Cont: Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun (2)

[JoeMorgue]

Not really for example in the Peter Jackson film Meet the Feebles they used live rounds in the M60 because they couldn't get blanks.

Then there was using a shotgun to make the head explode in Scanners.

Yes but cases like this, while arguably questionable, are distinctly different from it being the accepted industry standard to just simulate a gun firing on screen to take a real gun and modify it.

"We all just accept that to make a gun fire effect in a scene with actors the default way to to introduce an actual fire arm capable of fire live rounds and blanks or modified rounds" is the part that I think is rather absurd.

A special effect shot on a closed set is one thing and you could argue that still a bad practice but "Here actor take this totally real gun, point at this other actor, and pull the trigger don't worry we modified it so it shouldn't fire" is another.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes but cases like this, while arguably questionable, are distinctly different from it being the accepted industry standard to just simulate a gun firing on screen to take a real gun and modify it.

"We all just accept that to make a gun fire effect in a scene with actors the default way to to introduce an actual fire arm capable of fire live rounds and blanks or modified rounds" is the part that I think is rather absurd.

How else would you have done it 40 years ago? Before all the CGI how else would you get a muzzle flash and such to show that the gun if firing?

Now there is much less value in using real firearms and I have heard that this case made many directors and production companies stop using real firearms.

Hell back in the day they had sharp shooters shooting near actors to make it look like people were shooting at them, no one would do that today. The simple fact is that safety procedures are written in blood

 

[theprestige]

How else would you have done it 40 years ago? Before all the CGI how else would you get a muzzle flash and such to show that the gun if firing?

Prop gun, squib, lighting, camera angle, and editing to help sell the illusion. A sound effect in post. And never a real gun, never real bullets anywhere in the production, never a squib fired at close range towards anyone in the cast or crew. That's how I'd do it, if I didn't have the tech or the budget to do something more explicit.*

Moviemakers are well familiar with all the techniques of telling a story on screen, without actually showing what the budget or the technology will not allow. Any film school graduate can compose a scene in such a way that everything but the muzzle flash itself is shown, and every viewer comes away with the impression that they actually saw the gun fire. How many people could have sworn they saw a man's ear get cut off, on screen, in Reservoir Dogs?

This idea that filmmakers always try for the most physically accurate depictions possible is a laughable canard. There's tons of things on set that are obviously shallow, hollow fakes, that only look believable on camera, from a certain angle, with specific lighting. There's tons of things we see on screen that we know aren't realistic, but we accept them as real in the context of the story because they look believable in that context.

Top Gun didn't actually have Maverick fly an F-14 inverted over a MiG-28. The MiG-28 isn't even a real plane. But people still accept that's what they saw happen in that scene. Sam Raimi didn't give Tom Holland functional web shooters so that he could do real web-slinging travel among the skyscrapers of Manhattan. We all knew it was fake. It even looked fake a lot of the time. But we accepted it without question, because literal realism is not actually a highly valued thing in cinema. Never has been, never will be.

Filmmakers who go for literal realism are indulging a personal and unnecessary quirk, often to the detriment of the production. They're not upholding some general principle of good filmmaking. They're not even delivering what the viewers actually want.

---
*Speaking of explicit, if literal realism is so important, how come we never see people literally copulating on camera, in sex scenes? How come so many movies are able to believably convey the idea that two characters had sex, without even showing a simulated sex scene?

 

[acbytesla]

Prop gun, squib, lighting, camera angle, and editing to help sell the illusion. A sound effect in post. And never a real gun, never real bullets anywhere in the production, never a squib fired at close range towards anyone in the cast or crew. That's how I'd do it, if I didn't have the tech or the budget to do something more explicit.*

Moviemakers are well familiar with all the techniques of telling a story on screen, without actually showing what the budget or the technology will not allow. Any film school graduate can compose a scene in such a way that everything but the muzzle flash itself is shown, and every viewer comes away with the impression that they actually saw the gun fire. How many people could have sworn they saw a man's ear get cut off, on screen, in Reservoir Dogs?

This idea that filmmakers always try for the most physically accurate depictions possible is a laughable canard. There's tons of things on set that are obviously shallow, hollow fakes, that only look believable on camera, from a certain angle, with specific lighting. There's tons of things we see on screen that we know aren't realistic, but we accept them as real in the context of the story because they look believable in that context.

