Alec Baldwin Shooting

[The Grand Nudger]

He'd have shot whomever he was pointing the gun at and pulled the trigger. That's how loaded guns work. That person literally dodged a bullet that no one..or no one who's speaking up, knew was there.

Speaking of other angles worth exploring that haven't been mentioned in thread - it's entirely possible that no one in the chain of responsibility actually did anything wrong with specific regards to that firearm. That there isn't really any productive avenue for holding anyone accountable at all. That would be unfortunate, but it happens alot..in fact, that's the nature of the majority of on-set accidents - which probably ought to strike us as obvious..since there wouldn't be any money in making movies otherwise on account of all the claims being payed out. Even a claim of broad malfeasance on set won't hold if they did this part right and it went south anyway.

[brewer]

There are very clear spoken rules, even on movie sets. Not listening, paying attention or claiming some level of ignorance is not an excuse I'm willing to accept.

Nuclear bomb.......... thanks for the drama.

You're welcome.  Thanks for the deeply enriching insight.  I'll carve it into stone.

I doubt that will help as it's just more drama.

[Spongebob]

You're welcome.  Thanks for the deeply enriching insight.  I'll carve it into stone.

I doubt that will help as it's just more drama.

Thanks for keeping things so intellectual.

[Silver]

Real murderers commit crimes and get acquitted due to a broken justice system.

Baldwin isn't a murderer.

[Spongebob]

He'd have shot whomever he was pointing the gun at and pulled the trigger.  That's how loaded guns work.  That person literally dodged a bullet that no one..or no one who's speaking up, knew was there.

Speaking of other angles worth exploring that haven't been mentioned in thread - it's entirely possible that no one in the chain of responsibility actually did anything wrong with specific regards to that firearm.  That there isn't really any productive avenue for holding anyone accountable at all.  That would be unfortunate, but it happens alot..in fact, that's the nature of the majority of on-set accidents - which probably ought to strike us as obvious..since there wouldn't be any money in making movies otherwise on account of all the claims being payed out.  Even a claim of broad malfeasance on set won't hold if they did this part right and it went south anyway.

This is precisely what I was talking about when I say that it appears that the standards and practices regarding safety on at least this production was inadequate, and this could be an indicator for the entire film industry.  Like many things, it often takes a tragedy to get people interested enough to actually reform something and make it better.  This could be one of those moments, but then again it could be just another lost opportunity.  

There's plenty of precedent to apply here.  Just compare the film industry to almost any manufacturing industry.  They are different in what they make and how they work but at the core they are no different at all; they are all businesses.  Just about every industry has some sort of inherent risks that were at one time largely ignored.  After enough death and dismemberment, those eventually get enough attention that standards are put in place to reduce the carnage and most industries have seen vast improvement in the past 100 years, though some would be shocked at how recent some of those improvements have come.  Some of the standards in the National Electrical Code regarding arc flash are less than 20 years old but the awareness of such dangers have been around for decades.

---

Real murderers commit crimes and get acquitted due to a broken justice system.

Baldwin isn't a murderer.

Actually, I would describe our system as a "legal" system more than a "justice" system.

[The Grand Nudger]

By pure circumstance, the movie industry is much less dangerous than it used to be. CGI did that, mostly. It's cheaper, and no one ends up dead...most of the time. People, though, seem to prefer live action - at least when it comes to a movie being "genuine" - having that gritty something that only a real car chase with real risks, for example, can provide. Sure, we all belly up and shovel popcorn into our mouths for legendary's next pic - but it's not the same.

I doubt that anyone would notice, though, if no actual firearms were allowed on a set. The shots get touched up digitally anyway - they can add a flash and hans zimmer or whomever can work in the sound of gunfire to whatever soaring instrumental is meant to make this next death seem profound. They already do that..like..alot..especially with war movies. The sets are often much quieter than the onscreen depiction of their state.

[onlinebiker]

Real murderers commit crimes and get acquitted due to a broken justice system.

Baldwin isn't a murderer.

Nobody said he was.

But he is guilty - by his own admission - of killing someone.

Negligently - as far as I am concerned.

[The Grand Nudger]

Two klansman can run down a black man and shoot him to death and you're nothing but wait and see. Alec baldwin fires a prop gun...and you're pretty sure he needs to be in a cell.

It;d be funny if it were a joke.

[Spongebob]

I read that one of the reasons for using real fire arms on sets was that the sound and recoil of an actual powder discharge creates a more realistic reaction from the actors, which I found interesting. Also there are cases where they want to show smoke emanating from the gun itself. I'm certainly not in a position to argue, but they are "actors".

I suppose that the script itself is more of a factor to me than little things like this. If anyone has seen the film, "The Devil all the Time", that's a film that has an incredible story and great acting. Guns are used in the story a few times and I really don't think 100% realism with the guns is as important as what was taking place in the story in that case.

[Brian37]

I read that one of the reasons for using real fire arms on sets was that the sound and recoil of an actual powder discharge creates a more realistic reaction from the actors, which I found interesting.  Also there are cases where they want to show smoke emanating from the gun itself.  I'm certainly not in a position to argue, but they are "actors".  

I suppose that the script itself is more of a factor to me than little things like this.  If anyone has seen the film, "The Devil all the Time", that's a film that has an incredible story and great acting.  Guns are used in the story a few times and I really don't think 100% realism with the guns is as important as what was taking place in the story in that case.

That may be true, but humans have put men on the moon, I don't think it is impossible to improve special effects and make fake weapons that are 100% safe. Hollywood needs to work on that.