That's a terrible way to phrase what one can only assume was a terrible accident at this point. NYT even mentions the time Baldwin cycled on the wrong way of a lane as an example that he had...
That's a terrible way to phrase what one can only assume was a terrible accident at this point. NYT even mentions the time Baldwin cycled on the wrong way of a lane as an example that he had previous problems with the law. In what world is that relevant?
Other organizations were much less inflammatory. The NYT chose an accusatorial tone without any evidence whatsoever. I'm really disappointed.
Notice how they choose the active voice here but when the police shoot someone it's always "officer-involved shooting". They absolutely know what they're doing here.
Notice how they choose the active voice here but when the police shoot someone it's always "officer-involved shooting". They absolutely know what they're doing here.
To be fair, I don't know if the NYT is guilty of that. I know that when a police department announces something like that, they use passive voice. I don't know if it's fair to use a singular They...
To be fair, I don't know if the NYT is guilty of that. I know that when a police department announces something like that, they use passive voice. I don't know if it's fair to use a singular They here.
There are no words to convey my shock and sadness regarding the tragic accident that took the life of Halyna Hutchins, a wife, mother and deeply admired colleague of ours. I'm fully cooperating with the police investigation to address how this tragedy occurred and I am in touch with her husband, offering my support to him and his family. My heart is broken for her husband, their son, and all who knew and loved Halyna.
Tragic. No one should lose their life or get injured for a film- especially in today's world of CGI. I've seen a lot of people already pushing for banning real guns from sets, which would be a...
Tragic. No one should lose their life or get injured for a film- especially in today's world of CGI. I've seen a lot of people already pushing for banning real guns from sets, which would be a fantastic move.
All of the headlines seem to make it sound like this is Baldwin's fault, but it's pretty clear that someone else (either the mandatory gun safety person or the prop master) screwed up. I'm not really sure how this one can be put on him.
The failure here extends deep. My understanding is that there are multiple layers of people (cf. defense-in-depth) for firearm safety on set, including the actors themselves. It’s obviously very...
The failure here extends deep. My understanding is that there are multiple layers of people (cf. defense-in-depth) for firearm safety on set, including the actors themselves. It’s obviously very early on, and we only have limited information, but it is still possible for Baldwin to have been partly at fault (most likely with the cardinal rules of gun safety). That said, I’m inclined to agree that the majority of responsibility lies with the prop master and armored/firearms safety folks.
Looks like the prop gun contained a live round and the prop-master was not a member of the Local 44 union. Not sure if he was non-union though, I thought all the important jobs on film sets had to be?
Looks like the prop gun contained a live round and the prop-master was not a member of the Local 44 union. Not sure if he was non-union though, I thought all the important jobs on film sets had to be?
Apparently they use live rounds in shots where they're loading the gun so it looks real. The prop masters are supposed to make sure the casings are empty so it won't fire but can get sloppy about...
Apparently they use live rounds in shots where they're loading the gun so it looks real. The prop masters are supposed to make sure the casings are empty so it won't fire but can get sloppy about inventory control.
Seems weird honestly. Every phone number in a movie starts with 555 but somehow we are not okay with slightly inaccurate looking ammo.
Even easier would be to disable the firing pin in the gun. Doesn't matter how live the round is then. Still have the firing blanks problem, though those guns should be made so actual rounds can't...
Even easier would be to disable the firing pin in the gun.
Doesn't matter how live the round is then. Still have the firing blanks problem, though those guns should be made so actual rounds can't fit at all.
Can't use the same prop with a blank then. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: You could improve safety by having two guns of the same type, clearly labelled (the labelling can be designed s.t....
Can't use the same prop with a blank then.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: You could improve safety by having two guns of the same type, clearly labelled (the labelling can be designed s.t. it is easily removed in post-production) - one type for use with blanks, one for all other purposes. Maybe some modification to the barrel to make sure no projectile can be accelerated, not sure how plausible that is. Then modify it so it doesn't accept anything but blanks. Ideally, of a completely implausible caliber. Think a big rifle with a .22 chamber. (If I'm not mistaken, you can put enough powder into a .22 to make it as spicy as any other blank. That way, a .22 non-blank round anywhere near a set is a big red flag and any other round can't be set off.
