Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

[paulears]

People who have safety as a real responsibility of their job understand the problem. Some train by being assistant to the person carrying the responsibility, but some have to learn on the job. So for a period, they are by definition, sub-standard by lack of experience. That’s the most dangerous time. Being in charge of safety means taking charge, and deciding and controlling the risk others are exposed to. This was done badly. The provision of union or non-union crews does not change safety standards, experience does. Being in a union give protection and support, it does NOT provide competence, ever! The entire thing rings all the bells of a typical student production. It’s exactly what happens on any student project when the leader is not a staffer. The messing about, the assumptions, the use of important terminology without understanding it. It is also what happens on any production when crew is short - you accept less experienced people because they are basically breathing. We’ve all had them. No understanding, no experience and often no common sense. The result of this terrible incident - note it cannot be called an accident - is that productions that do it properly will suffer, and the useless ones will probably not even be aware of changes, because they don’t go on courses, or even read forums. Have you noticed new entrants use YouTube as the sole source of info, and few use traditional forums like this and discuss.

 

[jonpais]

Have you noticed new entrants use YouTube as the sole source of info, and few use traditional forums like this and discuss.

There are several reliable programs on YT, while forums are nothing but misinformation and toxicity. Forums are the last place anyone should be looking for trustworthy information.

 

[briandrys1]

How trustworthy a forum is depends on the membership of the forum and who it's aimed at. Good ones will give advice, then qualify it. Asking for legal advice is one area to be careful with in forums, although, good users will qualify advice based on their personal experience with the requirement to talk to a lawyer with experience in the area.

 

[paulears]

My experience is completely the reverse. Unwise, incorrect and misinformation on decent forums with moderation is always more trustworthy than the anonymous rubbish that floats about on YouTube. It's sort of become an unfiltered, unverified sea of opinion - so much of which is totally wrong. There are of course a few spot on users who we set as out subscriptions - people we can trust, but when google brings up YouTube before anything else, I have to wonder. Remember - forums are two way communication, and YouTube is one way, with two way comments, and these are often unmoderated and not even read by the original creator.

 

[Paul F]

Ok, forget the NTSB approach. Charles' and Mitch's contradicting accounts got the best of me. While leaving the set by IATSE members was widely reported, firing makes more sense. How would the producers have a replacement crew ready to go if the union crew walked out?

 

[CharlesPapert]

Ok, forget the NTSB approach. Charles' and Mitch's contradicting accounts got the best of me. While leaving the set by IATSE members was widely reported, firing makes more sense. How would the producers have a replacement crew ready to go if the union crew walked out?

The outgoing crew had been giving warnings to production that they would walk unless their concerns were addressed, so production had already been looking for replacements prior to that day. Because the NM community is fairly tight knit, word had spread about this particular show and they were having trouble finding replacement union crew, hence the young non-union crew that replaced them. It was not a matter of production specifically trying to union-bust, it was a function of availability (remember again this was a Tier 1 show, so rates were quite low).

This isn't my source for this information, but it does corroborate it (leaving vs firing). https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

 

[jonpais]

Ok, forget the NTSB approach. Charles' and Mitch's contradicting accounts got the best of me. While leaving the set by IATSE members was widely reported, firing makes more sense. How would the producers have a replacement crew ready to go if the union crew walked out?

Your narrative is contradicted by all the news reports, including the NYT, which writes:

“Hours before the shooting, about six members of the camera crew walked off the set over working conditions, according to an affidavit accompanying a request for a search warrant. Crew members had complained to producers about long workdays — often exceeding 13 hours — and delayed paychecks, according to people involved in the production. Another crew had been hired, but the production faced delays, according to the affidavit.”

Leave journalism to the professionals.

 

[High1ander]

People who have safety as a real responsibility of their job understand the problem. Some train by being assistant to the person carrying the responsibility, but some have to learn on the job. So for a period, they are by definition, sub-standard by lack of experience. That’s the most dangerous time. Being in charge of safety means taking charge, and deciding and controlling the risk others are exposed to. This was done badly. The provision of union or non-union crews does not change safety standards, experience does. Being in a union give protection and support, it does NOT provide competence, ever! The entire thing rings all the bells of a typical student production. It’s exactly what happens on any student project when the leader is not a staffer. The messing about, the assumptions, the use of important terminology without understanding it. It is also what happens on any production when crew is short - you accept less experienced people because they are basically breathing. We’ve all had them. No understanding, no experience and often no common sense. The result of this terrible incident - note it cannot be called an accident - is that productions that do it properly will suffer, and the useless ones will probably not even be aware of changes, because they don’t go on courses, or even read forums. Have you noticed new entrants use YouTube as the sole source of info, and few use traditional forums like this and discuss.

So true. It is somewhat similar to anti-piracy software on certain games, the ones that buy the game gets to deal with the buggy anti-piracy software which slows down the game, but then ones that cracks the game gets a smoother playing experience.

I just think it is terrible sad and horrible when tragedy strike like this, and it could all have been avoided on so many levels and so many steps:
- No live ammo should have been near the set. - Common sense
- No AD should have called out "cold gun" without inspecting it (the AD's affidavit admits he didn't check the gun before handing it over). - Protocol
- The armorer shouldn't have left a loaded gun on her cart (here it is unclear from the affidavit's that's been presented in news if the armorer had time to check the gun before the AD picked it). - Protocol
- Baldwin should have been more diligent, especially since there had been prior lapses in protocol. - Common sense
- Prop guns shouldn't be used to fire live rounds same day for fun - Common sense (and protocol in some states)

Just "ONE" of those points being followed would have stopped this tragedy, so to claim it being an accident is just so false in describing the events leading up to it. It is more an incident, accident would be true if only one major thing had gone wrong, but this seems more and more systemic, basically it seems inevitable with those practices. - I base my current conclusion on the available affidavits.

So to me, the problem doesn't really lie on "lacking protocol or safety practices" but by simply not following them. I.e. adding more wouldn't stop it. It would be like setting lower speed limits for all the cars, the regular speed limits are fine (if people follow them). So the solution is more making people and producers more responsible and aware on set.

 

[Ken1212]

A major question concerning this tragedy:

Was Alec Baldwin "The Producer" who was working on the set aware that some crew members were target practicing using live ammunition and did he take part in it?

 

[Tom Roper]

ok, forget the ntsb approach. Charles' and mitch's contradicting accounts got the best of me.

bingo!

 

[Tom Roper]

A major question concerning this tragedy:

Was Alec Baldwin "The Producer" who was working on the set aware that some crew members were target practicing using live ammunition and did he take part in it?

That is the $64,000 question. The answer will come. Just takes an NTSB approach.

 

[Peter C.]

Just "ONE" of those points being followed would have stopped this tragedy, so to claim it being an accident is just so false in describing the events leading up to it. It is more an incident, accident would be true if only one major thing had gone wrong, but this seems more and more systemic, basically it seems inevitable with those practices. - I base my current conclusion on the available affidavits.

So to me, the problem doesn't really lie on "lacking protocol or safety practices" but by simply not following them. I.e. adding more wouldn't stop it. It would be like setting lower speed limits for all the cars, the regular speed limits are fine (if people follow them). So the solution is more making people and producers more responsible and aware on set.

I agree, the incident happened because the existing protocols weren't followed. The question is can you make irresponsibly people, in a lower budget productions, under pressure, follow safety rules when they choose not to. Maybe live rounds should not be allowed on movie sets because you can't trust everyone to follow them. Or is this punishing the majority for the misdeeds of a few?

 

[combatentropy]

Maybe live rounds should not be allowed on movie sets because you can't trust everyone to follow them. Or is this punishing the majority for the misdeeds of a few?

Forbidding real bullets on movie sets is uncontroversial and already an industry practice.

The two points that are most controversial are:

1. Should real guns be allowed on movie sets?

I lean toward yes. The last death from a gun was almost 30 years ago, with Brandon Lee. In contrast, how many deaths within homes or hunting ranges have happened between then and now? And think of how many movies and TV shows have been made through the years, without incident. Especially notable are the heydey of westerns and war movies, around the 1950s. How did they do it week-in, week-out, without an accident?