Top Gun didn't actually have Maverick fly an F-14 inverted over a MiG-28. The MiG-28 isn't even a real plane. But people still accept that's what they saw happen in that scene. Sam Raimi didn't give Tom Holland functional web shooters so that he could do real web-slinging travel among the skyscrapers of Manhattan. We all knew it was fake. It even looked fake a lot of the time. But we accepted it without question, because literal realism is not actually a highly valued thing in cinema. Never has been, never will be.

Filmmakers who go for literal realism are indulging a personal and unnecessary quirk, often to the detriment of the production. They're not upholding some general principle of good filmmaking. They're not even delivering what the viewers actually want.

---
*Speaking of explicit, if literal realism is so important, how come we never see people literally copulating on camera, in sex scenes? How come so many movies are able to believably convey the idea that two characters had sex, without even showing a simulated sex scene?

It's just not that simple. You can do almost anything on screen if you have a 200 million dollar budget. But the challenge is making it look realistic on a shoestring budget. And making it look realistic is easier if everything is real.

In camera shots are much cheaper than CGI. Fixing everything in post make production costs skyrocket.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cap guns were invented before the Civil War, spare me.

 

[acbytesla]

Cap guns were invented before the Civil War, spare me.

Cap guns don't sound like real guns and don't look like real guns. And when I was a kid toy manufacturers tried to make them realistic. But not any more. So getting companies to do limited production is much more expensive.

 

[lobosrul5]

Prop gun, squib, lighting, camera angle, and editing to help sell the illusion. A sound effect in post. And never a real gun, never real bullets anywhere in the production, never a squib fired at close range towards anyone in the cast or crew. That's how I'd do it, if I didn't have the tech or the budget to do something more explicit.*

Moviemakers are well familiar with all the techniques of telling a story on screen, without actually showing what the budget or the technology will not allow. Any film school graduate can compose a scene in such a way that everything but the muzzle flash itself is shown, and every viewer comes away with the impression that they actually saw the gun fire. How many people could have sworn they saw a man's ear get cut off, on screen, in Reservoir Dogs?

This idea that filmmakers always try for the most physically accurate depictions possible is a laughable canard. There's tons of things on set that are obviously shallow, hollow fakes, that only look believable on camera, from a certain angle, with specific lighting. There's tons of things we see on screen that we know aren't realistic, but we accept them as real in the context of the story because they look believable in that context.

Top Gun didn't actually have Maverick fly an F-14 inverted over a MiG-28. The MiG-28 isn't even a real plane. But people still accept that's what they saw happen in that scene. Sam Raimi didn't give Tom Holland functional web shooters so that he could do real web-slinging travel among the skyscrapers of Manhattan. We all knew it was fake. It even looked fake a lot of the time. But we accepted it without question, because literal realism is not actually a highly valued thing in cinema. Never has been, never will be.

Filmmakers who go for literal realism are indulging a personal and unnecessary quirk, often to the detriment of the production. They're not upholding some general principle of good filmmaking. They're not even delivering what the viewers actually want.

---
*Speaking of explicit, if literal realism is so important, how come we never see people literally copulating on camera, in sex scenes? How come so many movies are able to believably convey the idea that two characters had sex, without even showing a simulated sex scene?

However, while Top Gun was not made with a MiG-28, a real actual jet fighter was used for filming (an F-5 I believe). And, a stunt pilot died while making the film (Top Gun was not a good example for you to use). Going for the real thing as much as possible is something quite common, at least in major productions, even with stunt people dying here and there.

That said, always going for nothing but practical effects and not using the post productions tools available does also negatively effect films. Nolan's Dunkirk is a great example of that. There is no code in the director or producers guild that everything must be done as realistically as possible, you are certainly correct there.

There's probably some room in the middle between, careless use of real guns where real ammo gets on set, to nothing but rubber facsimiles allowed with everything done post with CGI.

 

[lobosrul5]

Cap guns don't sound like real guns and don't look like real guns. And when I was a kid toy manufacturers tried to make them realistic. But not any more. So getting companies to do limited production is much more expensive.

The MPAA or some such could band together and have non-fireable but realistic gun props made that could be shared among productions.

The sound really isn't an issue. What you hear in the theater is rarely what was recorded live.