The gun for close-ups, loading, etc, has it's firing pin removed (or shortened if mechanically essential).
Honestly if the labeling isn't too attention grabbing you might not even need to remove it in post and people can just learn to accept it as part of cinematic vernacular. We accept this the same...
Honestly if the labeling isn't too attention grabbing you might not even need to remove it in post and people can just learn to accept it as part of cinematic vernacular. We accept this the same way we accept that all phone numbers start with 555 or that bullets will spark whenever they ricochet off damn near any surface.
Oh, I was thinking of something to distinguish blank and non-blank guns. In the interest of safety I would pick something that is very attention grabbing, so that everyone on set knows that this...
Oh, I was thinking of something to distinguish blank and non-blank guns. In the interest of safety I would pick something that is very attention grabbing, so that everyone on set knows that this is one of the dangerous guns. Some careful design work and these should be easily removed by post-production, ideally without a human in the loop. Hence why I think you could get away with flashy warnings.
This is an extremely rare occurrence so there probably just hasn't been much impetus to innovate at developing better props. The last instance people keep citing was Brandon Lee in 1993. (Though...
This is an extremely rare occurrence so there probably just hasn't been much impetus to innovate at developing better props. The last instance people keep citing was Brandon Lee in 1993. (Though maybe there has been stuff since that were less publicized.) I wonder if now that's it's happened again there will be more emphasis on either improving the props or better training the staff in firearms handling.
I don't know anything about film production, but from what I've read about this incident, it seems like in the film world the term "live round" applies to blank rounds as well as a standard...
I don't know anything about film production, but from what I've read about this incident, it seems like in the film world the term "live round" applies to blank rounds as well as a standard cartridge with a bullet in it. Also, there's no such thing as a "prop gun". They use real guns.
It's not as big budget as I would have thought for something with Alec Baldwin. The movie is classified as "Low Budget Theatrical - Tier 1". No more than $7.5MM for production costs.
With a production as well-financed
It's not as big budget as I would have thought for something with Alec Baldwin. The movie is classified as "Low Budget Theatrical - Tier 1". No more than $7.5MM for production costs.
There are blank-only guns, although they do need a place to discharge the gases, and are still a hazard. And that is still useless for close-up shots where you may see “real” ammo (blanks look...
There are blank-only guns, although they do need a place to discharge the gases, and are still a hazard. And that is still useless for close-up shots where you may see “real” ammo (blanks look different) being loaded or handled.
I thought for a fraction of a second that seeing real ammo being loaded is a good enough reason to have real ammo on set. Then I remembered you can have ammo that looks real but contains no...
I thought for a fraction of a second that seeing real ammo being loaded is a good enough reason to have real ammo on set. Then I remembered you can have ammo that looks real but contains no explosives (i.e. is safer than a blank), e.g. loading drill ammo.
Edit: Actually, apparently Brandon Lee died through this, basically. The projectile from a loading drill round got dislodged and when a blank was chambered next, you basically have a live round. So maybe those loading drill rounds should be made such that the projectile can't reasonably be removed. Maybe cast the entire thing in one go or braze the projectile in place.
Those accidents are exceedingly rare though. I'd bet there are tons of things more dangerous on a set than guns.
. No one should lose their life or get injured for a film- especially in today's world of CGI. I've seen a lot of people already pushing for banning real guns from sets, which would be a fantastic move
Those accidents are exceedingly rare though. I'd bet there are tons of things more dangerous on a set than guns.
I don't know if this would be an appropriate response. This is the first time I've heard of this happening, and there is a legitimate reason to use real guns on set with the appropriate safety...
I've seen a lot of people already pushing for banning real guns from sets, which would be a fantastic move.
