Alec Baldwin Conspiracy Theories

Axxman300 said:
I will say it again: If the gun is not fired in the scene the gun in the actor's hand is NOT A REAL GUN.

A Prop-Gun doesn't have bullets because it is INCAPABLE of firing bullets. They are either gas-powered replicas or rubber replicas painted to match the real weapons.

An actor who is not going to handle a real gun on set doesn't need to know anything about guns, and it often shows.

When a REAL GUN is brought onto set the actor gets a safety briefing IN FULL VIEW OF THE AD AND CREW about how to work the gun, how to load the gun, how to handle/not handle the gun. and how to CHECK THE GUN TO MAKE SURE IT IS LOADED WITH BLANKS.

People who work on sets where this basic safety requirement is not met often walk off, shutting down production until the director gets the entire crew on the same page. The union crew walked off the set of this movie for this exact reason.

And yes, the insurance company underwriting this film will probably balk at any payout, and the producers will end up eating it because they had cut corners which violated basic safety protocols, and thus negating their insurance coverage.

I'm not sure what the confusion is on this subject. An actor being familiarized with the firearm they are using is not the same thing as weapons training or marksmanship. Guns are simple to use, two year-old children kill people every year with guns because they are simple tools on the functional level. Four year-olds have been known to load magazines of 9mm or .45 caliber handguns, insert the magazine into the weapon, figure out the safety, and blow someone (or themselves) away. We're not talking about landing a 747 here.

There is no reason any actor cannot be successfully instructed in the basic safe handling and use of a firearm on set.
Click to expand...


And if the charecter he or she is playing is supposed to be experienced in handling firearms, it would help his or her performance to know how a "pro" would handle a gun.
 
Orphia Nay said:
It's basically the golden oldie, "The dog ate my homework".
Click to expand...

Yeah, so like wouldn't the makers of her next project just hire another cinematographer if something happened to their first choice? I mean the cinematographer isn't exactly in charge of the informational content of a documentary. They just film it.
 
Craig4 said:
Yeah, so like wouldn't the makers of her next project just hire another cinematographer if something happened to their first choice? I mean the cinematographer isn't exactly in charge of the informational content of a documentary. They just film it.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the imagamoghophy tells the story. Like the villain's lairs in the old Batman series. You just slant the camera a bit and everything becomes [Mermaid ManWP voice] EEEEVIIIIIL[/Mermaid Man voice].
 
Last edited:
Now we're talking...this ought to fan the CT flames.

Speaking on the "Today" show Wednesday Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence claim that the bullets their client loaded into the gun on the day of the shooting were taken from a box that was only supposed to contain dummy rounds that were incapable of firing. However, because the ammunition was left unattended from roughly 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. that day, they believe the opportunity was there for a disgruntled crew member to mix a live round into the box.

"We don’t know, however, whether that live round came from that box," Bowlees said. "We’re assuming it did. We’re assuming somebody put that live round in that box, which, if you think about that, the person who put the live round in the box of dummy rounds had to have the purpose of sabotaging the set. There’s no other reason you would do that. That you would mix that live round with the dummy rounds."

The attorneys stopped short of making any kind of legitimate allegation against anyone, calling the idea of intentional sabotage just one of many working theories that they are investigating at this time.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...eculate-sabotage-deadly-alec-baldwin-shooting
 
So...dummy rounds are used when a shot includes a close-up of the actor with the gun pointed at the camera, and with revolvers the dummies make it look as if it is loaded with live rounds.

Dummy round have the accelerant and primer removed, and a couple of BBs are inserted before the round is reattached to the shell casing. The BBs are there so the prop master/armorer can shake them and hear the casing rattle, and thus indicating it is a dummy round.

So a quick check of all the rounds in the gun as it was loaded would have prevented this from happening. Also, the guns should never be left unattended for any length of time, and if they are they must all be re-checked for safety before distribution.

Whatever else was going on at that movie set, basic gun safety was not one of them.
 
The simple idea that all actors should follow the four rules of gun safety makes sense until we realize that scripts often calls for them to handle guns unsafely.

T.V. shows and movies regularly portray characters pointing guns at someone, often with no intent in the story of shooting them (that one drives me nuts) or "fictionally" shooting them.