 

[theprestige]

It's just not that simple. You can do almost anything on screen if you have a 200 million dollar budget. But the challenge is making it look realistic on a shoestring budget. And making it look realistic is easier if everything is real.

No, it isn't. Film productions don't build real houses because real living rooms look more realistic. They build disproportioned and garishly colored partial structures that are obviously fake, but happen to look believable on camera, from certain angles and specific lighting setups.

People have been filming believable gun killings on shoestring budgets for decades. This is a solved problem. Has been for a generation or more.

 

[acbytesla]

However, while Top Gun was not made with a MiG-28, a real actual jet fighter was used for filming (an F-5 I believe). And, a stunt pilot died while making the film (Top Gun was not a good example for you to use). Going for the real thing as much as possible is something quite common, at least in major productions, even with stunt people dying here and there.

That said, always going for nothing but practical effects and not using the post productions tools available does also negatively effect films. Nolan's Dunkirk is a great example of that. There is no code in the director or producers guild that everything must be done as realistically as possible, you are certainly correct there.

There's probably some room in the middle between, careless use of real guns where real ammo gets on set, to nothing but rubber facsimiles allowed with everything done post with CGI.

I'm sure there is. And I'm also sure they are usually applied. Accidents costs money. Insurance skyrockets. Studios have incentives to make conditions safe. But almost every endeavor has calculated risks. I don't presume to know how to manage those risks for everybody.

I think the Top Gun anecdote shows that safety, realism and costs are issues on any film set. I remember the helicopter incident on the Twilight Zone. Every film set should be safe as possible and not just the movies that use firearms. But I also think it's ridiculous for us non-movie guys to tell them how to do their business.

 

[Thermal]

I'm sure there is. And I'm also sure they are usually applied. Accidents costs money. Insurance skyrockets. Studios have incentives to make conditions safe. But almost every endeavor has calculated risks. I don't presume to know how to manage those risks for everybody.

I think the Top Gun anecdote shows that safety, realism and costs are issues on any film set. I remember the helicopter incident on the Twilight Zone. Every film set should be safe as possible and not just the movies that use firearms. But I also think it's ridiculous for us non-movie guys to tell them how to do their business.

When they have a corpse with a bullet in it lying on the set, it's actually an outstanding time for a layperson to query "You ******* half wits were doing what???"

 

[lobosrul5]

No, it isn't. Film productions don't build real houses because real living rooms look more realistic. They build disproportioned and garishly colored partial structures that are obviously fake, but happen to look believable on camera, from certain angles and specific lighting setups.

People have been filming believable gun killings on shoestring budgets for decades. This is a solved problem. Has been for a generation or more.

Sure, by either renting, or purchasing and then re-selling, real guns and using blanks and dummy ammo.

And we get a fatality about 3 times a century out of it. Should we as a society accept the extremely low onset fatality gun death rate while filming, or spend resources fixing this problem rather than another one instead?

 

[acbytesla]

When they have a corpse with a bullet in it lying on the set, it's actually an outstanding time for a layperson to query "You ******* half wits were doing what???"

Did you go back and tell them what to do about other accidental deaths?

How about the producers of the movie Indian 2 in 2020? There a crane carrying a heavy flash light fell on the set killing three people

How about Wonder Man where a man fell off a catwalk and died.

How about the stunt accident that went wrong in the the 2024 movie Pickup?

Or when Actor Ryan Fellows died in a car crash during the filming of Street Outlets?

Is it only the firearms accidents that get your attention? Apparently.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sure, by either renting, or purchasing and then re-selling, real guns and using blanks and dummy ammo.

And we get a fatality about 3 times a century out of it. Should we as a society accept the extremely low onset fatality gun death rate while filming, or spend resources fixing this problem rather than another one instead?

It simple if we want more qualified and safer Armours we can either make Dummy rounds safer, or have every Armour snap the gun against their own head to prove the Dummy rounds are actually Dummy rounds.

 

[Thermal]

Did you go back and tell them what to do about other accidental deaths?

How about the producers of the movie Indian 2 in 2020? There a crane carrying a heavy flash light fell on the set killing three people

How about Wonder Man where a man fell off a catwalk and died.

How about the stunt accident that went wrong in the the 2024 movie Pickup?

Or when Actor Ryan Fellows died in a car crash during the filming of Street Outlets?

