Tarantino says Baldwin is partially to blame for the womans death
share
He certainly is. He was the Director after all, and I would have thought that any actor would check a gun as soon as they're handed one before using it in any scene, even if the armourer has supposedly thoroughly checked it themselves. It's pure common sense isn't it.
Let's not forget Halyna Hutchins, RIP.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/233286231/halyna_anatoliivna-hutchins
So , when the armorer hands you an AK47 , you'd empty all 30 bullets out of the magazine to check they are all blanks?
how long would that take?
Would you still do it if it was another actor handing you the gun mid scene?
I’m curious if you did the same thing as old Alec boy here, do you really believe you wouldn’t be in prison right now?
shareNo, D-feet, according to safety guidlines the armorer should demonstrate the gun is safe, not just say it is. The actor should also only use the gun as intended and not play around with.
Nobody, even off-set, should start shooting a gun unless they know what's in it.
My quarrel here, to be clear, does not apply to this particular incident ,it with all the people saying
"the rules on the set are the same as the rules outside the set"
or
"All the safe gun handling rules should be observed on the set just as they would be on the range"
This is patently impossible
How do you act out putting a gun to someones head when the "safe gun handling rules" say never do that?
Also in the real world people are checking for the existence of bullets or not - not trying to distinguish blanks from live.
What happens when one actor passes another a gun? he starts emptying it ?
no because the characters dont do that in the mnovie
they make that safe by the armourer emptying it before hand and then keeping an eye on it as the actors pass it around , or whatever, point is : different procedure
"How do you act out putting a gun to someones head when the "safe gun handling rules" say never do that?"
On a movie set the armorer should show the actor the gun isn't loaded. But preferably, that would be a prop and not a real gun that is used for shooting blanks.
"What happens when one actor passes another a gun? he starts emptying it ?"
Elaborate, because I don't know what you mean.
well they always say "Check a gun whenever its handed to you" , characters in films obviously dont do that .
Okay, I really had to read your previous posts again, because you aren't making much sense, D-feet.
So you're seriously asking if an actor has to check the gun after another actor hands him the gun during a scene? Well, of course not. Firstly, because they'd most likely use a prop for such a scene. A live gun should only be used in a scene where an actual shooting takes place. But if handing over the gun and the shooting all happens in one take, I would expect guidelines to advise that both actors who handle the gun are present when the safety of the gun is demonstrated by the armorer.
The point is the procedure is different to outside the movie set , glad you agree.
I would further postulate that the "both actors present" bit is unnecessary when you have an armorer whos entire job is to make sur there are no live bullets in the gun/prop
sure it would be nice , but not always possible - what if the scene requires the gun to be removed from a safe? Besides there are 1000 situations in real life where you put your trust in a machine / person and dont "check it out when its handed to you" .
Like flying on an airplane for instance.
"The point is the procedure is different to outside the movie set."
Is that the point? I didn't see Deckard make the claims that you supposedly have a quarrel with. (I also did not agree with you at that point either, see again below.)
"I would further postulate that the "both actors present" bit is unnecessary when you have an armorer"
No, because the point is that everybody who handles the gun is shown the safety of it.
"sure it would be nice , but not always possible - what if the scene requires the gun to be removed from a safe?"
Why would that make it impossible, D-feet? The armorer shows the gun to the actor before the scene starts, puts it in the safe and filming begins.
As I said I' replying generally to the countless threads from gun enthusiasts proudly proclaiming that the exact same safety rules they follow day to day must be observed at all time on a movie set, which as I think we've both just established is impossible.
but specifically Deckard said he would unload all the bullets from a mag to check them when the armourer hands it to him. I dont mean flick open a revolver and look - i mean he said he'd empty 30 bullets from an AK47 and put them back .
I think thats unnecessary, given the presence of the armourer whose job is to do that for them.
whats with the D-feet?
You replied to Deckard specifically and questioned him when he simply said the actor should check the gun. Which isn't so ridiculous if you handle a gun as you can't simply take the armorer's word for it. Even the protocol on the set of Rust required a double-check, which they didn't follow.
"which as I think we've both just established is impossible."
No, we did not...at all...D-feet.
So you would fully empty out 30 bullets from a mag and put them back in again when the armourer hands you the gun?
I don't know how realistic the scenario is of an actor requiring to shoot a AK-47 with a round of 30 bullets. But why can't I be present when the armorer shows me the blanks and the loading of the gun? Safety guidelines advise the armorer demonstrates the gun is safe and only loads it at the very last minute.
share