Thread: Alec Baldwin Fatally Shoots Crew Member With Prop Firearm on Film Set, Authorities Sa

The level of idiocy willy’s reached regarding this story is remarkable even by his standards.

FaRT- there were several issues behind the walk off, not just commuting. One of the issues was safety.

Originally Posted by cyrille

FaRT- .

fart? You claim to want to have a mature discussion yet call me “fart” like you are a little kid on the playground?

Originally Posted by cyrille

walk off.

The union boys were kicked off.

FaRT, as you often do, you are twisting the facts to fit in with your right wing political leanings.

Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.


The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for 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.
Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.


Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.


“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”


A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires that 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.

Alec Baldwin '''Rust''' camera crew walked off before shooting - Los Angeles Times

fart?

OK, cytwat: Still don't think the stories add up.

There were reports of accidental discharges, yet who was in charge of the safety issues?

Those on the set with union jobs, right?

Originally Posted by Samuel

Your logic doesn't make sense, BSnub: The union (whose members are in charge of safety issues on the set) walked off because those in charge of safety issues weren't doing a good enough job.

Obviously, whoever was in charge of handling the guns on the set wasn't up to the task, whether a 24-year-old daughter of an expert handler (or not).

Originally Posted by Samuel

There were reports of accidental discharges, yet who was in charge of the safety issues?

Those on the set with union jobs, right?

What, so because the person responsible for safety might have been in a union, the people working on the film couldn't have made complaints about, amongst other issues, the safety on set?

What an odd view to take on things, FaRTY WaRTY.

Originally Posted by Backspin

They haven't figured out a better/safer way to film gun shots ? Don't they add the sound later anyway ? Sounds like a very Mickey mouse operation

I have no idea why live rounds were on set. There is simply no need for them. All gunshots can be mimicked with special effects squids.

Originally Posted by Samuel

There were reports of accidental discharges, yet who was in charge of the safety issues?

Those on the set with union jobs, right?

Wrong. Production is in charge of it. The armourer would not have been a member of IATSE either.

Originally Posted by cyrille

What, so because the person responsible for safety might have been in a union, the people working on the film couldn't have made complaints about, amongst other issues, the safety on set?

Cytwat: obviously, you and I only know what we've read in the papers.

Why did the daughter of an expert "armorer" have that job?

Because the union gave it to her?

Originally Posted by Samuel

you and I only know what we've read in the papers.

And you are leaping to conclusions to suit your politics, FaRT.

Now you're speculating, with no basis whatsoever, about how the armourer got the job.

Hey, maybe the bullets and gun were also made by people in unions, eh?

Is there no end to the trouble these bastards cause?

A crew member who was alarmed by the misfires told a unit production manager in a text message,

It was so important that it rated a text message. FFS. Stand in front of the production manager and tell him/her. This is what is wrong with modern communication. People think sending a text rates attention.

I was posting on topic. It's you who threw a hissy fit, FaRT.

Oh, and you seem to have conveniently missed this from someone who works in film production:

Originally Posted by Samuel

There were reports of accidental discharges, yet who was in charge of the safety issues?


Those on the set with union jobs, right?

Originally Posted by pickel

Wrong. Production is in charge of it. The armourer would not have been a member of IATSE either.

Originally Posted by Samuel

Why did the daughter of an expert "armorer" have that job?

Because the union gave it to her?

She was hired by production. I'm a member of IATSE and think you are slightly ignorant as to how it works. You are persistent though.

Originally Posted by cyrille

FaRT I'm not 'following' you anywhere, you absurd buffoon. Don't flatter yourself.

Why is it spelled FaRT with the lower case a ?

Originally Posted by koman

Why would the actor be shooting at the camera operator?
How did he manage to shoot a camera operator and an assistant director, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Did he fire twice or was it like the magic bullet in the JFK shooting?

Quite often the camera will point at the person shooting from the front. The woman that died was behind the camera. The bullet passed through her and hit the other person.

Mark Jacobs, member of the director's guild of America, mentions safety issues one minute into this video.

It was made three weeks ago, covering the reasons behind a possible IATSE strike.

If people had listened and addressed the issues the union raised, then that woman might be alive and working today.

But instead some posters are insistent, with no basis whatsoever, that unions are to blame for her death.

Originally Posted by pickel

Gotta make dinner and maybe say hi to the spouse and kids, doesn't leave much time for sleep, and tired drivers are a safety issue. The production companies that make these films are worth billions. Who are the real greedy ones?

Much cheaper hotels and motels in Albuquerque than in trendy Santa Fe.

Originally Posted by pickel

Having to drive 2 hours round trip would leave them 6 hrs at home. Gotta make dinner and maybe say hi to the spouse and kids

In this case, however, I doubt anyone loves near the location. Still . . . not a lot of time to rest

Originally Posted by pickel

I have no idea why live rounds were on set. There is simply no need for them. All gunshots can be mimicked with special effects squids.

Ah so THAT'S how they do it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah so THAT'S how they do it.

Damn autocorrect. Squibs.

Originally Posted by panama hat

In this case, however, I doubt anyone loves near the location.

That's why they wanted hotels near the set. Which they were allegedly promised. Assuming you misspelled "lives".

Originally Posted by Samuel

If someone put a live round in with the blanks, who would have done that?

Angry union people? likely.
Otherwise, it's just a case of negligence

If it was an angry union member, then the armourer was negligent for letting anybody other than the actors near the guns. Especially after it wasn't the first time.

Originally Posted by pickel

If it was an angry union member, then the armourer was negligent for letting anybody other than the actors near the guns.

Agree.

Originally Posted by pickel

If it was an angry union member, then the armourer was negligent for letting anybody other than the actors near the guns. Especially after it wasn't the first time.

What if it was an enraged squid, angry at his mates being blown up?