Merged Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I looked at your link,
Click to expand...

If you did, either you didn't understand it or you wouldn't have said what you did.

and if primers didn't matter then they wouldn't be renting Dummies with primers in them.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they matter, for a close up movie shot or display. The majority of the time, they don't.

But that changes nothing. You're arguing about the cost per round when my first hit information was entirely accurate. I don't even see the point to what you are arguing. Then again, I can't for the life of me figure out what you are trying to argue about anymore, so... there's that.
 
Thermal said:
If you did, either you didn't understand it or you wouldn't have said what you did.



Sometimes they matter, for a close up movie shot or display. The majority of the time, they don't.

But that changes nothing. You're arguing about the cost per round when my first hit information was entirely accurate. I don't even see the point to what you are arguing. Then again, I can't for the life of me figure out what you are trying to argue about anymore, so... there's that.
Click to expand...

The number of times I can recall even noticing whether the primer was dimpled or not in a movie must be under 10. And I look for those kind of things.

I'd also like to point out that Rust had an 8 million dollar production budget. A few hundred extra on dummies is a negligible expense. These days doing a bit of CGI work to hide a dimpled primer in a close up shot should also be pretty cheap.

ETA: its more likely I would've noticed they were using smokeless powder, which unless Rust was set at the very end of the old west days, would be ahistorical (Dupont didn't even start manufacturing it until 1891 and they were the first in the USA I believe).
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
The number of times I can recall even noticing whether the primer was dimpled or not in a movie must be under 10. And I look for those kind of things.

I'd also like to point out that Rust had an 8 million dollar production budget. A few hundred extra on dummies is a negligible expense. These days doing a bit of CGI work to hide a dimpled primer in a close up shot should also be pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

Rust had $5k budget just for ammo. I mean, that's a lot of dummies and blanks, considering that it wasn't a full tilt war reenactment. And the dummies, as we've seen, were reusable and passed around as loaners. Money does not seem to be a serious issue with these reusable props which are in the chump change range.

I feel confident that money wasn't the issue. The issue was being too casual with safety. Maybe a case of familiarity breeding contempt, writ large.
 
Thermal said:
But that changes nothing. You're arguing about the cost per round when my first hit information was entirely accurate. I don't even see the point to what you are arguing. Then again, I can't for the life of me figure out what you are trying to argue about anymore, so... there's that.
Click to expand...

I think it's about 80% the bizarre "if Baldwin, Hall, and Gutierrez all did everything right, how could things have gone so wrong? Here's how." argument.

And about 20% the somehow even more bizarre "they wouldn't have bothered with proper safety protocols, because doctrinaire realism and saving money were higher priorities." argument.

I think the two dovetail into a (bizarre) narrative that goes something like, "they did the best they could with the safety protocols they had, but those protocols were inadequate, and left the door open for some really very esoteric possibilities, which I will now belabor with tedious detail and non sequitur apocrypha."
 
theprestige said:
I think it's about 80% the bizarre "if Baldwin, Hall, and Gutierrez all did everything right, how could things have gone so wrong? Here's how." argument.

And about 20% the somehow even more bizarre "they wouldn't have bothered with proper safety protocols, because doctrinaire realism and saving money were higher priorities." argument.

I think the two dovetail into a (bizarre) narrative that goes something like, "they did the best they could with the safety protocols they had, but those protocols were inadequate, and left the door open for some really very esoteric possibilities, which I will now belabor with tedious detail and non sequitur apocrypha."
Click to expand...

"....aaaaaand CUT! That's a wrap, boys, see ya at the bar while the editors finish this thread up in post production."
 
theprestige said:
I think it's about 80% the bizarre "if Baldwin, Hall, and Gutierrez all did everything right, how could things have gone so wrong? Here's how." argument.

And about 20% the somehow even more bizarre "they wouldn't have bothered with proper safety protocols, because doctrinaire realism and saving money were higher priorities." argument.

I think the two dovetail into a (bizarre) narrative that goes something like, "they did the best they could with the safety protocols they had, but those protocols were inadequate, and left the door open for some really very esoteric possibilities, which I will now belabor with tedious detail and non sequitur apocrypha."
Click to expand...

Which, of course, the appeals court will soberly listen to and consider in much detail. :nope:
 
Shrinker said:
Gabrielle Pickle, who was hird by 3rd Shift Media, who were contracted by Rust Movie Production LLC, which was operated by Ryan Smith of Thomasville Pictures, to which Baldwin's Eldorado Pictures had previously sold the Rust rights.

If you're hoping the answer was Alec Baldwin...





https://variety.com/2023/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-producer-da-osha-1235531157/
Click to expand...
... I'm assuming the answer is, in large part, "Hollywood accounting". Baldwin gets paid for the privilege of letting someone else hire him to star in the movie he wanted to star in.

My beef with Baldwin is that he didn't exercise his investor's interest and star power to demand a competent armorer and a safe set.

And, that as a gun control advocate ("anti-gun nut") who nevertheless was willing to handle functional firearms on set, he didn't bother with basic gun safey training, so that he could at the least check the props himself even if nobody else did.

And, that as an investor and an actor, he should have noticed that nobody else was properly looking out for his safety.

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not he was Gutierrez's boss, or her boss's boss's boss, on paper. He's a bona fide movie star, playing the lead in an indie production that he financed. I think he could easily flex as the boss of everyone involved, if he wanted to. If gun safety meant that much to him.
 
theprestige said:
... I'm assuming the answer is, in large part, "Hollywood accounting". Baldwin gets paid for the privilege of letting someone else hire him to star in the movie he wanted to star in.

My beef with Baldwin is that he didn't exercise his investor's interest and star power to demand a competent armorer and a safe set.

And, that as a gun control advocate ("anti-gun nut") who nevertheless was willing to handle functional firearms on set, he didn't bother with basic gun safey training, so that he could at the least check the props himself even if nobody else did.

And, that as an investor and an actor, he should have noticed that nobody else was properly looking out for his safety.

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not he was Gutierrez's boss, or her boss's boss's boss, on paper. He's a bona fide movie star, playing the lead in an indie production that he financed. I think he could easily flex as the boss of everyone involved, if he wanted to. If gun safety meant that much to him.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even though I always thought the incident was primarily the armorers responsibility, there is some hypocrisy there on Baldwins part when you consider his off set anti-gun persona and his carelessness on set.
 
Marcus said:
Exactly. Even though I always thought the incident was primarily the armorers responsibility, there is some hypocrisy there on Baldwins part when you consider his off set anti-gun persona and his carelessness on set.
Click to expand...

I've said it before in this thread, but it bears repeating: Dustin Hoffman said in an interview that Marathon Man, he resolved to never again play a character that held a gun. As far as I know, he stuck with that resolution.*

If Baldwin had had the courage of his convictions, Hutchins would be alive today.

---
*Except for Hook, apparently.
 
It does seem inconsistent that such a virulent anti-gun guy would want to romanticize gunplay in a Western, and treat them like toys. You'd think such an opponent would want either no part of them, or at least treat them as highly dangerous at all times.
 
"So, do you have western movie script for me?"

"Yes, sir, I do! In this movie, you'll be playing a gunslinging gunslinger who slings guns."

"But I hate guns!"

"I know sir, but consider this: Money."
 
theprestige said:
I've said it before in this thread, but it bears repeating: Dustin Hoffman said in an interview that Marathon Man, he resolved to never again play a character that held a gun. As far as I know, he stuck with that resolution.*

If Baldwin had had the courage of his convictions, Hutchins would be alive today.

---
*Except for Hook, apparently.
Click to expand...

I don't see it being too hypocritical to be very anti-gun as far as thinking personal ownership in modern society should be highly restricted and still wanting to play a historical role in which guns were part of life. It'd be a bit like Benedict Cumberbatch refusing to play the role of being a slaveowner in 12 Years a Slave because he thinks slavery is wrong... assuming he's against slavery.