It seems that a movie set is safer to have a gun than a private home.

That said, I would not choose a real gun unless all other options were exhausted: fake gun, real gun modified to take only blanks, etc. Maybe there is no reason for real guns anymore except budget, that they can't afford the modifications? I'm not an expert here.


2. Should the actor be liable to check the gun handed him, even if it is the job of the armorer and propmaster to inspect it too?

This seems like a bad precedent. As has been said, an actor is highly distracted, remembering his lines and getting into his part --- a scene involving a gun in particular would likely be one of the movie's most emotional ones, to boot.

Actors don't even drive cars when the scene indicates. It's an effect or the car is on a trailer. Acting and driving is like drunk driving, or texting and driving: unsafe!

Actors don't even comb their own hair. If a rule arose that the actor should make a check after the armorer has made a check, and the propmaster has made a check, then logic would lead to the actor just delegating that to a new role, the Actor's Firearm Triple-checker, whose only job is to take the gun from the propmaster, check it, and then hand it to the actor, so he need not be distracted by it. And if someone said, well, still the actor should check it, then it would be delegated to the Actor's Firearm Quadruple-checker.

Besides, having the actor open a gun and double-check it, in the middle of a set, when other crew members are standing nearby, might actually be more dangerous. Such inspections should occur off to the side, or even in another room.

At home, Alec Baldwin combs his own hair, drives his own car, makes his own sandwiches, and if he goes out hunting and accidentally shoots someone, then it's on him. But on a movie an actor's job is full time, even more engrossing than most full-time jobs, and so normally everything is delegated.

---

So in this case the people who are at fault were: (1) the armorer, (2) the propmaster (which was also the same person as the armorer, because of cost-cutting?), (3) the assistant director, who is in charge of "the safety and security of the staff", and (4) the producers, who should never have pressed for all this corner-cutting. If the movie did not have the budget for standard safety measures, then they should have waited until they had raised the funds. In this particular case, Alec Baldwin is one of the producers, so that's the only reason I think he might be culpable.

But in general, no, I don't think the actors should be made liable for doing other people's jobs for them.

---

A quality piece on the use of firearms in the film industry.


Filming With Firearms - The American Society of Cinematographers (ascmag.com)

Agreed! (Now that I finally got around to reading it.) There are so many gems in that article, about why real guns and blanks are still used in the age of computer graphics, the nitty gritty of gun safety on set, and psychological wisdom.

 

[DLD]

That said, I would not choose a real gun unless all other options were exhausted: fake gun, real gun modified to take only blanks, etc. Maybe there is no reason for real guns anymore except budget, that they can't afford the modifications? I'm not an expert here...

You need a "real gun" for blanks because you need the structural strength/rigidity for an explosive. Otherwise, you'll have pieces of steel (or plastic) flying everywhere and it will be even more dangerous.

As to what a "real gun" is - one can 3D print one. In other words, anything that looks like a gun can pretty much fire like a gun. At which point, one might as well use a real gun. It's actually safer.

Which you pointed out, given the relatively low risk of having "real guns" on film sets throughout history.

 

[Tom Roper]

Forbidding real bullets on movie sets is uncontroversial and already an industry practice.
The two points that are most controversial are:
1. Should real guns be allowed on movie sets?

Eliminate real guns and nobody dies from getting shot. Use replicas.

2. Should the actor be liable to check the gun handed him, even if it is the job of the armorer and propmaster to inspect it too?

Anyone possessing a firearm, anywhere, anytime has full responsibility, period.

This seems like a bad precedent. As has been said, an actor is highly distracted, remembering his lines and getting into his part --- a scene involving a gun in particular would likely be one of the movie's most emotional ones, to boot.

I'd rather have an actor forget his lines than kill somebody with a gun. Get rid of the real guns, solve both problems.

Actors don't even drive cars when the scene indicates. It's an effect or the car is on a trailer. Acting and driving is like drunk driving, or texting and driving: unsafe!