I don't know if this would be an appropriate response. This is the first time I've heard of this happening, and there is a legitimate reason to use real guns on set with the appropriate safety measures in place. It may sometimes be impossible to disable a gun in a way that makes it look real enough for a movie, or you may actually need a shot of a gun firing. CGI is complicated and expensive, I can imagine that for US-based productions, using firearms with the appropriate ammo and the appropriate safety measures in place would be the best option.
Sadly, this is not the first time such a tragic accident has happened on set. Although rare, firearms on set and onstage present a very real hazard to performers and crew. In my experience, there...
This is the first time I've heard of this happening
Sadly, this is not the first time such a tragic accident has happened on set. Although rare, firearms on set and onstage present a very real hazard to performers and crew. In my experience, there are several folks responsible for safety, including the actor handling the firearm. We don't know very much about what happened on this set (despite some inflammatory headlines), but hopefully this does prompt a reevaluation of firearms safety in the entertainment industry.
That price is up against the additional crew and insurance costs of having actual firearms on set though. And the insurance cost probably just went up a decent chunk.
CGI is complicated and expensive
That price is up against the additional crew and insurance costs of having actual firearms on set though. And the insurance cost probably just went up a decent chunk.
‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting I think it's important to view this tragedy in the broader context of the narrowly averted IATSE strike...
The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and collecting their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.
A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires he sent a text message to the unit production manager. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe,” according to a copy of the message reviewed by The Times.
Labor trouble had been brewing for days on the dusty set at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe.
Shooting began on Oct. 6 and members of the low-budget film said they had been promised the production would pay for their hotel rooms in Santa Fe.
But after filming began, the crews were told they instead would be required to make the 50-mile drive from Albuquerque each day, rather than stay overnight in nearby Santa Fe. That rankled crew members who worried that they might have an accident after spending 12 to 13 hours on the set.
Hutchins had been advocating for safer conditions for her team, said one crew member who was on the set and was tearful when the camera crew left.
I think it's important to view this tragedy in the broader context of the narrowly averted IATSE strike (which Halyna Hutchins was a member of).
one of the key complaints from that union was a basic disregard for worker safety, even in the majority of productions where no firearms are involved. work days so long, and breaks so short between the end of one day of shooting and the start of the next, that people were falling asleep at the wheel while commuting. the IATSE Stories instagram account has been an excellent chronicler of these.
their new contract, requires, among other things:
Daily rest periods of 10 hours without exclusions
Weekend rest periods of 54 hours
so...if you're released for the day at 8pm, they're still allowed to expect you back at 6am. just not before.
and if you stop for the weekend at 8pm on Friday, the earliest you can start up again would be 2am Monday morning. in practical terms that means that they can start as early as they want on Monday, no matter how late Friday went - eg a midnight Friday stop / 6am Monday morning start would be permitted.
that was only just added to the contract. in 2021, unions are still having to fight for this shit.
so on top of everything else, just assume that everyone involved in the safety protocols for firearm handling is chronically sleep deprived.
This is who I was immediately thinking of! Son of Bruce Lee, died this way (shot by blank) on the set of The Crow. I learned this when googling something about The Matrix: The Wachowskis wanted...
This is who I was immediately thinking of! Son of Bruce Lee, died this way (shot by blank) on the set of The Crow. I learned this when googling something about The Matrix: The Wachowskis wanted him to play Neo. That kid had one hell of a career before him.
Why the hell were live rounds allowed anywhere on set? Maybe we should have a law requiring prop guns be custom made to only be able to chamber blank cartridges.
Why the hell were live rounds allowed anywhere on set? Maybe we should have a law requiring prop guns be custom made to only be able to chamber blank cartridges.
The deadline article says it was loaded with blanks: https://deadline.com/2021/10/female-crewmember-dies-on-new-mexico-set-of-alec-baldwin-film-rust-1234860416/
The deadline article says it was loaded with blanks:
A production spokesperson from Rust Movie Productions LLC told Deadline, “There was an accident today on the New Mexico set of Rust involving the misfire of a prop gun with blanks. Two crew members have been taken to the hospital and are receiving care. Production has been halted for the time being. The safety of our cast and crew remains our top priority.”