However, I do see it as being a bit hypocritical in that actual, real guns were used in the production, when its certainly possible to make the picture without them. With the assumption that Baldwin knew they were real.

ETA: we don't know that the film "glorifies" the use of guns. The Unforgiven made by the very pro-gun Clint Eastwood, comes to mind as a western that very much doesn't, for example.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
I don't see it being too hypocritical to be very anti-gun as far as thinking personal ownership in modern society should be highly restricted and still wanting to play a historical role in which guns were part of life. It'd be a bit like Benedict Cumberbatch refusing to play the role of being a slaveowner in 12 Years a Slave because he thinks slavery is wrong... assuming he's against slavery.

However, I do see it as being a bit hypocritical in that actual, real guns were used in the production, when its certainly possible to make the picture without them. With the assumption that Baldwin knew they were real.

ETA: we don't know that the film "glorifies" the use of guns. The Unforgiven made by the very pro-gun Clint Eastwood, comes to mind as a western that very much doesn't, for example.
Click to expand...
Yeah, snark aside, I don't see hypocrisy, necessarily, in an anti-gun activist portraying a historically-accurate gunslinger in a movie.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Dustin Hoffman's complaint that Hollywood is "fraudulent" in how it depicts guns (in this Guardian report, for example).

So I can see some measure of hypocrisy in an actor who opposes modern gun culture going on to make movies that depict a gun as "cool" or "fun" or "exciting". Rather than depicting it as a horrifying object meant "to threaten or kill."

But of course, as we all agree, Baldwin's real failure here is not whatever hypocrisy there might be in his choice of projects, but the hypocrisy between his view that guns should be strictly controlled, and his carelessness with guns on his own projects.

And I don't even think there needs to be a caveat, with the assumption that Baldwin knew the guns were real. He has handled guns in movies, both before and after the Brandon Lee tragedy. If he didn't trouble himself to find out whether the guns on his set were real, and properly safed, that's more of the same carelessness and lack of honest conviction on his part.
 
theprestige said:
... I'm assuming the answer is, in large part, "Hollywood accounting". Baldwin gets paid for the privilege of letting someone else hire him to star in the movie he wanted to star in.

My beef with Baldwin is that he didn't exercise his investor's interest and star power to demand a competent armorer and a safe set.

And, that as a gun control advocate ("anti-gun nut") who nevertheless was willing to handle functional firearms on set, he didn't bother with basic gun safey training, so that he could at the least check the props himself even if nobody else did.

And, that as an investor and an actor, he should have noticed that nobody else was properly looking out for his safety.

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not he was Gutierrez's boss, or her boss's boss's boss, on paper. He's a bona fide movie star, playing the lead in an indie production that he financed. I think he could easily flex as the boss of everyone involved, if he wanted to. If gun safety meant that much to him.
Click to expand...

Baldwin financed the movie? The trades say it was Streamline Global and BondIt Media Capital.
 
Shrinker said:
Baldwin financed the movie? The trades say it was Streamline Global and BondIt Media Capital.
Click to expand...

He had creative input and was to be paid as a percentage of profit in exchange for financing. I think about an eighth of the projects total budget. That's what got him a producer credit. That's why I *think* the case against him will fail, if the prosecution goes for that angle. His role as producer was not that of a "line producer", someone with day to day operational authority. My main thought of why he might be found guilty is he blew off pertinent safety training by pulling a "do you know who I am". I don't know that happened, but its a guess that the prosecution has evidence he did.
 
lobosrul5 said:
He had creative input and was to be paid as a percentage of profit in exchange for financing. I think about an eighth of the projects total budget. That's what got him a producer credit. That's why I *think* the case against him will fail, if the prosecution goes for that angle. His role as producer was not that of a "line producer", someone with day to day operational authority. My main thought of why he might be found guilty is he blew off pertinent safety training by pulling a "do you know who I am". I don't know that happened, but its a guess that the prosecution has evidence he did.
Click to expand...

He has been caught on film openly ordering G-R to hurry up reloading guns, complaining that they should have had extras pre-prepared for him. No matter what his formal role was, he was clearly a hands-on directing and producing force.

