MovieChat Forums > wrlord > Replies
wrlord's Replies
Dolly slept with EVERYONE.
Funny how atheists feel the need to proselytize.
Here's a wacky idea: don't hire a pink-haired teenage armorer who's more interested in taking selfies with guns than in learning to handle them responsibly.
He doesn't seem to understand what a police officer is.
"Certainly in that gif you posted, I can guarantee you that the cameraman was not directly behind it. "
That movie was made in 1903. The cameraman could have been nowhere BUT behind the camera, cranking it manually.
Agatha is neither. She is an old witch who is best known as Franklin Richards's babysitter.
She is most certainly not a superhero.
http://network9.biz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bond_gunbarrel-1.jpg
https://freerangeamerican.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DirtyHarry1-scaled.jpeg
https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/03/John-Wayne-in-Big-Jake-2.jpg
The very first commercial movie:
https://garrettzecker.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/robberytrain.gif
ummm.... I am a lawyer, ace.
You don't have many friends, do you?
Fine question, and one that will have to be asked and answered. As I understand it, it is the armorer's job to make sure the weapons used are safe. That might mean that they are inoperable, or it might mean that they have blanks only, depending on the circumstances. There are reports that the crew was using the very same gun for target practice. That's an unconscionable failure on the part of the armorer. There should never have been live ammo on the set, and live ammo should never have made its way into these weapons in the first place.
I don't see where I expressed offense.
I was 35, so... yeah.
One tweak to your otherwise spot-on analysis:
"If Baldwin was directly responsible for hiring an incompetent or otherwise unqualified armorer"
He doesn't have to have been directly responsible for her hire. If he has actual responsibility as a producer (and it's not just a credit, as often happens), then under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee taken in the course of that employment. So he need not have been involved in hiring her to be liable. However, I think it unlikely that he will have any personal criminal liability here.
Those alone do not point to manslaughter in this context (and I'm a lawyer too).
However, if Baldwin had some responsibility for the production, and there was criminal negligence on the set (and it sounds like there was), then he could be liable.
Mostly, though, it sounds like the armorer was a complete fuckup.
Chubby?? He was extremely fit on that show. Quite muscular.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/peter-scolari-tom-hanks-appearing-in-the-abc-tv-series-bosom-buddies-picture-id1236110482
At the same time??
So.... you've never watched a movie, have you?
Never thought Farley was funny, just energetic.
Funniest?
Murphy (by far)
Piscopo
Hartman
Miller
"Because the first rule of guns is never point them at anyone unless you want to kill them. Doesn't matter if its a unloaded gun or a gun loaded with blanks you don't point them at people. Pointing a gun at someone in Arizona is aggravated assault. Clearly he didn't just point it at someone he pulled the fucking trigger. He should be arrested for negligent homicide at the very least."
You don't seem to understand how movies work. Like, at all. What planet are you on?
So many stupid comments here. Why would Baldwin be pointing the gun at the camera? Really? You've never seen a shot where the actor is pointing the gun toward the camera? The only shooting you've ever seen is a master shot where the shooter and shootee are in the same frame?
Ever see the opening of a James Bond movie?

How about paying attention?
I hate Baldwin's politics, but he is not responsible for the condition of the weapon or its ammo; he's an actor doing what he is told to do. He is handed the weapon by the production crew.
In the Brandon Lee case, there was a projectile in the barrel and an overcharged blank sent it shooting out. There's probably something similar at play here. "Prop" guns are real guns.
How many of you armchair Sherlocks look inside the barrel of a weapon when you take charge of it?