I'm having a hard time believing that discharging a blank killed one person and injured another. Black powder burns can be nasty, but they aren't exactly fatal. It is possible this is another...
I'm having a hard time believing that discharging a blank killed one person and injured another. Black powder burns can be nasty, but they aren't exactly fatal.
It is possible this is another Brandon Lee situation. He was killed while shooting The Crow when a blank was discharged in a firearm that unknowingly still had a bullet lodged in the barrel from prior use.
As others have stated, there is/should be so much safety around firearms on set that this shouldn't have occurred. On top of the fact that blank firing guns are made so they cannot fire a live...
As others have stated, there is/should be so much safety around firearms on set that this shouldn't have occurred. On top of the fact that blank firing guns are made so they cannot fire a live round. There are some very serious issues here and someone fucked up badly and now a person has lost her life. Inexcusable.
While any gun can be converted to fire blanks, when done properly there's no way for it to chamber a live round. Revolvers (since this is a western) have new cylinders installed that are bored short so a live round could never be inserted, literally only deep enough for a blank, not a round with a projectile, and the barrel of the gun is blocked by putting a stop vertically in the bore and a narrow restriction at the end of the barrel, so even if a round did somehow get into the cylinder it shouldn't make it out of the barrel. Semi automatics have the same barrel changes, but don't have a cylinder. Instead they'll have the barrel reamed too short to chamber a live round and the magazines will be likewise too short to chamber a live round.
Blanks can kill, they're spitting out extremely hot, high pressure gas, but I'm doubting that was the case here and you generally have to be very close for them to be deadly. Too close for Alec Baldwin to have shot more than one person without noticing he's injured someone.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the firearms propmaster used real guns instead of blank firing props and didn't check to make sure they were only loaded with blanks. I'd be willing to add that they may be part of the propmaster's personal collection that they use to shoot on their own and had live rounds loaded in it. Depending on the realism the director wanted, these could be original period firearms instead of reproductions. As it'd be odd for a gun modified to fire blanks with a barrel obstruction, then loaded with real ammo, to make the obstructions fail without blocking the barrel with the bullet.
I feel extremely sorry for Alec Baldwin here because, unless proven otherwise, he just inadvertently ended a life, changed the life of another directly, and indirectly changed the lives of every other person on that set and much of the families involved. I highly doubt he was even remotely at fault here, but he's going to have to live with the consequences of what is most likely the gross negligence of the propmaster.
That makes sense to me and I had the same idea, but are they doing anything to remediate the risk of a barrel obstruction? Seems to me like something like this would turn any debris into a barrel...
and the barrel of the gun is blocked by putting a stop vertically in the bore and a narrow restriction at the end of the barrel, so even if a round did somehow get into the cylinder it shouldn't make it out of the barrel.
That makes sense to me and I had the same idea, but are they doing anything to remediate the risk of a barrel obstruction? Seems to me like something like this would turn any debris into a barrel obstruction, which could then lead to catastrophic failure of the gun - at which point the first rule of gun safety is invalid, as the gun is now dangerous in any direction.
I guess a remediation strategy here would be to use ammo-weapon-combinations where the blank is not able to damage the gun even if the barrel is fully obstructed. Is that a reasonable constraint?
Blanks, while having some gunpowder, don't have enough to cause any real damage to the gun. Just enough to reliably cycle the gun with the restricted bore diameter (in a semi-auto) and give the...
Blanks, while having some gunpowder, don't have enough to cause any real damage to the gun. Just enough to reliably cycle the gun with the restricted bore diameter (in a semi-auto) and give the movie the flash everyone wants to see. Could it turn an obstruction into a projectile? Sure, but so could a primer-only blank which is what some nail guns used (and perhaps still do) in the past before electrics became powerful/reliable enough.
Alec Baldwin is also a producer on this movie. According to an article posted elsewhere in this thread there were ongoing safety concerns on set, including three earlier accidental discharges. He...
Alec Baldwin is also a producer on this movie. According to an article posted elsewhere in this thread there were ongoing safety concerns on set, including three earlier accidental discharges. He and the other people in charge should have shut the set down to investigate before shooting more scenes with firearms.
Rule one of guns: Prop guns are problematic for that exact reason. Just as "non-lethal" weapons like rubber bullets are. If you're going to use them, try to work out scenes so you don't need to...
Rule one of guns:
Don't point the gun at anything you would like to remain living.
Prop guns are problematic for that exact reason. Just as "non-lethal" weapons like rubber bullets are. If you're going to use them, try to work out scenes so you don't need to point them at anything.
Despite me loving guns, I do think that they're overly glorified in movies and TV, especially at the PG-13 level. I fully believe that guns in movies should be required to show the level of violence, gore, and destruction that comes with them. The D-day beach scene in Saving Private Ryan is a good example.
I don't disagree. That's why the pointing at people should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely needed. But that gunshot should show what a real wound/death looks like. Superhero movies are...
I don't disagree. That's why the pointing at people should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely needed.
But that gunshot should show what a real wound/death looks like. Superhero movies are some of the worst in this regard.
Isn't often the case that super hero movies mostly show superhumans resisting bullets? I mean, it's basically fantasy, if someone takes it seriously is the movie really at fault? 🤔
Isn't often the case that super hero movies mostly show superhumans resisting bullets? I mean, it's basically fantasy, if someone takes it seriously is the movie really at fault? 🤔
I think vord is more talking about the minor side characters that get hit and just fall over, no gore or pain involved. I mean, I think anyone can appreciate that the heroes themselves have either...
I think vord is more talking about the minor side characters that get hit and just fall over, no gore or pain involved.
I mean, I think anyone can appreciate that the heroes themselves have either unreasonable luck (when they're gifted mortals) or unreasonable physical resilience (gods, technologically enhanced, etc). But even when they die it's usually clean and dramatic. Ya know, "tell my kids I love them" rather than crying "Mum" at the top of their lungs.
Sure, but the entire genre is either fantasy or very soft sci-fi, you kinda expect everything to be unrealistic, melodramatic, over the top, etc. I mean how much of it was even actually filmed? I...
Sure, but the entire genre is either fantasy or very soft sci-fi, you kinda expect everything to be unrealistic, melodramatic, over the top, etc. I mean how much of it was even actually filmed? I find it odd to single out superhero movies, it would be like watching The Lord of the Rings and saying "this is not how rings work".
Most crime dramas sure deserve this kind of scrutiny though.
Terrible accident, though actors can't be held responsible for not checking the safety of guns, especially when they're anti-gun themselves, it's shady how we still use prop guns which could be...
Terrible accident, though actors can't be held responsible for not checking the safety of guns, especially when they're anti-gun themselves, it's shady how we still use prop guns which could be lethal.
That's a terrible way to phrase what one can only assume was a terrible accident at this point. NYT even mentions the time Baldwin cycled on the wrong way of a lane as an example that he had previous problems with the law. In what world is that relevant?
Other organizations were much less inflammatory. The NYT chose an accusatorial tone without any evidence whatsoever. I'm really disappointed.
Notice how they choose the active voice here but when the police shoot someone it's always "officer-involved shooting". They absolutely know what they're doing here.
To be fair, I don't know if the NYT is guilty of that. I know that when a police department announces something like that, they use passive voice. I don't know if it's fair to use a singular They here.
From Alec Baldwin on Twitter (1, 2):
Tragic. No one should lose their life or get injured for a film- especially in today's world of CGI. I've seen a lot of people already pushing for banning real guns from sets, which would be a fantastic move.
All of the headlines seem to make it sound like this is Baldwin's fault, but it's pretty clear that someone else (either the mandatory gun safety person or the prop master) screwed up. I'm not really sure how this one can be put on him.
The failure here extends deep. My understanding is that there are multiple layers of people (cf. defense-in-depth) for firearm safety on set, including the actors themselves. It’s obviously very early on, and we only have limited information, but it is still possible for Baldwin to have been partly at fault (most likely with the cardinal rules of gun safety). That said, I’m inclined to agree that the majority of responsibility lies with the prop master and armored/firearms safety folks.
Looks like the prop gun contained a live round and the prop-master was not a member of the Local 44 union. Not sure if he was non-union though, I thought all the important jobs on film sets had to be?
What?? How does a live round make its way anywhere remotely near a movie prop? Are film guns not designated as props from day one?
Apparently they use live rounds in shots where they're loading the gun so it looks real. The prop masters are supposed to make sure the casings are empty so it won't fire but can get sloppy about inventory control.
Seems weird honestly. Every phone number in a movie starts with 555 but somehow we are not okay with slightly inaccurate looking ammo.
Even easier would be to disable the firing pin in the gun.
Doesn't matter how live the round is then. Still have the firing blanks problem, though those guns should be made so actual rounds can't fit at all.
Can't use the same prop with a blank then.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: You could improve safety by having two guns of the same type, clearly labelled (the labelling can be designed s.t. it is easily removed in post-production) - one type for use with blanks, one for all other purposes. Maybe some modification to the barrel to make sure no projectile can be accelerated, not sure how plausible that is. Then modify it so it doesn't accept anything but blanks. Ideally, of a completely implausible caliber. Think a big rifle with a .22 chamber. (If I'm not mistaken, you can put enough powder into a .22 to make it as spicy as any other blank. That way, a .22 non-blank round anywhere near a set is a big red flag and any other round can't be set off.
The gun for close-ups, loading, etc, has it's firing pin removed (or shortened if mechanically essential).
Honestly if the labeling isn't too attention grabbing you might not even need to remove it in post and people can just learn to accept it as part of cinematic vernacular. We accept this the same way we accept that all phone numbers start with 555 or that bullets will spark whenever they ricochet off damn near any surface.
Oh, I was thinking of something to distinguish blank and non-blank guns. In the interest of safety I would pick something that is very attention grabbing, so that everyone on set knows that this is one of the dangerous guns. Some careful design work and these should be easily removed by post-production, ideally without a human in the loop. Hence why I think you could get away with flashy warnings.
This is an extremely rare occurrence so there probably just hasn't been much impetus to innovate at developing better props. The last instance people keep citing was Brandon Lee in 1993. (Though maybe there has been stuff since that were less publicized.) I wonder if now that's it's happened again there will be more emphasis on either improving the props or better training the staff in firearms handling.
I don't know anything about film production, but from what I've read about this incident, it seems like in the film world the term "live round" applies to blank rounds as well as a standard cartridge with a bullet in it. Also, there's no such thing as a "prop gun". They use real guns.
It's not as big budget as I would have thought for something with Alec Baldwin. The movie is classified as "Low Budget Theatrical - Tier 1". No more than $7.5MM for production costs.
Once you have enough money, you can do whatever you want in Hollywood, regardless of budget or theme. Just doing what is fun.
Can prop guns be altered in such a way that makes them incapable of exiting a projectile, giving otherwise all appearances of doing so?
There are blank-only guns, although they do need a place to discharge the gases, and are still a hazard. And that is still useless for close-up shots where you may see “real” ammo (blanks look different) being loaded or handled.
I thought for a fraction of a second that seeing real ammo being loaded is a good enough reason to have real ammo on set. Then I remembered you can have ammo that looks real but contains no explosives (i.e. is safer than a blank), e.g. loading drill ammo.
Edit: Actually, apparently Brandon Lee died through this, basically. The projectile from a loading drill round got dislodged and when a blank was chambered next, you basically have a live round. So maybe those loading drill rounds should be made such that the projectile can't reasonably be removed. Maybe cast the entire thing in one go or braze the projectile in place.
Yeah, I'd agree. These guns should have been thoroughly inspected and certified for use like this before being handed to actors to use.
Those accidents are exceedingly rare though. I'd bet there are tons of things more dangerous on a set than guns.
I don't know if this would be an appropriate response. This is the first time I've heard of this happening, and there is a legitimate reason to use real guns on set with the appropriate safety measures in place. It may sometimes be impossible to disable a gun in a way that makes it look real enough for a movie, or you may actually need a shot of a gun firing. CGI is complicated and expensive, I can imagine that for US-based productions, using firearms with the appropriate ammo and the appropriate safety measures in place would be the best option.
Sadly, this is not the first time such a tragic accident has happened on set. Although rare, firearms on set and onstage present a very real hazard to performers and crew. In my experience, there are several folks responsible for safety, including the actor handling the firearm. We don't know very much about what happened on this set (despite some inflammatory headlines), but hopefully this does prompt a reevaluation of firearms safety in the entertainment industry.
That price is up against the additional crew and insurance costs of having actual firearms on set though. And the insurance cost probably just went up a decent chunk.
‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting
I think it's important to view this tragedy in the broader context of the narrowly averted IATSE strike (which Halyna Hutchins was a member of).
one of the key complaints from that union was a basic disregard for worker safety, even in the majority of productions where no firearms are involved. work days so long, and breaks so short between the end of one day of shooting and the start of the next, that people were falling asleep at the wheel while commuting. the IATSE Stories instagram account has been an excellent chronicler of these.
their new contract, requires, among other things:
so...if you're released for the day at 8pm, they're still allowed to expect you back at 6am. just not before.
and if you stop for the weekend at 8pm on Friday, the earliest you can start up again would be 2am Monday morning. in practical terms that means that they can start as early as they want on Monday, no matter how late Friday went - eg a midnight Friday stop / 6am Monday morning start would be permitted.
that was only just added to the contract. in 2021, unions are still having to fight for this shit.
so on top of everything else, just assume that everyone involved in the safety protocols for firearm handling is chronically sleep deprived.
One accidental discharge should have completely stopped the set. There is no excuse for such negligence.
Same thing that killed Brandon Lee
This is who I was immediately thinking of! Son of Bruce Lee, died this way (shot by blank) on the set of The Crow. I learned this when googling something about The Matrix: The Wachowskis wanted him to play Neo. That kid had one hell of a career before him.
Why the hell were live rounds allowed anywhere on set? Maybe we should have a law requiring prop guns be custom made to only be able to chamber blank cartridges.
Blanks can... and this case, did... kill. There still has to be an explosion to cause that "bang" sound, after all.
The deadline article says it was loaded with blanks:
https://deadline.com/2021/10/female-crewmember-dies-on-new-mexico-set-of-alec-baldwin-film-rust-1234860416/
I'm having a hard time believing that discharging a blank killed one person and injured another. Black powder burns can be nasty, but they aren't exactly fatal.
It is possible this is another Brandon Lee situation. He was killed while shooting The Crow when a blank was discharged in a firearm that unknowingly still had a bullet lodged in the barrel from prior use.
Additionally, I'd like to invite our resident gun aficionados to comment on this news. I think @nukeman is one of them?
As others have stated, there is/should be so much safety around firearms on set that this shouldn't have occurred. On top of the fact that blank firing guns are made so they cannot fire a live round. There are some very serious issues here and someone fucked up badly and now a person has lost her life. Inexcusable.
While any gun can be converted to fire blanks, when done properly there's no way for it to chamber a live round. Revolvers (since this is a western) have new cylinders installed that are bored short so a live round could never be inserted, literally only deep enough for a blank, not a round with a projectile, and the barrel of the gun is blocked by putting a stop vertically in the bore and a narrow restriction at the end of the barrel, so even if a round did somehow get into the cylinder it shouldn't make it out of the barrel. Semi automatics have the same barrel changes, but don't have a cylinder. Instead they'll have the barrel reamed too short to chamber a live round and the magazines will be likewise too short to chamber a live round.