If actors, not the director, are required to demand "show me the gun is safe" before they touch it (which I think is a good idea) then it follows that they have to know a prop gun or, a blank or dummy round when they see one. Frankly, it doesn't seem like too much to ask for actors to learn enough about guns to be able to this.

That way if the armor says, "I checked it, Mr. Baldwin." that wouldn't be good enough and the whole system gets one more check. This sort of procedure is outlined in Axxman300's post above

But requiring the actors to do so would mean that every actor becomes a safety officer because they'd logically be required to determine that any potentially dangerous special effect is safe before they do the scene.

That sounds okay when you are trying to teach the simple idea that each gun on set has to be safe. The English Shakespearian actor who hasn't been any closer to a deadly weapon than the rubber dagger in Hamlet can grasp gun safety.

But are actors supposed to check out the car that's going to explode behind them? The explosive charge that mimics a bullet going into the door frame next to their heads?

I am sure there are plenty of stories about veteran actors saving the day by asking who the kid is that's setting up a charge or where Billy Bob, the guy who always does this stuff is.

We'll see how this all turns out in court. But I have a feeling that the criminal and civil courts are not going to hold Baldwin responsible for the shooting. . .unless he was financing the film.

--------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 136 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.
 
Last edited:
Whatever you see on screen has been rehearsed multiple times. Guns with blanks are fired a minimum of 25 feet from where the muzzle is pointed.

Actors are not responsible to know about the set-up for the explosions but they are part of the safety briefings before that shot goes down. Their movements are blocked and marked with colored tape so they know where to walk/run and take cover. Every second is of the shot is covered in advance. If the actor or crew members have questions they are answered. There are safe-zones for the crew set up well away from the action.

In the case of Rust, her lawyers are trying to claim the armorer was set up because she's not union. Okay, let's say this is true. It makes no difference. The real guns should be secure in a safe until needed, and she should be the only one loading them. The fact the some of the crew used the guns for target practice (plinking cans) is a cardinal sin on a movie set. No live bullets should ever make their way to a movie set. The fact this was a thing speaks to the unprofessionalism of the armorer and the production team and the director.

Nobody can put a live round into a gun by accident on a modern movie set, and had the basic safety rules followed on every other movie and TV set been followed the live bullet would have been caught by the armorer, the AD, and Mr. Baldwin. But no, all three dropped the ball and a woman is dead.
 
arayder said:
The simple idea that all actors should follow the four rules of gun safety makes sense until we realize that scripts often calls for them to handle guns unsafely.

T.V. shows and movies regularly portray characters pointing guns at someone, often with no intent in the story of shooting them (that one drives me nuts) or "fictionally" shooting them.

If actors, not the director, are required to demand "show me the gun is safe" before they touch it (which I think is a good idea) then it follows that they have to know a prop gun or, a blank or dummy round when they see one. Frankly, it doesn't seem like too much to ask for actors to learn enough about guns to be able to this.

That way if the armor says, "I checked it, Mr. Baldwin." that wouldn't be good enough and the whole system gets one more check. This sort of procedure is outlined in Axxman300's post above

But requiring the actors to do so would mean that every actor becomes a safety officer because they'd logically be required to determine that any potentially dangerous special effect is safe before they do the scene.

That sounds okay when you are trying to teach the simple idea that each gun on set has to be safe. The English Shakespearian actor who hasn't been any closer to a deadly weapon than the rubber dagger in Hamlet can grasp gun safety.

But are actors supposed to check out the car that's going to explode behind them? The explosive charge that mimics a bullet going into the door frame next to their heads?

I am sure there are plenty of stories about veteran actors saving the day by asking who the kid is that's setting up a charge or where Billy Bob, the guy who always does this stuff is.

We'll see how this all turns out in court. But I have a feeling that the criminal and civil courts are not going to hold Baldwin responsible for the shooting. . .unless he was financing the film.

--------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 136 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.
Click to expand...



There is a difference between handling a gun in a dangerous manner, and pretending to handle a gun in a dangerous manner.
If a scene invovles using a gun in a way that would be dangerous in real life,then gun safety becomes even more important.
I think that should be obviious, but I guess not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom