You're viewing a single thread.
Disingenuous post. Actor not being responsible ≠ blindly trust the guy in charge to not make any mistake ever and not even checking your own weapon. This is common fucking sense and you would think they learned that after Brandon Lee.
What happened to Brandon Lee was wildly different. Talk about disingenuous using it as a comparison.
How are they "wildly different"? Both incidents are due to cut corners, the armorers not doing their jobs and the actors being complacent and blindly trusting the person in charge. Both guns could have been found as dangerous by a basic safety check. The squib in "Brandon's gun" would have been immediately apparent on a basic show clear when there is no daylight coming out of the barrel, this would be the very first thing you are taught on gun handling before you are even allowed to even pull the trigger. In the end both incidents had people die in preventable ways due to negligence and complacency, which is the only thing that matters.
Result is that the actor would have done nothing "wrong" and still have killed someone, which is definitely not something anyone would want to do, and would have been completely preventable if they had exercised just a bit of common sense and checked their own gun even once.
"Common sense" does not exist. You have been taught literally everything you know.
Your comment is a fine example of every internet asshole with a gun thinking they know everything about all situations in which a gun could conceivably be used.
Understand something. On a movie set, you are not on a firing range. First of all, there shouldn't even be a single round of live ammunition on the set. In the rare circumstances where it is required, the armorer should be the only one handling the loaded weapon until moments before the actor is firing it. This is the case even with blank firing weapons. You are not surrounded by people that ostensibly have an interest in firearms, or even want to handle firearms.
The armorer is responsible for loading the firearm and readying it to fire. The actor's SOLE responsibility is to point it and shoot. No, they should not in any way be responsible for ensuring the safe or not-safe status of the firearm. THEY SHOULD ASSUME IT IS SAFE TO USE IN THE WAY THEY ARE BEING DIRECTED TO USE IT BECAUSE IT IS THE ARMORER'S JOB TO ENSURE IT IS SAFE.
Is everyone on set responsible for making sure that craft services is cooking the chicken to the proper internal temperature, or storing the lettuce in a refrigerator? No. Fuck no.
Welcome to the world of professionals, where it's assumed you know what the fuck you're doing.
And seriously, drop this fucking "nepo baby" horseshit unless you're going to start applying it to LITERALLY EVERYONE THAT GETS A JOB IN THE SAME INDUSTRY AS THEIR PARENTS.
But you don't give a shit when Cleetus McFuckbag Jr takes over dad's lawn care business and fucks it up, do you?
Agreed. I am all for accountability of the assigned individual but you hold an item that can literally hurt or kill someone you treat it with respect.
Check clearing a weapon should be taught to everyone. The man can be an instructor but his word isn't law. Every instructor knows the moment you hold a weapon you observe decorum that you treatg it as loaded.
Now is Alec Baldwin innocent, maybe. But we have to use this experience to learn and change things in the industry aka, have actors who are handing weapons learn to check clear them.
Isn't the job of an armorer is to ensure the gun is safe because most actors aren't firearm experts?
Any novice gets taught at the range the first thing you do when holding a gun is to treat it like it's loaded and check clear yourself. You don't have to be an expert for that. It's firearm 101. ANYONE that holds a firearm should be taught that.
I am not blaming Baldwin if you read properly. I am saying there has to be more procedures for these things.
Shouldn't the procedure start and end with a firearms expert clearing the gun?
This is literally the procedure. The armorer loads the weapon, hands it to the actor, it's fired, the armorer takes it back immediately.
My dude, the procedure is for the ARMORER, the paid professional, to handle the gun. The armorer checks it. The armorer loads it. The armorer hands the gun to the actor. The actor fires it. The actor hands the gun back to the armorer. The armorer checks it.
So tell me, what exactly would the actor be checking here? That the weapon is clear? The armorer is SUPPOSED to be handing them a loaded weapon.
If they're not in the act of firing the gun, the armorer is SUPPOSED to hand the actor a non-firing replica. Proper procedure would have been that Baldwin was rehearsing the scene with a chunk of plastic shaped like the firearm he was supposed to be using. When it came time to shoot the scene, the armorer would have loaded the weapon with blanks and put it into his hands. He would have fired it. The armorer would have taken possession from there.
