- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'Rust' armorer breaks silence, blames producers for unsafe conditions
Posted on 10/29/21 at 7:08 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 10/29/21 at 7:08 pm to upgrayedd
quote:This too is a simplistic assessment at this point. We have absolutely no idea what role Baldwin played in the management of this production.
It's his company. He's her boss.
Yes, he was one of six “producers“ on the production, alongside another for executive producers. Baldwin’s role could be anything from ultimate boss on the set down to an actor given a vanity title to make him eligible for various awards.
We just do not know if this point.
Locke
0
Posted on 10/29/21 at 7:43 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Dear Alec B,
Rule # 1 when choosing an low cost armorer for your low budget flick. Never, ever ever hire an armorer that has a Crow tattooed on her arm when it is well known that Brandon Lee got murdered with another unloaded gun on the set of a movie called.....wait for it.....The Crow.
Signed,
Crow Pie
Rule # 1 when choosing an low cost armorer for your low budget flick. Never, ever ever hire an armorer that has a Crow tattooed on her arm when it is well known that Brandon Lee got murdered with another unloaded gun on the set of a movie called.....wait for it.....The Crow.
Signed,
Crow Pie
This post was edited on 10/29/21 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 10/30/21 at 12:15 am to AndyCBR
quote:I think you're maybe missing a bigger picture here
Then guns don't get handled if she is not on set. They are supposed to be inaccessible to anyone but the armorer.
Again, they are under control of the armorer, that's the whole point
quote:I don't think it was Baldwin, and I don't think they "broke the locks".
If she left the guns unsecured and went to Starbucks she is fricked. It's just like if you left a loaded gun on the table in your house and someone gets shot with it. It's manslaughter by definition.
I don't know all the details but I know damn well what the armorer's job is. Unless AB got to her truck/trailer and broke the locks on all the gunboxes, safes, trigger guards and walked to the set it is on her.
But the sense I get from this, is that apparently someone else had access, besides her.
I'm looking at the director who was running the rehearsal.
I don't think he pried the locker open with a crowbar, because everyone would think he's insane and there would have been no rehearsal.
But there WAS a rehearsal, with weapons present, without the armorer.
He used his position as 'supreme leader of this movie' on a tight budget, to circumvent safeguards. That would be consistent with the other complaints, and the earlier walk-off of part of the crew. They didn't like what was going on.
Those that stuck it out wanted to get paid, get a break into the field, etc.
This is not on the armorer who isn't present, any more than a fire is on the electrician who isn't present and the project manager decides to wire a building himself, because he's in charge.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 12:51 am to Scoob
quote:
who is the second person?
I can't remember the title of the second person. My failing memory says it was someone that dealt with crap similar to what the armourer did. Props director or some shite like that.
I am not trying to defend her. But if by chance she isn't at fault then I don't want her railroaded.
Alec is guilty regardless of anyone elses actions.
He had no business intentionally pointing a gun at a member of the film crew and pulling the trigger.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 1:08 am to AndyCBR
quote:
That's not how it works in filmmaking. It's the armorers job and the talent is not supposed to handle the firearm except for as prescribed in the scene.
AB is a jerk for other reasons but you don't want untrained actors waving around guns and trying to figure out how to clear them. It's not their job.
This is pretty simple and many of ya'll are making it out to be more complicated than it is.
Then he shouldn't be handling fire arms. Every fire arm is loaded, even if you just unloaded it, it should be treated as loaded.
The person pulling the trigger is the one with utmost responsibility. It does not matter if a holy man blessed it before the scene. The fire arm is loaded if I am using it.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 1:40 am to Jack Carter
Jeez, they put 'that' in charge of guns 
Couldn't they tell by looking at it why it wasn't a good idea in the first place.
Couldn't they tell by looking at it why it wasn't a good idea in the first place.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 7:01 am to Scoob
quote:
But the sense I get from this, is that apparently someone else had access, besides her.
Then she wasn't doing her job. Perhaps whomever was paying her took control but again the guns aren't supposed to be accessible to anyone but the armorer.
Typically, the armorer also provides the guns as part of the contract. IE they own them, it's their property.
quote:
I'm looking at the director who was running the rehearsal.
I don't think he pried the locker open with a crowbar, because everyone would think he's insane and there would have been no rehearsal.
But there WAS a rehearsal, with weapons present, without the armorer.
