You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Blimey was just reading that... does seem to mirror what happened with Brandon Lee on that Crow movie.
Just seen that, how tragic ☹
Not the first time it's happened using a real gun with suposedly blank cartridges and ending up killing someone.
Been a few instances over the years, let's hope the production and the armourer on set were well insured.
Let's hope that there was an armourer on set!
Terrible for all involved and I would think Baldwin will be in a real bad place mentally after this, I would be.
As for the grief of the families, that's on an even deeper level of tragedy.
So can this happen even if only blanks are loaded, or would a real bullet need to have been accidentally loaded for this kind of thing to occur?
I have no idea how blanks work, but I assumed they didn’t have a projectile?
at extremely close range the exhaust gas from a blank has enough force to punch through the skull and kill. I knew someone who died like that (his mate was larking around with a blank firing pistol). Though i doubt it's what happened in this case as there were 2 victims suggesting a live round or something in the barrel.
If foreign objects have somehow got into the chamber/barrel then the explosion of the blank cartridge will fire them out at high speed.
That's part of the reason the military use blank-firing adapters in blank-firing exercises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank-firing_adaptor
Obviously doesn't look good to have one of these on a prop weapon in a film.
Absolutely tragic and sadly not that uncommon. Armourer should have some questions to answer I suspect. The ease with which accidental discharges can occur is one of the reasons why the military take these things incredibly seriously
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/P5T47JC6/DD7-FAAD7-3-C41-408-F-8-E26-AC8-A60-F41-F8-E.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/P5T47JC6/DD7-FAAD7-3-C41-408-F-8-E26-AC8-A60-F41-F8-E.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I have no idea how blanks work, but I assumed they didn’t have a projectile?
As Klunk says ins possible either the gas alone could kill or the wadding but it would need to be extreme close range.
I would guess its going to be live rounds were mixed up with dummy rounds.
Although could be a case like Brandon Lee. Which had a incorrectly constructed dummy round which resulted in a bullet getting stuck in the barrel so that when blanks were fired it was effectively a live round.
If foreign objects have somehow got into the chamber/barrel then the explosion of the blank cartridge will fire them out at high speed.
In the case of Brandon Lee, I believe they had used a realistic looking dummy bullet to film a close up of the gun being loaded. They then didn't notice the actual bullet (ie. projectile part) of the dummy had been retained in the chamber, so when a blank was loaded behind it they had basically made themselves functional round of ammunition.
As above, this one sounds odd as you've really not going to manage to seriously hurt/kill two people with just a blank. It's either a Brandon Lee style chance-in-a-million screw up, or simply there was a live round floating around.
I'm not sure how prop guns generally work - though you obviously can't have a blank-firing adaptor hanging off the end of the barrel, you still need a functional equivalent in a semi-automatic/automatic in order to restrict gases enough to build enough pressure/energy to cycle the action.
That BFA entry is interesting and suggests that movie props are sometimes fitted with disguised attachments, or may have some kind of barrel constriction.
After Brandon Lee incident a lot was made of never actually pointing prop guns directly at other actors but slightly off, just in case. Speculation here but it sound perhaps like the gun was pointed at camera killing one crew member and injuring another.
There have been other incidents too, you've got to think the solution is to stop using bullets or blanks - 20 years ago The Matrix used CGI for a lot of their gunshots, muzzle flashes etc. Must be even easier and cheaper to CGI it these days.
Interestingly the lady killed wasn't an actress but the director of photography, so not shot during filming of a scene.
Edit: "Speculation here but it sound perhaps like the gun was pointed at camera killing one crew member and injuring another"
Ahhhh, yep.
I doubt CGI is cheaper or easier TBH.
or may have some kind of barrel constriction.
Yes it is needed for semi/fully automatic weapons since they generally work by having some of the gas trapped behind the bullet being diverted back and moving the action*. So without a bullet you need some other way of blocking the barrel and diverting some of the gas backwards.
Its not needed though for manual action weapons eg revolvers, bolt action rifles and so on.
*there are exceptions eg a gatling gun uses a electric motor to crank in the next round.
I doubt CGI is cheaper or easier TBH.
I kinda meant cheaper than 20 years ago, but even so probably cheaper than having on set gun handlers and safety people etc. that are required for on set firearms. It's pretty amazing how much is done post production now, mostly unnoticed by viewers.
That's terrible news. I imagine Alex Baldwin and everyone else involved are absolutely devastated. I had a lousy week at work, but this really puts things in perspective.
double post
That's going to screw with his head for a long time to come, feel sorry for him and obviuously the family of the deceased.
This is typical with countries where there are not bans on hand guns, it's too easy and cheap to use real ones and then just use blank cartridges, however there is an issue with using real and blanks;
1. The projectile of a real round also causes back pressure, which is what turns a pistol (non S&W type) into a semi automatic. If you remove the projectile it will not re-cock.
2. To get around this you either block off the chamber towards the end, or you use a BFA - in the case of films these are desguised as the silences (surpressors) similar to the big yellow ones the army use.
3. If you completely block the chamber, you still need a gas exhaust port, these are normally ontop of the barrel near the ejection port - the issue here is that you can see them if you look closely enough, which for films is never good.
4. Purpose made blank firers are what should onyl ever be used in films (personal opinion) - the barrels are always blocked off, and there are loads of brands that have very good imitations which are perfectly legal to buy on-line. The bad thing is that they are easily drilled out and turned into working weapons.
edit - sorry see dissonance got thre first..
It was a 19th century western so it would have been a revolver, not an automatic.
Also, it would be pretty simple to fit a battery and actuator into a semi-auto so that it was electrically powered and could only fire blank cartridges, but still looked like like a real weapon.
It's America, it's a probably a handgun. Im guessing some doofus put real bullets in it 'for fun'. Thats exactly the sort of genius move I can well imagine around half the US population thinking was a good idea.
Im guessing some doofus put real bullets in it ‘for fun’.
Not a chance. Most likely, a blank was fired too close and into a camera, and the force of exit gasses displaced something from the filming equipment that injured two very close bystanders looking directly at the weapon, one fatally.
thols2
Free Member
It was a 19th century western so it would have been a revolver,
makes it even worse of a f up. So much easier to have the barrels blocked off an not affect the operation and using blanks with a dummy head..
There's a lot of assumptions being made unless some more details of the gun and process have been released.
Been a few instances over the years, let’s hope the production and the armourer on set were well insured.
Let’s hope that there was an armourer on set!
Apparently Baldwin is the producer (or a least a producer) on the film.
It's all speculation at the minute TBH, but very sad for everyone concerned.
Interestingly the lady killed wasn’t an actress but the director of photography, so not shot during filming of a scene.
The DoP would be on set during filming, so Google tells me.
Ahhh... right.
(although I meant right in with the actors during the shooting of the scene- see what I did there?!)
Ah, yeah, gotcha.
Not a chance.
Still going with regular bullet myself. I think you under estimate the ability for americans to do stupid stuff with guns.
BBC say it was live bullets in the gun.
How the hell did they end up with live rounds in there?!
It amazes me that no basic handling skills on a Hollywood film, very first lesson with any sort of firearm is "blanks or not, never point a weapon towards anyone....EVER!!"
Live rounds. S***.
I wonder why live rounds were even on the set?
Why do they even need blank-firers?
Multi-million pound budgets for films and they can't make a prop gun that goes 'click' and then add flash-bang in post?
“blanks or not, never point a weapon towards anyone….EVER!!”
Going to be a bit difficult making a film under those constraints; don’t point it at another actor, don’t point it at the camera man, don’t point it towards people on set, may be just point it up in the air?
BBC say it was live bullets in the gun.
I’m sure I’m being incompetent but I can’t find that anywhere. Could you give a link?
Going to be a bit difficult making a film under those constraints; don’t point it at another actor, don’t point it at the camera man, don’t point it towards people on set, may be just point it up in the air?
My understanding, possibly from watching a YouTube, was that on set you never point a real gun at a person, loaded or otherwise. If you need to point it at person then it needs to be a dummy model gun.
I’m sure I’m being incompetent but I can’t find that anywhere.
You’re not is doesn’t mention live rounds.
Tragic stuff and from what I’ve read the director was injured by the camera not directly by the firearm.
Going to be a bit difficult making a film under those constraints; don’t point it at another actor, don’t point it at the camera man, don’t point it towards people on set, may be just point it up in the air?
No, not at all it’s easy for them them to give the impression they’re pointing at someone with different shots and camera angles.
Judging from the below it seems that pointing blank firers at crew and cast, as well as using real guns seems may still be quite the norm;
It remains unclear whether Baldwin was rehearsing or actually filming a scene at the time of the incident, and if so, why the discharged gun was pointing towards crew members rather than a fellow actor.
On Friday, the director Ben Rockula called for the use of blanks to be outlawed. “They’re extremely dangerous and under the best of circumstances they eat time,” he wrote.
“Every time you have to shoot a scene with blanks, you’re going to lose 30 minutes to safety meetings, passing out ear plugs to the entire crew, setting up Plexiglass and plywood, on and on. It has to be done to avert tragedies like this. And it doesn’t always work.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/22/on-set-fatalities-halyna-hutchins-alec-baldwin
Which had a incorrectly constructed dummy round which resulted in a bullet getting stuck in the barrel so that when blanks were fired it was effectively a live round.
That's the main risk IIRC. Something substantial getting stuck in the barrel like a squib, for example, and it not being cleared before firing a blank.
BBC say it was live bullets in the gun.
Probably a shotgun then. Would seem impossible to confuse a blank metallic cartridge with a real one.
that would be insane, letting live shotgun rounds on set :/
Would seem impossible to confuse a blank metallic cartridge with a real one.
It was a western so possibly a revolver with what was supposed to be a dummy round as opposed to a blank in it for a close up of it being loaded or waved around with a close up of the front of the cylinder.
that would be insane, letting live shotgun rounds on set :/
what am i thinking when it comes to guns the yanks are nuts.
According to the very-most-reliable source that is the NY Post, it was a single live round.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/22/prop-gun-used-by-alec-baldwin-in-shooting-contained-live-round-union/
As sad as this story is i would be interested to know what the deal is for filming with guns in the uk. Imagine you were the set manager or whoever was responsible for doing the risk assessments. There are exemptions for firearms licences for filming purposes but even so i imagine trying to get insurance ( well, you would hope so) would involve huge amounts of hoop jumping. Im meeting a chap tomorrow who has been in a few action films in the uk so i shall ask him.
In the UK I would think there is a far lesser risk of getting a real shell mixed up with blanks?
So much easier to walk into a shop in America and buy your hearts content. Only takes someone to bring some on set for Lord knows what reason and things could get complex.
That said, there is no info I can find that a real shell was used anyway?
According to BBC some crew members walked off set before the incident, wonder if that included the armourer??
I think they also said that it was the director or assistant director that handed over the gun, not the armourer.
Reading the news reports this morning about live rounds getting mixed up with blanks had me gobsmacked.
How can something like that happen in such a litigious country like the USA?
I hope whoever responsible has a good legal team (although that doesn't bring back the dead).
There was an armourer on Radio Scotland yesterday morning, basically because it was a period piece it was almost certain that they would be using live firearms. What they didn't understand was how a live round could be mixed in since they should be using specially constructed blanks (nothing special about them but it tends to be the same individuals who make them for the movie industry). Brandon Lee was mentioned but from what he said that was big enough that anyone competent should be considering that eventuality every single time.
Tragic accident, absolutely.
@cougar I've often considered that myself, why not propane actuated (like nail guns) so you can still get muzzle flash?
Yeah a few more details this am that it was a live round, the armoured and others had walked of set and the assistant director handed the gun over saying “cold gun” which is used for a unarmed gun.
