1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Alec Baldwin

Discussion in 'off topic' started by matt j, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    I’d be equally surprised if it isn’t. He’s also the producer, and sets the budgets, as well as being somewhat responsible for the safety culture on set if budgetary concerns mean corners were cut and a blind eye taken to that. Reports are that the safety culture was sadly lacking.
    Monitor Gold 10 likes this.
  2. Monitor Gold 10

    Monitor Gold 10 pfm Member

    Bugger. I meant to write I would be surprised to learn it wasn't his fault. Predictive text failure...
    Rug Doc and Sue Pertwee-Tyr like this.
  3. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    But they would not dismantle the gearbox an engineer has serviced would they?
    Dozey and Rug Doc like this.
  4. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    Not a valid comparison really though. Checking the gun doesn’t require specialist tools or skills.

    For reasons I’ve expressed upthread, though, I don’t think the actors should necessarily be expected to check a gun passed to them on a live shoot, and declared safe by the person employed to check that very thing.
  5. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    You say that it is not a valid comparison but your second para implies it is? Anyone unfamiliar with weapons, or gearboxes, could not know if a weapon, or gearbox, was safe or not.

    Analogies do not help anyway. Ultimately this will be a matter for a court.
  6. PaulMB

    PaulMB pfm Member

    As I've said already, an actor cannot be expected to open the gun, take out all the cartridges, check them carefully, and then put them all back in again. It is the responsibility of the armourer, that's what he's there for. You can't compare it to what happens on a firing range.
    As for the bus analogy, if a driver is given a bus with a rebuilt engine does he check the valve clearances and the cylinder head torque before driving off? Or, let's make it easier, if the brakes have been overhauled, does he check the brake fluid level and the thickness of the brake pads before he drives off?
    Dozey and Rug Doc like this.
  7. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    I kind of agree, but surely pointing a gun at anyone is a reckless action in itself?
  8. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

    A revolver or shotguns are the only weapons easily checked for blanks and a clear barrel by a non-expert. How you recognise a blank shotgun cartridge is another mystery to me.
  9. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    On reflection I find myself more in agreement with those who argue it is the actor’s responsibility. If I were the actor, and the part required me to put the gun to my own head and pull the trigger, I’d damn we’ll check it myself, so why wouldn’t I take the same care with another person’s life?
    PhilofCas, CraShWilliams and psd122 like this.
  10. Bart

    Bart pfm Member

    I don’t know where he was pointing the gun, but speaking generally wouldn’t you have to point a gun (assumed ‘cold’) at someone on a film set at some point if the scene required it.
  11. Thorn

    Thorn pfm Member

    I can't watch the video, the link is unavailable, so I don't know what the American legal opinion is.
    In English law an accident can be caused by negligence or recklessness, as when someone pulls out of a junction into the path of another. In personal injury cases we distinguish between accidents caused by negligence and what we call "pure accident" where there is no-one to blame.
    The better distinction is between accidental and intentional.
  12. Guinnless

    Guinnless pfm Member

    Sure you can check the lights, make observation checks on the tyres, observe if any of the warning lights on the dash are lit but what else? As a driver this is all you could reasonably do.
  13. paulfromcamden

    paulfromcamden Baffled

    I still don't understand why you would have live rounds anywhere near a film set.

    It's been reported that there were three guns left out together and the Assistant Director mistakenly picked up one that was loaded and passed it to Baldwin.
    gavreid likes this.
  14. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

  15. Bart

    Bart pfm Member

    That was my thought too, but bearing in mind It was in America where live ammunition and guns are far more common than in the UK maybe it is not so surprising, some people have the stuff in their houses and I imagine security staff would often have something handy. How it got into that particular gun is a bit of a mystery though.
  16. robbyd

    robbyd pfm Member

    A lot of the background prop guns are actually just rubber or grp replica castings.
  17. robbyd

    robbyd pfm Member

    the d.o.p. wouldn't be in front of the camera on a take, only possibly in a rehearsal, and even then more likely to be the director.
  18. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Booyakashah, check out my avatar...

    Maybe, but gun safety is a lot easier to teach than gearbox safety. It's a simple rule for guns that can be taught in about a minute: You *never* consider one to be safe.
  19. Rug Doc

    Rug Doc pfm Member

    it’s a film set. From what I understand of the scene He was asked to point the gun to camera and fire it, he did and it was loaded, hence shooting the director behind the camera and the other person who was crouched behind her… he’s doing what he was asked to do.

    I don’t know about firearms, so I if were an actor and was asked to do just that, I wouldn’t check the barrel etc, I would put my trust in the person who handed me the ‘prop’ and said clearly ‘safe gun’

    it’s a tragic accident, but it’s the firearms handlers fault, that’s what their paid to do, and their single role on set.
  20. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    I'm just guessing, as an actor he's probanly not liable, as the producer however, unless they had an armourer on set who was negligent in there duties, he sure as 5hit is.

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice