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).
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.
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