You clearly do not know anything about how film sets work. There does NOT have to be "MORE PROCEDURES" when it has been clearly demonstrated, over DECADES of movies with firearms in them, that the procedures that are in place work quite well AS LONG AS THEY ARE FOLLOWED.
Which they were not.
Because the armorer was incompetent and allowed anyone on the set to handle the firearms.
You don't need to be an expert, just the basics in safe use of dangerous items that you are currently using.
If you kill someone by accident because the armorer missed something obvious, you certainly aren't responsible in any way but you still killed someone in a way that is easily preventable. Always check stuff yourself.
Wait, so you’re saying a novice should double check after the armorer clears it?
Should the armorer clear it again after the novice checks it just to make sure they haven’t changed anything?
Then I guess the novice should check it again to make sure it’s safe after the expert double checks it, right?
You are being obtuse on purpose.
You check clear when you get handed a weapon. That's it.
Once you are done and hand it back, they do the same. You personally have to be sure the weapon in your hand is cleared. Personally.
You know nothing about how firearms safety is handled on movie sets. You're acting like your actions at the range are the same.
They are absolutely not.
First and foremost, no actor is EVER responsible for the safety of a firearm. End of story. That is the armorer's job, and nobody else's. No actor should ever be handed a firearm in any condition other than safe for the situation. If they're standing around with a gun on their hip in a far-off shot, the firearm is a resin or foam replica. Always. If they're handling a firearm up close and not firing it, it will be a non-firing replica. Always. If they are firing it the armorer will load the firearm, rack/cock it, and place it directly into the actor's hands. The scene will be shot. The armorer then immediately takes the firearms away from all actors involved.
At no point should the actor EVER be responsible for firearms safety. That is not their job. It is the armorer's job to ensure that the actor cannot, either willfully or through ignorance, harm anyone else. These industry standards have been developed and utilized over a period of decades.
In all of the movies that use firearms, how many deaths or injuries have you heard of?
The comments and votes here baffle me.
One step. That's it.
One step by actors being paid presumably millions. That's all they need to do. All the steps you mentioned above can and should stay. But an actor can't take 5 mins out of their oh so busy lives to learn to check clear a weapon? How is more safety a problem? What is wrong with people who disagree on that?
Industry standards change throughout. Just because something worked before doesn't mean it always will. Exhibit A is the man who died. Or is his life a statistical anamoly and within acceptable error? Do we wait for more people to die then?
Does an actor blindly get behind a car and drive not caring if he runs anyone over because it's the set director's job to clear the path? Is he absolve of all blame here?
Does an actor blindly get behind a car and drive not caring if he runs anyone over because it’s the set director’s job to clear the path? Is he absolve of all blame here?
If you pay attention you'll see actors rarely drive. Oh, sure, they're in a car and it's moving but more likely it's on a trailer and being towed by a professional driver. In the occasions where an actor has to drive there will be people whose responsibility it is to clear the area of anyone that could be in the way.
So yes, they would be absolved of blame. Just the same way that you would be absolved of blame if someone ran across the freeway in front of your car. Unless the actor is doing something blatantly illegal (driving drunk, for example) there will be no culpability on them as long as they were doing their job. It's someone else's job to maintain safety.
Welcome to the real world. This is how professionals act.
Because you are being obtuse on purpose.
Do you check the torque on every nut and bolt on your vehicle after you get it back from the mechanic?
Because you are being obtuse on purpose.
Are you saying that when someone puts a deadly weapon in your hands, you are instantly absolved of all responsibility for it because it's someone else's responsibility? Oh, they didn't TELL me the knife was sharp.
That's deliberately and painfully obtuse.
If there are dummies in it, the typical check is that you take the bullet and shake it because ball bearings are put in them that rattle.
Once the actor re-loads it, they (and their insurance company) becomes liable. They probably aren't an expert.
Maybe things aren't as black and white as you think they are, and maybe actors double checking the experts would lead to more incidents instead of less.