Blanks can kill, they're spitting out extremely hot, high pressure gas, but I'm doubting that was the case here and you generally have to be very close for them to be deadly. Too close for Alec Baldwin to have shot more than one person without noticing he's injured someone.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the firearms propmaster used real guns instead of blank firing props and didn't check to make sure they were only loaded with blanks. I'd be willing to add that they may be part of the propmaster's personal collection that they use to shoot on their own and had live rounds loaded in it. Depending on the realism the director wanted, these could be original period firearms instead of reproductions. As it'd be odd for a gun modified to fire blanks with a barrel obstruction, then loaded with real ammo, to make the obstructions fail without blocking the barrel with the bullet.
I feel extremely sorry for Alec Baldwin here because, unless proven otherwise, he just inadvertently ended a life, changed the life of another directly, and indirectly changed the lives of every other person on that set and much of the families involved. I highly doubt he was even remotely at fault here, but he's going to have to live with the consequences of what is most likely the gross negligence of the propmaster.
That makes sense to me and I had the same idea, but are they doing anything to remediate the risk of a barrel obstruction? Seems to me like something like this would turn any debris into a barrel obstruction, which could then lead to catastrophic failure of the gun - at which point the first rule of gun safety is invalid, as the gun is now dangerous in any direction.
I guess a remediation strategy here would be to use ammo-weapon-combinations where the blank is not able to damage the gun even if the barrel is fully obstructed. Is that a reasonable constraint?
Blanks, while having some gunpowder, don't have enough to cause any real damage to the gun. Just enough to reliably cycle the gun with the restricted bore diameter (in a semi-auto) and give the movie the flash everyone wants to see. Could it turn an obstruction into a projectile? Sure, but so could a primer-only blank which is what some nail guns used (and perhaps still do) in the past before electrics became powerful/reliable enough.
Alec Baldwin is also a producer on this movie. According to an article posted elsewhere in this thread there were ongoing safety concerns on set, including three earlier accidental discharges. He and the other people in charge should have shut the set down to investigate before shooting more scenes with firearms.
Already commented, I believe @AugustusFerdinand is a firearms person as well.
Thanks for the ping, been away all day, reading now to see what's going on. Heard something in passing on NPR this morning as I was driving.
Rule one of guns:
Prop guns are problematic for that exact reason. Just as "non-lethal" weapons like rubber bullets are. If you're going to use them, try to work out scenes so you don't need to point them at anything.
Despite me loving guns, I do think that they're overly glorified in movies and TV, especially at the PG-13 level. I fully believe that guns in movies should be required to show the level of violence, gore, and destruction that comes with them. The D-day beach scene in Saving Private Ryan is a good example.
I'd just like to point out that they were shooting a western, which by necessity requires the presence of firearms.
I don't disagree. That's why the pointing at people should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely needed.
But that gunshot should show what a real wound/death looks like. Superhero movies are some of the worst in this regard.
Isn't often the case that super hero movies mostly show superhumans resisting bullets? I mean, it's basically fantasy, if someone takes it seriously is the movie really at fault? 🤔
I think vord is more talking about the minor side characters that get hit and just fall over, no gore or pain involved.
I mean, I think anyone can appreciate that the heroes themselves have either unreasonable luck (when they're gifted mortals) or unreasonable physical resilience (gods, technologically enhanced, etc). But even when they die it's usually clean and dramatic. Ya know, "tell my kids I love them" rather than crying "Mum" at the top of their lungs.
Sure, but the entire genre is either fantasy or very soft sci-fi, you kinda expect everything to be unrealistic, melodramatic, over the top, etc. I mean how much of it was even actually filmed? I find it odd to single out superhero movies, it would be like watching The Lord of the Rings and saying "this is not how rings work".
Most crime dramas sure deserve this kind of scrutiny though.
Terrible accident, though actors can't be held responsible for not checking the safety of guns, especially when they're anti-gun themselves, it's shady how we still use prop guns which could be lethal.