Is it only the firearms accidents that get your attention? Apparently.

Oh ffs, a bullet didn't accidentally fall on Hutchins. She was shot, by a man who pointed a loaded gun at her and fired. Nothing about it was a mechanical failure or momentary loss of control or other "accident". It was people treating killing tools like toys for no goddamned reason. As others are saying here, we are way past this, technologically, so her death was for absolute zero other than laziness and arrogance, and yeah, that's ******* gut wrenching in a was that a legitimate accident is not.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh ffs, a bullet didn't accidentally fall on Hutchins. She was shot, by a man who pointed a loaded gun at her and fired. Nothing about it was a mechanical failure or momentary loss of control or other "accident". It was people treating killing tools like toys for no goddamned reason. As others are saying here, we are way past this, technologically, so her death was for absolute zero other than laziness and arrogance, and yeah, that's ******* gut wrenching in a was that a legitimate accident is not.

It was an accident. A terrible tragedy. And yes precautions should be made.

7 people were killed and 1 person was paralyzed in film set accidents for movies released in this decade which isn't half over. Only 1 of them was the result of a firearm accident.

38 people were killed and multiple people were paralyzed in Film Set accidents for movies or TV shows released in the 2010 decade. Only one was the result of a firearm. That being the Oklahoma PD on the set of COPS.

Judging from what I just read, if we want to movie sets to be safe, we would be better off banning helicopters from movie productions instead of firearms.

 

[Thermal]

It was an accident. A terrible tragedy. And yes precautions should be made.

7 people were killed and 1 person was paralyzed in film set accidents for movies released in this decade which isn't half over. Only 1 of them was the result of a firearm accident.

38 people were killed and multiple people were paralyzed in Film Set accidents for movies or TV shows released in the 2010 decade. Only one was the result of a firearm. That being the Oklahoma PD on the set of COPS.

Judging from what I just read, if we want to movie sets to be safe, we would be better off banning helicopters from movie productions instead of firearms.

Everything in the world is dangerous. Reasonable precautions can be taken so that everyone involved in the dangerous thing can be reasonably safe.

That utterly failed at all levels here, by multiple people being totally negligent. That's what pisses me off, not the fact that it was guns. Hubris and IDGAF filling a body bag is enough to piss off the Pope more so than someone losing their balance on a catwalk.

 

[acbytesla]

Everything in the world is dangerous. Reasonable precautions can be taken so that everyone involved in the dangerous thing can be reasonably safe.

That utterly failed at all levels here, by multiple people being totally negligent. That's what pisses me off, not the fact that it was guns. Hubris and IDGAF filling a body bag is enough to piss off the Pope more so than someone losing their balance on a catwalk.

We can argue about this incident until the cows come home. They failed. That is self evident. But i see no evidence they DGAF. I think HGR was under the impression and still under the impression that she was doing it right.

The production hired an armorer. Someone who was young but who had been around guns and movie sets her entire life. From my perspective, this could be just as much about Seth Kenney as HGR and I don't see him being charged.

I have a serious problem with only this 24 year old being singled out and going to jail out of 45 deaths on film sets in the last 14 years. I'd almost bet, we could go back another 30 plus years and dozens of other film set accidents and nobody else went to jail for those tragic accidents either.

 

[Thermal]

We can argue about this incident until the cows come home. They failed. That is self evident. But i see no evidence they DGAF. I think HGR was under the impression and still under the impression that she was doing it right.

The production hired an armorer. Someone who was young but who had been around guns and movie sets her entire life. From my perspective, this could be just as much about Seth Kenney as HGR and I don't see him being charged.

There's no direct evidence that Kenneu had anything to do with anything. It's all circumstantial and speculative. He supplied (at least some of) the boxes of dummy rounds, but there's no saying G-R or someone else actually mixed them up.on site. No unopened boxes of ammo were found, for example, or Seth's fingerprints on a live round.

In contrast, there is abundant evidence that G-R was wildly neglecting her obligations and responsibilities. There is no doubt whatsoever.

But agreed, we've said our respective pieces

I have a serious problem with only this 24 year old being singled out and going to jail out of 45 deaths on film sets in the last 14 years. I'd almost bet, we could go back another 30 plus years and dozens of other film set accidents and nobody else went to jail for those tragic accidents either.

If they were accidents, maybe no one should be charged. If they were careless dereliction of duty, they should.

Also agreed, Hannah shouldn't be the Lone Ranger in the blame game here. She might be the easiest to prove, but a lot of asses should be hung out to dry for this one.

 

[acbytesla]

There's no direct evidence that Kenneu had anything to do with anything. It's all circumstantial and speculative. He supplied (at least some of) the boxes of dummy rounds, but there's no saying G-R or someone else actually mixed them up.on site. No unopened boxes of ammo were found, for example, or Seth's fingerprints on a live round.

In contrast, there is abundant evidence that G-R was wildly neglecting her obligations and responsibilities. There is no doubt whatsoever.

All the evidence against HGR was either circumstantial or witness evidence which in my mind is very often worse.

By the available evidence Kenny looks like the source of live ammo being mixed in with dummy rounds in that box. I find it suspicious that the ammo from his office was gone when it finally was searched.

I don't believe Kenney could still be charged. The state screwed that up. But his possible involvement provides me with enough doubt to believe HGR checked that round and believe she heard it rattle.

That's enough for me to conclude that making her criminally negligent is an injustice.

 

[theprestige]

All the evidence against HGR was either circumstantial or witness evidence which in my mind is very often worse.

By the available evidence Kenny looks like the source of live ammo being mixed in with dummy rounds in that box. I find it suspicious that the ammo from his office was gone when it finally was searched.

I don't believe Kenney could still be charged. The state screwed that up. But his possible involvement provides me with enough doubt to believe HGR checked that round and believe she heard it rattle.

That's enough for me to conclude that making her criminally negligent is an injustice.

HGR was the production armorer. It was her gun and her bullet that killed Hutchins. If the ammo supplier introduced a live bullet to her, it was her responsibility to weed it out.

 

[Thermal]

All the evidence against HGR was either circumstantial or witness evidence which in my mind is very often worse.

By the available evidence Kenny looks like the source of live ammo being mixed in with dummy rounds in that box. I find it suspicious that the ammo from his office was gone when it finally was searched.

What are you talking about? The live ammo from the 1883 set was found in the search. Nothing was "gone".

Hannah had her chops busted for losing dummies by Kenney, and she told investigators that she hustled loose rounds from her last set and her step father. That's enough for me to be concerned about contamination of what Kenney provided.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-weapons-provider-seth-kenney-provided-live-rounds/story?id=107778471

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

HGR was the production armorer. It was her gun and her bullet that killed Hutchins. If the ammo supplier introduced a live bullet to her, it was her responsibility to weed it out.

If it was physically Impossible for her to do that then she is not responsible one accident at Joe Swanson's Manufacturing could have set up the causical chain of events that caused the accident.

 

[theprestige]

If it was physically Impossible for her to do that then she is not responsible one accident at Joe Swanson's Manufacturing could have set up the causical chain of events that caused the accident.

I do not subscribe to your Rube Goldberg theory of shifting blame away from the responsible parties.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What are you talking about? The live ammo from the 1883 set was found in the search. Nothing was "gone".

Hannah had her chops busted for losing dummies by Kenney, and she told investigators that she hustled loose rounds from her last set and her step father. That's enough for me to be concerned about contamination of what Kenney provided.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-weapons-provider-seth-kenney-provided-live-rounds/story?id=107778471

Those rounds connection to 1883 is only though Seth Kenney's word, he could have easily purchased those semi wad cutter reloads at the local Range, he was shown pictures of the live rounds months before the seach at PGQ, he could have easily disposed of any Rifle rounds that looked like the live rounds from Rust.
Though I don't really think Seth Kenney is to Blame, I think the Assistant Armour they hired for the live shoot, forgot to unload one of the Lever action Rifles Magazines. Perhaps a bullet Jammed in the Magazine, and he did pay close enough attention and visual inspect, just cranked the Lever until Rounds stopped coming out. That's a classic accident waiting to happen.
When the Rifles were reloaded with blanks on the 1883 set, the live rounds could have been mistaken for dummy rounds and loaded into Dummy boxes, with actual dummy rounds.
Then Hannah accidentally picks the one round out of the box that rattled when shaken. Puts it into Baldwin's gun at half Cock. Next to battery, we know the gun had black powder Fowling because Hannah had to clean the Cylinder. She should have cleaned the gun, but Sarah and Seth Kenny were getting onto her for taking to long to Clean the guns.
So sand got into the gun on the prop cart, stuck to the Black powder fowling and stuck the trigger in the pulled position, causing the gun to hammer fire, when Baldwin released the trigger.
What I find funny about Seth Kenney's story about the Semi Wadcutters not clambering in the Lever actions, when I have shot Semi Wadcutters from a lever action.
Why would bullets have to be separated out for experienced Armour's?
If an Armour can't identify the types of bullets that work in a gun the Armour should be fired. Seth Kenney's story just doesn't make since to me.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I do not subscribe to your Rube Goldberg theory of shifting blame away from the responsible parties.