Perhaps, at this time we don't know all the details. Again, if the armorer was in control of the firearm and allowed (or did not prevent) someone else using it without them present they are in trouble.
quote:
This is not on the armorer who isn't present, any more than a fire is on the electrician who isn't present and the project manager decides to wire a building himself, because he's in charge.
I disagree. In this case the "electrician" should have had the gun stored in such a way it was inaccessible by others. There should have only been a safe with access by the armorer.
Regardless, it appears this whole production was screwed up. It is unfortunately no surprise when we later hear there were struggles with safety all along and this was a low-budget affair.
Now, who do you believe purchased and brought the live ammo to the set? Did this rogue director go down to Academy and buy a box of live ammunition also?
Posted on 10/30/21 at 7:04 am to Revelator
quote:
So she’s not responsible for the responsibilities of her one job?!
Sums up a certain set of our population
Posted on 10/30/21 at 7:10 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
Then he shouldn't be handling fire arms. Every fire arm is loaded, even if you just unloaded it, it should be treated as loaded.
The person pulling the trigger is the one with utmost responsibility. It does not matter if a holy man blessed it before the scene. The fire arm is loaded if I am using it.
Sorry that's not how it works in movie production. Often, functional guns loaded with blanks are used and pointed at other people under the supervision of an armorer.
If that is your policy (and it's not a bad one) you wouldn't be able to work as an actor during a gun scene.
I'm sure this is OK with you.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 7:41 am to My Name Is Not Rick
I think you might be technically right but he's a total idiot for not double checking it himself, I don't care if the pope told him it was empty.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 11:25 am to themunch
It gets hard to discuss things here, when people get 100% locked into their own point of view and are not open or willing to discuss or learn.
Point #1, the continuous tirade that Baldwin should have checked the firearm himself.
It's been stated repeatedly, and well established, that actors do NOT check their prop guns. That they are NOT ALLOWED to do so. That if they wish to continue working, they will follow the set protocols of the industry... namely, they are handed "a prop", and they are to do only and exactly what they are directed to do with it.
It's not just Baldwin, it's every single actor onscreen in any movie or TV show. That includes your favorite actor in your favorite film.
The fact that a firearm is potentially more dangerous than other props, makes this rule paramount. It is in place to allow for firearms novices to do their job safely. The expert is the one who does that, immediately prior to the prop being handed to the actor.
*this incident is a breach in chain of custody, but the actor followed the protocols.
Point #2, the insistence that the armorer is at fault in this case, despite her not being present on the set at the time.
In fact, I'd argue the other way- the director, or whoever obtained the firearm prop without the armorer present, is the one at fault.
It is THEY who breached the protocol.
Yes, the armorer is "responsible", but they do not set up Claymores around the gun safe. Nor do they carry the prop guns with them 24/7 on their body, to prevent others from accessing them.
It is standard operating procedure that only the armorer is to access the prop gun, but there is (has to be, in case of lost or broken key etc) a second set of keys. You operate in the assumption that the crew will be adults, and follow the rules. If the armorer is not present, the director or whoever has that second set of keys should not go into that locker, just because he wants to film or rehearse that scene.
This rule was clearly breached. If the armorer wasn't present, there's a good chance the use of the prop wasn't on schedule. No reason for her to be there. If you go off schedule, that's on you, not on everyone else following the schedule.
Point #1, the continuous tirade that Baldwin should have checked the firearm himself.
It's been stated repeatedly, and well established, that actors do NOT check their prop guns. That they are NOT ALLOWED to do so. That if they wish to continue working, they will follow the set protocols of the industry... namely, they are handed "a prop", and they are to do only and exactly what they are directed to do with it.
It's not just Baldwin, it's every single actor onscreen in any movie or TV show. That includes your favorite actor in your favorite film.
The fact that a firearm is potentially more dangerous than other props, makes this rule paramount. It is in place to allow for firearms novices to do their job safely. The expert is the one who does that, immediately prior to the prop being handed to the actor.
*this incident is a breach in chain of custody, but the actor followed the protocols.
Point #2, the insistence that the armorer is at fault in this case, despite her not being present on the set at the time.
In fact, I'd argue the other way- the director, or whoever obtained the firearm prop without the armorer present, is the one at fault.
It is THEY who breached the protocol.
Yes, the armorer is "responsible", but they do not set up Claymores around the gun safe. Nor do they carry the prop guns with them 24/7 on their body, to prevent others from accessing them.
It is standard operating procedure that only the armorer is to access the prop gun, but there is (has to be, in case of lost or broken key etc) a second set of keys. You operate in the assumption that the crew will be adults, and follow the rules. If the armorer is not present, the director or whoever has that second set of keys should not go into that locker, just because he wants to film or rehearse that scene.
This rule was clearly breached. If the armorer wasn't present, there's a good chance the use of the prop wasn't on schedule. No reason for her to be there. If you go off schedule, that's on you, not on everyone else following the schedule.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 11:42 am to mmcgrath
Meh, I’m not an expert at gun handling either. Oldest rule in the book is don’t point a pistol before you check each chamber. It takes 5 seconds. Total display of arrogance and “I don’t give a shite” by Alec Baldwin.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 12:21 pm to My Name Is Not Rick
quote:
Meh, I’m not an expert at gun handling either. Oldest rule in the book is don’t point a pistol before you check each chamber. It takes 5 seconds. Total display of arrogance and “I don’t give a shite” by Alec Baldwin.
quote:Case in point
Point #1, the continuous tirade that Baldwin should have checked the firearm himself.
It's been stated repeatedly, and well established, that actors do NOT check their prop guns. That they are NOT ALLOWED to do so. That if they wish to continue working, they will follow the set protocols of the industry... namely, they are handed "a prop", and they are to do only and exactly what they are directed to do with it.
It's not just Baldwin, it's every single actor onscreen in any movie or TV show. That includes your favorite actor in your favorite film.
For the umpteenth time.
Actors do not check chambers. Armorers are employed specifically to do that.
If you are an armorer on a set, and hand a prepared prop to Alec Baldwin (Jason Statham, Chris Pratt, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson etc), and they drop the mag and rack the slide/open the cylinder etc, or anything else not specifically directed,
you stop the scene immediately, you take the prop away from them, inspect it again, and then hand it back after instructing them to NOT do it again.
Actors are not gun experts, even if they play one onscreen. Some may not have any working knowledge at all. You have to plan and prepare for the LOWEST common denominator, not the highest.
The gun is called a prop, even if it's a functional weapon, because it is used as a prop for onstage performance. It is not employed as a gun, it is employed as a prop depicting a gun.
The fact that it IS a functional weapon, demands that strict adherence to the rules be followed by everyone. The only way you can verify that nobody somehow sticks a live round into one, is to mandate that NOBODY does anything to the gun after it is verified by the authorized armorer as cold. You don't expect that Baldwin would slip a round in, but you don't take that chance, and that applies to every other actor, stage hand, etc.
The armorer was not on site, yet the gun was employed. That seems to be the root of the issue.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 12:25 pm to Scoob
You are correct. You are also wasting your time.
Locke
Locke
Posted on 10/30/21 at 12:45 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
You can blame the producers all you want, but I read nothing there that shifts blame away from her.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 1:13 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
You are correct. You are also wasting your time. Locke
Some people can’t grasp the concept that a movie set has different protocols than a hunting camp or target range.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:19 pm to EA6B
quote:Binary thought patterns are distressingly common.
Some people can’t grasp the concept that a movie set has different protocols than a hunting camp or target range.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 5:36 pm to AndyCBR
quote:Not if someone goes off schedule.quote:
Yes... and yet, she is stating (and other reports are stating) that she wasn't present.
Then she is guilty of some degree of manslaughter due to her gross negligence in not performing her job.
You don't honestly think the armorer, or anyone else, is supposed to be on-set 24 hrs a day, do you? They get paid to be there.
If there's not supposed to be handling of the prop gun that day, you tell her to stay away. She doesn't need to be on the clock while Baldwin paints a fence.
Reading from the article, it seems she had multiple duties, not just armorer. If the director or producer had her doing something else, it's simple- you don't handle a prop gun at that time.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 5:46 pm to Scoob
Hannah has a history of being a poor armorer. Nicholas Cage has demanded she not be on the set during any of his shoots.
Posted on 10/31/21 at 9:15 am to Scoob
quote:
Not if someone goes off schedule.
Everything you’ve said makes sense regarding actors and props.
What I still haven’t heard is an explanation for why live fricking rounds were within a mile of that set. Everyone who knew about that and did nothing is an idiot and morally if not legally responsible for this, the dead chick included.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News