this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
150 points (100.0% liked)
movies
3207 readers
228 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is his job in this case?
Not shooting his coworkers, for starters.
Also, IIRC he was the producer or something as well as an actor, so he was the firearms handler's boss and ultimately in charge of everything including on-set safety to begin with.
As an actor in the same movie hes not allowed to adjust weaponry on set or his whole production would be uninsurable.
The weaponmaster is where the buck stops.
As a producer in the same movie he also has a duty to make sure the weapon master knows what they're doing. Again I'm not saying he's the only one responsible, but to me the buck stops with the guy who pulled the trigger.
It doesnt matter what you think.
On set heirarchy exists for a reason and that reason has resulted in only two gun related deaths since 1993 despite being the mostly widely used weapon in all of cinema.
Well yeah, he did. The person is a credentialed expert, and he delegated all responsibilities to that person.
What exactly do you mean? He's an actor. My point is that that doesn't absolve you of firearm safety
Yes but his point is that Baldwin wasn't responsible for firearms safety on the set at all he was just an actor the armorer is the one who's responsible. Just like the person who hires the Hitman is responsible for the death, the person who is the armorer on the set is responsible for this person's death.
Rule #1 of firearms safety is to not point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot.
How the fuck would that work in a movie, exactly?
Easy, by not using real guns
Lots and lots of cuts, lol. Green screen everything. In an action scene, every single actor must be in completely different room, or shoot their part at different times, then composite everything together. No movies will ever have the weapon pointed at the camera, ever. Such scenes are now banned.
Also, if any scene involves picking up a weapon, they must cut, the actor must check the weapon, then resume filming after. This must be done on every take.
What's the actor going to check? How heavy it is? They don't have a clue.
If by "check" you mean somebody who is an expert or is informed by experts makes a judgement about the weapon and announces it, that happened.
The armourer who provided the weapon did receive a manslaughter conviction. It was their responsibility, and they either screwed up or let themselves get bullied into screwing up by the asshat AD.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-sentenced-deadly-set/story?id=98268586
He was sentenced already for negligence.
Woooosh
There's a bunch of comments that are 100% serious in suggesting this stuff :/