Visual inspections, press checks etc. I guess its a training thing across the board. Lets see what comes out in the report in a few weeks time.
As sad as this story is i would be interested to know what the deal is for filming with guns in the uk.
Its not any different really- there are an enormous range of circumstances in which you might feature a gun, (or what looks like a gun) on screen and an enormous range of circumstances in which you'd fire it and appear to fire it - and at one extreme that gun will be a cast replica in foam rubber and at the other it would a real AK47 and live rounds. The first choice is always to fake it and you only have something that actually goes bang if you really require it to (not least as mentioned above - it just eats time and money). All the crap above about 'crazy Americans ' and the idea that someone would just pop into Walmart and just buy a few rounds of live ammo for a film is horse shit frankly - down to something as innocuous as a paper bag the things you put in an actor's hands on set are very rarely real.
They just kept dumping the experienced crewmembers who complained and replacing them with non-union people. By the time of the accident, the film’s armorer was a 24 year old woman who’d only worked on one film before. Just a lack of experience through cutting corners.
theres a lot be said in this particular moment about the circumstances the world of film-making is in. Post covid you have a unique situation where there has been a year long break in film making and drama production and in that time a housebound audience who have consumed all the film and TV available to them. Production companies and streaming services are absolutely desperate for content because if they don't refresh the list fast they're going to lose subscribers. They are commissioning and making as much and as fast as they possibly can right now. In that sense its a boom time. I've been working solidly since July 2020 with hardly a break and I'm booked through to next May. Its the most constant and consistent workload I've been under in the last 30 years. My bank balance looks nice, my garden is a mess.
There was already a shortage of experienced crew prior to lockdown - in the context of the current boom its great that theres so much work but frustrating that you can't get the expertise you need to do that work with you. On my current and previous production there were quite a few people acting up into senior roles for the first time and on this current one there are key roles that are just unfilled - we're working in a studio - there is no studio manager. The most senior role in my department is actualy working two jobs in tandem - we're lucky if we see him two days a week - which means everyone below him as well as doing their own job is actually also have to do aspects of hus. And that skills shortage will be a global one at present
The film world is routinely one of long hours and no breaks - very much so in the UK (we make a lot of boast about productions 'choosing to come and film in the UK' but the attraction is really just one weak unions of un-regulated working hours seemingly make us good value compared to our neighbours (although in practice because tired people make mistakes long working days are in reality no more productive)
But the US is worse and the length of working day, unpaid extra hours and travel time beyond that to and fro to set means crew are routinely working car-crash tired week in week out. Listenng to colleagues over there - it can be a weekly occurance to stop at a traffic light and just fall asleep there. Its truly mind boggling the length of day and lack of sleep crew are expect to function on.
These two things have created a perfect storm really - people are working beyond their experience, for exceptionally long hours, without the necessary number of key qualified crew around them. It was already coming to a head - The US crew sector for were already on the verge of a strike in the last week or so - without doubt they will be in a day or two.
On the production where this took place crew were already refusing to turn up on set as the crew accommodation they'd been booked into was 50 miles away from the location they were filming on - adding two hours unpaid time to an already long working day.
Looking at the incident in question its worth knowing who the people involved actually are and what they do. Its kind of obvious what an actor does - but in the context of a scene where this might have happened - they don't walk on set until everything is ready to go - a prop - like a gun - won't be put in their hand until that moment. (don't be distracted by mention of Baldwin being a 'producer' on the film - thats usually nothing more than a deferred pay deal - trading an up-front fee for royalties effectively makes them a financier of the film)
Also involved were the Director, the 'Director of Photography' and the 'Assistant Director' - these three people are the three most important and senior people on set when cameras and cast are there.
The Director is the director - obviously - you sort of know what they do - they have the artistic vision and shape the action on screen
The victim in the this instance was the Director of Photography - they're not 'the camera man' although they may well be holding the camera - if they're not they're glued to a monitor and directing the person who is - but they're alsoin charge of the whole lighting and filming of the scene - camera depaprtment, the grips, the gaffer and lighting department all work under them
The 'Assistant Director' is also mentioned - this sounds like a minor role as it has the word 'assistant' in it - its not the Director's PA - at some point in the evolution of cinema the job of Director split into two roles - the artistic lead of the film and the managerial lead of the shoot.. They are the most senior management role on set in a change of all the other on-set departments. If you ever stand on a film set you will hear the AD's voice all day - working with a radio ear piece in it feels like you have two internal monologues - your own thoughts and the AD's. Everyone on set marches to their drum - they schedule and manage everything about the shoot - they decide when you get up in the morning, when you can eat, when you can go home - when you hear 'action' and 'cut' its the AD that says 'action', its the director that says 'Cut'. Its baffling to see a good AD work - I don't know how they can keep so many plates spinning, minute by minute all through the day.
They're also in charge of safety - they issue the RA's for the day - and the buck very much stops with them.
In this instance, no matter who the armourer, is it was the AD who hand the gun to the actor and declare it to be safe. The circumstances in which the gun was used, and where it was pointed, and who was in the room were all under the AD's control and instruction. Whether the gun was handed to the AD by the armourer or whether the AD picked up what he believed to be the correct gun is unclear at present. As is why a live round was even present on that day or even on that production. There may have been perfectly good reasons for a live round to be available for something on that day but obviously not for the moment in which that gun was handed to the actor.
Thing for me, as people all over the internet are saying, is that gun safety training is always about "every gun is always loaded" should be your assumption every time you pick up a gun. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
If someone hands you a gun and tells you it’s unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
That sounds straight forward - but in the particular circumstance of a filmset - the door might not be a door, the chair might not be a chair, food might not be food and a gun might not be a gun. It might not open and if it does - maybe you see a 'bullet' but the bullet might not be a bullet. More often than not things are fake but every effort is made to make them look real. Its the job of crew around the actor to know what the 'things' are and the job of the actor to make us think the things are real.
a gun might not be a gun
Yes, so you check what it is when it is handed to you. If it's a real gun, you open the breech and check that it's not loaded.
If someone hands you a gun and tells you it’s unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
Whilst I have sympathy for that point. If he's been told it's loaded with a blank and to point it at the camera and shoot*, how is the actor to know which are the blanks and which are live (having just been told that it's a blank).
Should they also know how to fly a plane incase that need ever comes up whilst filming in the back seat of a Cessna? Not really, that's how delegation works. In this case as Maccruiskeen says, they're all working under the AD, they can delegate the tasks, but the buck stops with them for making sure they're done.
*supposing this is what happened
If he’s been told it’s loaded with a blank
He was told it was a "cold gun", i.e. not loaded with any live ammunition. If he had been told it was loaded with blanks, he should have treated it as a gun loaded with real ammunition.
Yes, so you check what it is when it is handed to you. If it’s a real gun, you open the breech and check that it’s not loaded.
As per what @maccruiskeen wrote, why would an actor know how to do that or have any need to do it? Besides, the whole point of this is that it [b]should[/b] be loaded for the scene you're about to do - blanks, drill rounds or live ammo depending on what's being filmed.
The procedure for handing weapons over is that you do the unload, check it, show it to the person you're handing it to with a phrase to the effect that it's a safe weapon, the person receiving it checks it then takes it. But that wouldn't apply on a film set where you're handing a prop to an actor in the state where the actor can then use it in the take.
Oof, be interesting to see how this pans out. My experience on set as an extra of a few productions varied in terms of weapons safety, from downright shocking to rigid.
All depends on the armoury company and trainers. Briefly tempted to apply for a job with a company, but decided the risks outweighed the gains! Some people just don't take safety seriously.
why would an actor know how to do that or have any need to do it?
They would need to know it if they were on a job where they were required to handle firearms.
They would know how to do it if they were given a 30 minute training session on firearm safety.
This. ^
Most decent productions want actors to look natural with weapons so will often have some form of training package for them.
Time will tell once the police finish their investigation.
Am I the only one that fears this was malicious? Crew all replaced by non union crew, next day this happens?
Whatever there are some serious questions about the safety procedures and the skills / experience of the folk involved.
Its the sort of thing that should never happen. Procedures should be watertight with multiple redundant checks
The various threads over on Reddit seem to be at odds with @maccruisekeen insay that in the US absolutely everything related to firearms on set is the sole responsibility of the armourer. A few have chimed in with what, to me, seem like fairly sensible run downs of how they run the firearms side of things down to having firearms and ammunition in separate locked boxes that only they touch and only they have the keys for, processes for confirming what kind of ammunition is loaded, etc. There seems to be a degree of shock that the gun was handed to Baldwin by anyone other than the set armourer.
Which then brings up the stories about 3 previous accidental discharges this week, unionised crew members walking off set because of safety concerns, inexperienced non-union crew members being brought in to cover and the set armourer being a 24 year old film college graduate with only one previous film under their belt.
Edit: misinterpreted maccruisekeen's post, as you were
I'd just wait until the investigation has been completed, reality is this was with an old style revolver, either genuine or new build, so the issue could be mechanical, such as the sear being damaged, or issues with other areas as well as live ammunition being in the weapon, very rarely is this type of accident down to just one thing going wrong.
As for this scenario, i have no clue how they work weapon safety into films, i'd also wonder about their terminology for an armourer, i doubt it's the same level of profession as in other weapon users areas, i just don't have a clue why they'd want real ammunition to be anywhere near a film set, what would you need this for when you have blanks and you have dummy ammunition for close up stuff, the big issue with live ammo is there is no way of stopping the projectile coming out the barrel, so no chance of adding any mitigation to stop this happening again.
and the set armourer being a 24 year old film college graduate with only one previous film under their belt.
This may or may not be true - She's been named in the press as a result of someone having seen a copy of the call sheet for the day which refers to her as the 'Head Armourer' but the actions or otherwise of an armourer (her or anyone else) haven't been part of any description of the event that I've seen so far. So she may not have been present - maybe there wasn't armour present which was why the AD was handling the gun
The head of a department isn't necessarily the person on set. I'm an HOD currently and I'm not even allowed on set when the cast and shooting crew are there - the shoot crew are their own covid bubble and on a different, more stringent testing regime to the rest of us. Each department is as much involved in preparing for future elements of the shoot as the actual day's filming - that department will have a 'standby' on set managing those specific daily needs but it wouldn't likely be the Head of Department unless its a department of one.
Yeah I can understand that, but then what's the worst that could happen if Head of Continuity isn't on location? The cast of Downton end up using an anachronistic set of bone china for tea in the drawing room. My point being it's not life or death.
Of all the disciplines you'd think would be included in the "covid bubble" surely Armourer should be top of the list, especially on a set and for a scene where they're handling/firing revolvers.
"Lets see what comes out in the report in a few weeks time"
Of all the disciplines you’d think would be included in the “covid bubble” surely Armourer should be top of the list,
I'm not saying that an armourer wouldn't be on set just that 'Head Arnourer' implies theres more than one on the production and just by being named on the call sheet it doesn't imply that they should or would have been the one present on set.
Kinda sure I posted a clip of Partridge shooting one of his guests on his talk show….. 🤔
You did. What do you think might happen if you posted it again?
I was actually wondering if live rounds might be needed for some shots (for instance, the archetypal target practice/breaking bottle scene)?
Live rounds on set? Holy shit.
I was actually wondering if live rounds might be needed for some shots
Sure, but common sense would dictate that you keep a log of all ammunition and lock it back into storage once the live shooting is finished. The record of ammunition purchased should match the remaining stock plus the ammunition fired. And all weapons should be checked that they are unloaded and signed back into the armoury as soon as the live firing is finished. Having a mixture of loaded and unloaded weapons lying around and people not knowing which is which is just asking for trouble.