Eta: I posted a better one earlier, but first hit on search:

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rust-trial-alec-baldwin-rushing-gun-reloads-1234978816/
 
Last edited:
Shrinker said:
Baldwin financed the movie? The trades say it was Streamline Global and BondIt Media Capital.
Click to expand...
Hollywood accounting.

lobosrul5 said:
He had creative input and was to be paid as a percentage of profit in exchange for financing. I think about an eighth of the projects total budget. That's what got him a producer credit. That's why I *think* the case against him will fail, if the prosecution goes for that angle. His role as producer was not that of a "line producer", someone with day to day operational authority. My main thought of why he might be found guilty is he blew off pertinent safety training by pulling a "do you know who I am". I don't know that happened, but its a guess that the prosecution has evidence he did.
Click to expand...

Thermal said:
He has been caught on film openly ordering G-R to hurry up reloading guns, complaining that they should have had extras pre-prepared for him. No matter what his formal role was, he was clearly a hands-on directing and producing force.

Eta: I posted a better one earlier, but first hit on search:

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rust-trial-alec-baldwin-rushing-gun-reloads-1234978816/
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not saying it's a slam dunk that Baldwin has the liability of a line manager or shift supervisor or something.

I'm saying that he had a financial and creative stake in the film. And that he's a bona fide movie star. And that he could have leveraged this to influence a culture of gun safety on his movie project. If he actually cared about gun safety. I doubt that this is enough to make a strong case against him in criminal court. But I think it's more than enough to make a strong case against him in the court of public opinion...

Gulliver Foyle said:
Still toting that line of bs I see.
Click to expand...
... Or maybe not.
 
theprestige said:
Hollywood accounting.




Yeah, I'm not saying it's a slam dunk that Baldwin has the liability of a line manager or shift supervisor or something.

I'm saying that he had a financial and creative stake in the film. And that he's a bona fide movie star. And that he could have leveraged this to influence a culture of gun safety on his movie project. If he actually cared about gun safety. I doubt that this is enough to make a strong case against him in criminal court. But I think it's more than enough to make a strong case against him in the court of public opinion...
Click to expand...

I don't know that legally speaking that will hold up. If you invest in "Rust LLC" your liability is going to be well, limited to your investment. That he should've used his influence as "Alec Baldwin the household name, formerly Jack Ryan for christ's sake"... probably gives him no more legal duty of care than anyone else on set.

Public opinion wise, honestly his interview on I think it was ABC News was a cluster ****. He's dead to Hollywood. No one is going to finance a project with him in a role ever again. The only roles he will ever get will be self financed.

ETA: oh to Thermals point about him hurrying takes. The prosecution in the case against G-R had witnesses that tore that up. Its very common for actors to do that. And they said in no cases that they saw did he harrass G-R to get weapons ready that abrogated safety. And they said in other instances he was concerned about doing thigs the safe way. I don't have links, sorry. ETA2: of course that was all framed in the context of whether G-R was guilty or not. Not whether Baldwin was, since that case was against her, not him.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
I don't know that legally speaking that will hold up. If you invest in "Rust LLC" your liability is going to be well, limited to your investment. That he should've used his influence as "Alec Baldwin the household name, formerly Jack Ryan for christ's sake"... probably gives him no more legal duty of care than anyone else on set.

Public opinion wise, honestly his interview on I think it was ABC News was a cluster ****. He's dead to Hollywood. No one is going to finance a project with him in a role ever again. The only roles he will ever get will be self financed.
Click to expand...

I'm betting against that. Money and power earn great forgiveness.
 
theprestige said:
Hollywood accounting.
Click to expand...

You can't hide behind that to say something that evidently isn't true. Self-financing a movie is ill advisable and irregular and would be very notable in this case. It should be possible to either find a link or stop saying it.
 
Shrinker said:
You can't hide behind that to say something that evidently isn't true. Self-financing a movie is ill advisable and irregular and would be very notable in this case. It should be possible to either find a link or stop saying it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why Baldwin buys the rights, then sells them, then contributes a 12% stake and gets hired to play the lead in the movie he totally wanted to make, complete with creative input.

I see a Hollywood accounting shell game, and a Hollywood player getting exactly what he wanted.

You see some rando actor getting a call from his agent telling him some rando casting director just so happened to think of him for some rando production and would he be interested in the part.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, which is why Baldwin buys the rights, then sells them, then contributes a 12% stake and gets hired to play the lead in the movie he totally wanted to make, complete with creative input.

I see a Hollywood accounting shell game, and a Hollywood player getting exactly what he wanted.

You see some rando actor getting a call from his agent telling him some rando casting director just so happened to think of him for some rando production and would he be interested in the part.
Click to expand...

I've no desire to insult anyone for not understanding how convoluted movie financing works, so maybe you could not insult me with silly caricatures. Barely anyone knows for sure exactly how Rust was financed but I can tell you that there's nothing at all odd about a creative passing his or her project over to another company to get the thing made while retaining some limited creative input. That's just normal and sensible business.

'Limited' is the key word, because actual producers don't want a bunch of creative opinions haunting their efforts to produce what is now their movie. Meanwhile the creative really doesn't want any part of production, which is mostly people-management, scheduling and stress. Hence we have Baldwin, hired to play a role, and retaining veto on script script changes, and no evidence yet of any management responsibilities.
 
Shrinker said:
I've no desire to insult anyone for not understanding how convoluted movie financing works, so maybe you could not insult me with silly caricatures. Barely anyone knows for sure exactly how Rust was financed but I can tell you that there's nothing at all odd about a creative passing his or her project over to another company to get the thing made while retaining some limited creative input. That's just normal and sensible business.

'Limited' is the key word, because actual producers don't want a bunch of creative opinions haunting their efforts to produce what is now their movie. Meanwhile the creative really doesn't want any part of production, which is mostly people-management, scheduling and stress. Hence we have Baldwin, hired to play a role, and retaining veto on script script changes, and no evidence yet of any management responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Nobody's alleging Baldwin had management responsibilities here.

I'm alleging that he had an investor/owner interest in the production, which he neglected to act on.
 
theprestige said:
Nobody's alleging Baldwin had management responsibilities here.

I'm alleging that he had an investor/owner interest in the production, which he neglected to act on.
Click to expand...

Okay could you point me at a source which confirms Baldwin paid in about $875,000 (12% of the budget) because google only wants to tell me how much he was taking out.
 
Shrinker said:
Okay could you point me at a source which confirms Baldwin paid in about $875,000 (12% of the budget) because google only wants to tell me how much he was taking out.
Click to expand...

Okay please understand that it's the same to my position either way.

Is it your position that Baldwin did not have a proprietary interest in this production?
 
theprestige said:
Okay please understand that it's the same to my position either way.

Is it your position that Baldwin did not have a proprietary interest in this production?
Click to expand...

It's my position that it's plausible that he didn't given what is common practice. A production company would typically want to buy movie rights from you rendering the resultant movie legally theirs and not yours, regardless of whether you're in it or retain some other credit or points on the box-office. Second, putting in your own money to make it is generally a big no-no. Movies get made all kinds of ways, but until somebody shows that Baldwin put in cash, or retained part ownership of the movie, I'm going to keep pointing out that there's a more than fair chance that he didn't.
 
Thermal said:
"I do love that last bit...Hey, directors are dime a dozen, right?"
Click to expand...

Frank Herbert was bailed up by a fan, at a SciFi convention, and the fan demanded to know how he could keep on churning out crap Dune novels.

Herbert reputedly said:

"Man, they keep giving me million dollar advances to write them, what would you do?"

Happily I haven't been tested by being put into that kind of position.
 
I probably wouldn't convict Baldwin even though I absolutely believe his actions and decisions resulted in the woman's death. Absolutely responsible civilly. But I just don't agree that this was forseeable. He had every reason to believe the gun wasn't loaded.
 
