Alec Baldwin Fired Prop Gun That Killed Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Injured Director

RossTheNinja said:
*Gun. He had a gun.
A car used on set is a prop car. You don't stomp on the throttle without checking if it's in gear when someone is in front of you.
Click to expand...
It is still a prop. I think it would be fair to assume a gun used on stage in a theatre is not loaded.

In hindsight, he probably shouldn't have been pointing the thing at anyone, never mind pulling the trigger. Someone on set was negligent.
 


MattyM 09/109 said:
Pretty much every actor who has worked with weapons on sets. The problem is that your basic firearms license is great for basic firearms situation but about as relevant as a basic driving license when recording a fast and furious movie. There is a point where you are definitively not using props in a basic manner and thus need to rely entirely on expert's to keep everyone safe. If the expert fucks up then its his fault. You could maybe make the case that if Keanu Reeves had shot someone on set he was culpable as he shoots 3 gun like a demon and basically popularised modified CAR but as far as Baldwin is concerned he was holding a prop because a qualified, paid, expert told him he was holding a prop. Someone tells Vin Diesel to drive right towards the camera then stop before mowing everyone down he doesn't check the brakes on the car are actually attached cos the expert has done that absolutely most basic check.
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant.

He shot someone because he pointed a gun and pulled the trigger when the cameras weren’t rolling. This isn’t filming a chase scene (in your automotive analogy); it’s doing doughnuts in the parking lot next to a crowd of pedestrians.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
The isnt a film featuring guns that doesnt break the 180 DQ rule at some point at a minimum, in actuality most of the time the weapons will be pointed directly at cast, crew, camaras, etc, doubly so when you imagine the director and crew choreography scenes before they are -recorded-. Every single time you see a gun in a movie someone has pointed it towards someone.

I bring up the comparison to cars solely because - while one is a machine requiring months of training and a testing before being allowed to use in safe manner while the other can be picked up in walmart and used with a 30 minutes training session - they both have a huge potential to cause injury oif misused and thus film productions specifically employ people to make sure they are safe. He will walk away.
Click to expand...

A gun has two elements - the gun and the bullet - which are required before it can kill someone. A car has only one element - the car - for it to be able to kill someone since if it is a conventional car it will always kill or injure someone if driven at them. Both of these require a human operator of course.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
You know those movies scenes when you see a street racer in car shifting the gear lever (this is considered a skill in america) and stomping on the throttle? The car isnt actually moving, the actor has been told that this car has been made safe by an expert and shoving it in gear and stomping on the throttle will not in actuality cause the car to shoot off decapitating the camera man hanging out the window and flattening the lighting director
Click to expand...
Obviously. Would you like to address my point now?
Harry Angstrom said:
It is still a prop. I think it would be fair to assume a gun used on stage in a theatre is not loaded.

In hindsight, he probably shouldn't have been pointing the thing at anyone, never mind pulling the trigger. Someone on set was negligent.
Click to expand...
No. It isn't fair. That's why you are trained to not point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.

Whether it's a prop is irrelevant.

You're right, someone was negligent. And he's been charged.
 
Last edited:
RossTheNinja said:
No. It isn't fair. That's why you are trained to not point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.

Whether it's a prop is irrelevant.

You're right, someone was negligent. And he's been charged.
Click to expand...
Actors are trained to not point a gun,that was being used in a scene, at something you don’t want to destroy?

It was a stupid thing to do.
 
The gun charge has now been dropped. So at worst he's facing 18 months. He's not going to see any time in jail now, most likely. He can take a plea for community service/house arrest/fine/YouTube apology video.
 
RossTheNinja said:
Obviously. Would you like to address my point now?

No. It isn't fair. That's why you are trained to not point a gun at something you don't want to destroy.

Whether it's a prop is irrelevant.

You're right, someone was negligent. And he's been charged.
Click to expand...

In relation to pointing a gun, ive seen films where the camera is pointing exactly down the barrel and the gun is fired. Usually CGI takes over from there so cinematically it does happen.
 
BlackOps said:
In relation to pointing a gun, ive seen films where the camera is pointing exactly down the barrel and the gun is fired. Usually CGI takes over from there so cinematically it does happen.
Click to expand...
With a real gun? I would hope not. If it was real, I would hope the actor would check if it had bullets in it. Especially if your dad was a firearms expert. Or you'd worked with guns on a dozen films.

You can't tell the difference with a good replica that isn't capable of firing. It's baffling why you would use the real thing. Maybe it's cheaper.
babylonbee.com

Alec Baldwin Now Only Allowed To Hold Out His Finger As A Gun In Movies

SANTA FE, NM — As part of an agreement with prosecutors to have the charges against him dropped, actor Alec Baldwin is now reportedly only allowed to hold out his finger as a gun in movies from now on.
babylonbee.com babylonbee.com
 
Last edited:

Back
Top