That's because your not actually looking at causation as a factor here, and probably don't have the same experience I do, when Seth Kenney's story doesn't add up for logical reasons.

 

[theprestige]

That's because your not actually looking at causation as a factor here, and probably don't have the same experience I do, when Seth Kenney's story doesn't add up for logical reasons.

I feel like I have a reasonable amount of experience with stories that don't add up for logical reasons.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "okay but other types of accidents kill more people" (which I have repeatedly acknowledged) thing doesn't work if the only reason the gun accidents happen is because of an easily fixable way of doing things.

Don't bring real guns or anything capable of firing an actual bullet on set period is the solution and that solution has no down side.

"But whaddabout I don't think it look realis-" I SAID NO ******* DOWNSIDES.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I feel like I have a reasonable amount of experience with stories that don't add up for logical reasons.

Many stories that are true don't on the face of them add up, but that doesn't prevent them from being true.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The whole "okay but other types of accidents kill more people" (which I have repeatedly acknowledged) thing doesn't work if the only reason the gun accidents happen is because of an easily fixable way of doing things.

Don't bring real guns or anything capable of firing an actual bullet on set period is the solution and that solution has no down side.

"But whaddabout I don't think it look realis-" I SAID NO ******* DOWNSIDES.

Howabout simply don't bring real bullets on set and build a system where real bullets can't get on set?

 

[whoanellie]

Howabout simply don't bring real bullets on set and build a system where real bullets can't get on set?

If only there was somebody on set whose job it was to make sure of this.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If only there was somebody on set whose job it was to make sure of this.

Yes a person but why use a person when you can build a scanner, attached to a cell phone that can see inside a bullet and tell you what's inside?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If only there was somebody on set whose job it was to make sure of this.

What about putting a Makers mark on every dummy and requiring it by law, if film makers can live with starlines branding mark that not over 40 years old surely they can stamp a d on the head of a Dummy round to mark it as a dummy round.

 

[acbytesla]

That's because your not actually looking at causation as a factor here, and probably don't have the same experience I do, when Seth Kenney's story doesn't add up for logical reasons.

My question is this. Is it possible for a live round to rattle at least a little? If the answer is yes, there is no way I could convict HGR. That's enough reasonable doubt for me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Howabout simply don't bring real bullets on set and build a system where real bullets can't get on set?

Because that's functionally a lot harder then just not bringing modified guns on set for no purpose and for no reason.

Again having modified actual fire arms that can fire real bullets if someone makes a mistake is not something we have to balance against because THERE IS NO UPSIDE.

I don't get the hard one some of you have for "Okay what's the minimal amount of actual real modified guns..."

NONE! It's none! Problem solved with no margin for error! End of discussion. No downside.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ted: "Steve in this scene your character is going to drink poison."
Steve: "Cool, cool. So what I'm just going to drink water with food coloring or something?"
Ted: "Oh no that's not realistic enough. You're going to drink the actual poison, but don't worry we've watered it down so it's below the lethal dose, you'll be fine."
Steve: ".... is that safe?"
Ted: "Oh absolutely. Don't worry we have a trained chemist on set who's job it is to water down the poison."
Steve: "Oh... okay I guess that will work."
Ted: "Great. And ACTION!"
*Steve drinks the poison, and immediately keels over dead.*
Ted: "Oh crap. I guess our poison water downer was bad at their job."

Some People Here: "Well obviously the answer is to get better poison water downers."
Me: "Or we could just not use poison at all in any way so the 'process' for handling the poison doesn't matter."
Some People Here: "No that totally wouldn't look right on screen."

 

[acbytesla]

Ted: "Steve in this scene your character is going to drink poison."
Steve: "Cool, cool. So what I'm just going to drink water with food coloring or something?"
Ted: "Oh no that's not realistic enough. You're going to drink the actual poison, but don't worry we've watered it down so it's below the lethal dose, you'll be fine."
Steve: ".... is that safe?"
Ted: "Oh absolutely. Don't worry we have a trained chemist on set who's job it is to water down the poison."
Steve: "Oh... okay I guess that will work."
Ted: "Great. And ACTION!"
*Steve drinks the poison, and immediately keels over dead.*
Ted: "Oh crap. I guess our poison water downer was bad at their job."

Some People Here: "Well obviously the answer is to get better poison water downers."
Me: "Or we could just not use poison at all in any way so the 'process' for handling the poison doesn't matter."
Some People Here: "No that totally wouldn't look right on screen."

That analogy doesn't quite work. But I have no problem with having disabled firearms. But really isn't my call. Because frankly, I don't have a clear idea how it affects the production of the movie.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That analogy doesn't quite work.

Why not? Explain why. Use small words. And remember "It makes my argument look bad" doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

[acbytesla]

Why not? Explain why. Use small words. And remember "It makes my argument look bad" doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Because there is likely other factors. Nobody has a clue what poison looks like. Poison doesn't produce smoke, recoil, sound etc. And maybe there is a reason to fire real ammo sometimes. Fake firearms might be more costly.

What I'm saying, is I don't know all the reasons and rationality for a production to do it the way they do. And I'm not interested in passing laws telling them.

 

[Thermal]

Those rounds connection to 1883 is only though Seth Kenney's word, he could have easily purchased those semi wad cutter reloads at the local Range, he was shown pictures of the live rounds months before the seach at PGQ, he could have easily disposed of any Rifle rounds that looked like the live rounds from Rust.

Random conspiracy theory. You keep.taking testimony at face value (like Hannah saying the live round rattled), but you randomly insist that Kenney is playing cloak and dagger, tampering with evidence and setting a perfect stage. That's not reasonable. Hannah is the only one that anyone has testified to tampering with evidence about (the baggie of coke she asked a friend to "hold").

Though I don't really think Seth Kenney is to Blame, I think the Assistant Armour they hired for the live shoot, forgot to unload one of the Lever action Rifles Magazines. Perhaps a bullet Jammed in the Magazine, and he did pay close enough attention and visual inspect, just cranked the Lever until Rounds stopped coming out. That's a classic accident waiting to happen.
When the Rifles were reloaded with blanks on the 1883 set, the live rounds could have been mistaken for dummy rounds and loaded into Dummy boxes, with actual dummy rounds.

Holdup. Why would dummy rounds have been in a tube mag? You can't see them on screen. And the dummies have bullet heads on them so they would look stupid being lever ejected.

Then Hannah accidentally picks the one round out of the box that rattled when shaken.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume such a round existed, or ever existed anywhere at any time for that matter.

Also, you kept insisting earlier that it was steel shot mixed into the powder. Lately you've suddenly been saying lead shot. Did you finally realize that the steel shot would have almost certainly scar the rifling in the barrel, which would have been discovered, so you switched to lead?

Puts it into Baldwin's gun at half Cock. Next to battery, we know the gun had black powder Fowling because Hannah had to clean the Cylinder. She should have cleaned the gun, but Sarah and Seth Kenny were getting onto her for taking to long to Clean the guns.
So sand got into the gun on the prop cart, stuck to the Black powder fowling and stuck the trigger in the pulled position, causing the gun to hammer fire, when Baldwin released the trigger.

Doesn't explain how the trigger got depressed in the first place, or how a pinned back trigger wasn't noticed when the cylinder was inspected for rounds. If it wasn't pinned back when sitting on the tray, then Baldwin must have pulled it.

What I find funny about Seth Kenney's story about the Semi Wadcutters not clambering in the Lever actions, when I have shot Semi Wadcutters from a lever action.
Why would bullets have to be separated out for experienced Armour's?
If an Armour can't identify the types of bullets that work in a gun the Armour should be fired. Seth Kenney's story just doesn't make since to me.

Occam is snarling about the boatloads of unevidenced conditions you have to assume to make any of this explanation work.