JayUtah said:
Armorer gets 18 months in prison.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68819796

The armourer, 26, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in March.

She was found not guilty of a second charge - tampering with evidence - over the 2021 shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.

The sentence Gutierrez-Reed received is the maximum possible.

Mr Baldwin, 65, also faces a manslaughter trial in July. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
I probably wouldn't convict Baldwin even though I absolutely believe his actions and decisions resulted in the woman's death. Absolutely responsible civilly. But I just don't agree that this was forseeable. He had every reason to believe the gun wasn't loaded.
Click to expand...

Is this the difference between Baldwin as an actor and Baldwin as a producer?
 
Lplus said:
Is this the difference between Baldwin as an actor and Baldwin as a producer?
Click to expand...

Either. But I do see as the producer, Baldwin failed. I can see the respondeat superior argument where Baldwin is responsible for hiring a 24 year old armorer who didn't take charge. But it still isn't a forseeable result. I don’t like Baldwin and there is a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing this privileged jerk get his comeuppance.

I definitely would hold him civilly accountable. But I don't see the use of sending him to jail.
 
acbytesla said:
Either. But I do see as the producer, Baldwin failed. I can see the respondeat superior argument where Baldwin is responsible for hiring a 24 year old armorer who didn't take charge. But it still isn't a forseeable result. I don’t like Baldwin and there is a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing this privileged jerk get his comeuppance.

I definitely would hold him civilly accountable. But I don't see the use of sending him to jail.
Click to expand...

I'm less sure about Baldwin the actor.

It seems that he skipped mandatory gun safety lectures (presumably Baldwin the producer failed to pull him up on this and allowed him to handle weapons without this, which indicates a lack of safety culture on set).

There was a walkout over the lack of safety, specifically around firearms, just before the fatal shooting. I would say that anyone on set (especially Baldwin, with his two hats) would have been aware of the safety concerns, specifically around the risk of contamination of non dummy rounds. As such, I would say that anyone was behaving negligently if they were handling guns on set after that and before there had been actions to investigate and resolve the unintended discharges.
 
jimbob said:
There was a walkout over the lack of safety, specifically around firearms, just before the fatal shooting. I would say that anyone on set (especially Baldwin, with his two hats) would have been aware of the safety concerns...
Click to expand...

The answer was staring us in the face: the Baldwin in the black hat is the bad guy.
 
jimbob said:
I'm less sure about Baldwin the actor.

It seems that he skipped mandatory gun safety lectures (presumably Baldwin the producer failed to pull him up on this and allowed him to handle weapons without this, which indicates a lack of safety culture on set).

There was a walkout over the lack of safety, specifically around firearms, just before the fatal shooting. I would say that anyone on set (especially Baldwin, with his two hats) would have been aware of the safety concerns, specifically around the risk of contamination of non dummy rounds. As such, I would say that anyone was behaving negligently if they were handling guns on set after that and before there had been actions to investigate and resolve the unintended discharges.
Click to expand...

This is where a competent armorer comes into play. Someone who will tell truth to power. Someone who will tell the actor Baldwin and the producer what's what.

I can see Baldwin being found guilty and why. He was in charge and is ultimately responsible for the woman's death. (Respondeat Superior) Nevertheless, he had no reason to forsee there being live ammo even being on the set.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
This is where a competent armorer comes into play. Someone who will tell truth to power. Someone who will tell the actor Baldwin and the producer what's what.

I can see Baldwin being found guilty and why. He was in charge and is ultimately responsible for the woman's death. (Respondeat Superior) Nevertheless, he had no reason to forsee there being live ammo even being on the set.
Click to expand...

The whole point of firearms safety protocols is to take the matter entirely out of the realm of forseeing, and prevent exactly this kind of "how was I supposed to know?" tragedy.
 
It would seem to me that there are two groups (labor unions and insurance groups) that would have strong incentives to push this issue.

A producer with a monetary incentive to cut corners shouldn't be in charge of safety. They need strong rules to get followed first, last and always. Don't, and you lose your bond immediately, and labor walks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom