was her direct supervisor and that person presumably had received reports of her previous issues but didn't oust her. If media wasn't so determined to go after Baldwin in particular it may have been a big problematic story for that person.
Yeah I can agree with this probably for a lot of actors, and maybe it's also true for someone of Alec Baldwin's stature, but to me if your production company is putting the movie together, and you...
Onto the producer bit: people way overstate what this means. Actors take producing credits to get more creative control or as part of a desired career expansion. While this will often lead to influence over on-screen casting choices, hiring and management decisions for technical staff are not something an actor producer would normally get involved in. Maybe if they had a bad interaction personally they'd make a stink about someone on crew they don't like, but generally that stuff will fall to more technical producers or even just department heads.
Yeah I can agree with this probably for a lot of actors, and maybe it's also true for someone of Alec Baldwin's stature, but to me if your production company is putting the movie together, and you are a producer of some sort on there, YOU still have some level of responsibility for everything that goes on with the production. Baldwin is using his name, his reputation, and (probably) his money to get this thing off the ground. As a good leader, he should take some level of responsibility for these things.
I ultimately agree that the on set work he's doing as an actor should not require him to be overly concerned with the safety of the weapons being used, as that is the armorer's job. But as a leader of the organization there is a better way to deal with it than start throwing people under the bus.
Whoever her actual supervisor was got pretty lucky from a media perspective. It almost certainly wasn't Alec Baldwin, but someone was her direct supervisor and that person presumably had received reports of her previous issues but didn't oust her. If media wasn't so determined to go after Baldwin in particular it may have been a big problematic story for that person.
This movie could be the next Tombstone and I'd still have no desire to see it. Entire thing is tainted by what came out during that trial. Just so many levels of incompetence across the board. Cost cutting and doing things the easy way when they shouldn't be - and someone lost their life for it.
Could you elaborate on the incompetence you mention? I lost track of the movie and case after a while.
Yeah - this is based off my memory as I don't have time to look up sources right now.
The producers (of which Alec Baldwin was one) hired an armorer that had known issues on another production.
There were failures to secure the weapons appropriately - which also included mixing live ammo and prop ammo together.
There were some other safety concerns brought forth during trial as well, not related directly to the firearms but other working conditions.
Then on top of that, just the kind of general "It's not my fault" approach taken by Baldwin when this first happened really didn't sit well with me. While I'm not sure there wasn't some prosecutorial overreach (and eventually why the case was dropped, I think) it was still an issue of negligence IMO (IANAL).
The case wasn't dropped; it was dismissed with prejudice due to prosecutorial misconduct—they withheld significant evidence from the defense.
Yeah that's fair. Imprecise wording on my part. But like I said, I am not a lawyer.
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of the behind-the-scenes. It's definitely a stain on Baldwin's name for me.
I'm going to preface this with that I was never going to see the movie anyway as I'm personally not a fan of his acting. I say this just to clarify that the following is not from the perspective of a defensive fan.
The media coverage surrounding that case was, in my opinion, a complete circus. They wanted to attach as much blame as possible to the biggest name possible because that drives engagement. It was easy for them in this case both because he was holding the gun and was attached as a producer. My suspicion is that if he wasn't famous the story would've rapidly blown over as a tragic accident, but one that is quite rare in the industry.
I'll first address the holding the gun bit. In general, actors do not mess with the guns. They specifically do not tamper with them and leave safety precautions to the on-site expert. Generally, this is how it should be on a properly operating set. Actors opening things and trying to apply personal knowledge is not typically advisable and can reduce safety due to the state no longer necessarily matching with the expert's judged state (imagine a case like a revolver loaded in a particular order being unexpectedly changed by the actor). So, when one is handed a gun they're told is safe they trust that it is. This causes the standard rules of firearm safety, such as to never point it at anyone, to overridden by "except under the direction of an expert" so the acting can actually occur. This applies to a lot of stuff on film sets relating to stunts or action scenes.
Onto the producer bit: people way overstate what this means. Actors take producing credits to get more creative control or as part of a desired career expansion. While this will often lead to influence over on-screen casting choices, hiring and management decisions for technical staff are not something an actor producer would normally get involved in. Maybe if they had a bad interaction personally they'd make a stink about someone on crew they don't like, but generally that stuff will fall to more technical producers or even just department heads.
Ultimately this was the fault of a bad armorer that seemingly skated into the role, and held it through previous issues, via nepotism. Her father is, or at least was, a famous figure in the world of Hollywood armory. A single act of negligence should have been enough to have the armorer replaced. Rightfully, the armorer was jailed for the death caused by her negligence. And, if I remember this bit of the case correctly, her father should be absolutely ashamed of his behavior over the course of the trial and blacklisted from the industry over his defense of her negligence.
Whoever her actual supervisor was got pretty lucky from a media perspective. It almost certainly wasn't Alec Baldwin, but someone was her direct supervisor and that person presumably had received reports of her previous issues but didn't oust her. If media wasn't so determined to go after Baldwin in particular it may have been a big problematic story for that person.
Yeah I can agree with this probably for a lot of actors, and maybe it's also true for someone of Alec Baldwin's stature, but to me if your production company is putting the movie together, and you are a producer of some sort on there, YOU still have some level of responsibility for everything that goes on with the production. Baldwin is using his name, his reputation, and (probably) his money to get this thing off the ground. As a good leader, he should take some level of responsibility for these things.
I ultimately agree that the on set work he's doing as an actor should not require him to be overly concerned with the safety of the weapons being used, as that is the armorer's job. But as a leader of the organization there is a better way to deal with it than start throwing people under the bus.
One of the Assistant Directors was sentenced to jail, but sounds like he got out of that by pleading down.
Looks like piracy's back on the menu, boys!
This is the infamous film where the cinematographer lost her life from an on set accident involving Alec Baldwin.
"No animals were harmed in the making of this film."
/s