Actors Larry Wilcox and Eric Estrada rode their own motorcycles on "CHiPs." Throughout the series Wilcox was pretty much injury free although Estrada was injured fairly seriously. They wrote it into the script.

So in this case the people who are at fault were: (1) the armorer, (2) the propmaster (3) the assistant director, and (4) the producers, who should never have pressed for all this corner-cutting. If the movie did not have the budget for standard safety measures, then they should have waited until they had raised the funds. In this particular case, Alec Baldwin is one of the producers, so that's the only reason I think he might be culpable.

None of those people including Baldwin would have any culpability at all if one person had not aimed a loaded firearm at Ms. Hutchins and pulled the trigger. It was just a rehearsal. There is no excuse pointing the gun at her. There is no reason for using real guns.

 

[Peter C.]

It's more complex. There are many types of prop guns to fit what's needed. So it's not as simple as whether the gun is loaded or not.
- real guns that take blanks (these blanks can be custom made)
- real guns converted to only accept blanks with the barrel blocked
- replica guns designed only to take weak blanks
- dummy bullets with the propellant removed so they look real but don't fire.

 

[Thomas Smet]

This horrific accident isn't a result of using real guns with blanks. Its a result of stupid carelessness on set where some apparently were using the guns between takes for target practice and shooting at beer cans. Why on earth a production would allow beer and shooting guns in some combination on a set is beyond me.

Not to sound like a fan of guns here but it was the stupidity and carelessness of how those guns were treated on set why this incident happened. Not specifically the use of real guns and blanks.

With that said I do think we should replace them with more VFX related muzzle flashes. Especially if a production is lower budget and wants to cut corners on safety.

The reality is however that productions like this have happened for decades with very few accidents like this. This was a dumb, stupid, mindless accident and now uninformed people want to change production as a reaction to stupid idiots. Perhaps it should change because people are flawed and someone somewhere will make the mistake again. Union or not union.

Would a ban even work? Who would enforce such a ban? Its not like there is some major governing body over every single production on the planet. Perhaps unions could ban the use but whats to stop non union crews? Whats to stop productions being shot in other countries? A ban would be insanely complex to enforce. Some productions companies and productions can and will ban the use but don't expect everyone to do the same.

Maybe we should stop just making movies with so much gun violence in them. That would also solve the problem. Know what props never kill anybody on set? Star Wars blasters and light sabers.

Explosions and fire can kill or injure as well if the crew is careless in how its all set up. Should we ban stunts, fire, explosions, car chases? All equally capable of harming or killing a crew member. Maybe all movies going forward should just be Lifetime Christmas specials.

I'm going to say it but I do think the US is obsessed with guns. With that said I really enjoyed Squid Games, Deadpool is one of my favorite movies and I'm really looking forward to Cowboy Bebop. All very gun heavy. But thats the fantasy we love about movies. It is our escape into a reality we wouldn't dare attempt ourselves.

So I'm not sure if all real guns and blanks should be banned. Like others have pointed out there has historically been less gun related accidents of sets than anywhere else in a society. I can't even walk into McDonalds without the chance of some fool gunning me down because he said no pickles. There typically is a ton of gun safety on sets and we have gone decades without many incidents. What happened here was stupidity and carelessness. no prop gun should ever be used for fun shooting. I don't care how boring New Mexico can be. Find another way to pass time. 99.9% of productions find a way to use real guns and blanks and not have a single incident or risk of incident.

​​​​​​​Some heads will roll with this accident but I'm not sure our production methods should. If we ban this then we should probably ban a lot of other stuff. How many stunt people are injured or killed on the job? Where is the freak out over our need to see fancy stunts in movies?

 

[Tom Roper]

It's more complex. There are many types of prop guns to fit what's needed. So it's not as simple as whether the gun is loaded or not.
- real guns that take blanks (these blanks can be custom made)
- real guns converted to only accept blanks with the barrel blocked
- replica guns designed only to take weak blanks
- dummy bullets with the propellant removed so they look real but don't fire.

It's as simple as this Peter. Real guns kill. So when you talk about "what's needed," you really are just weighing at what point risk becomes acceptable. Personally, I'd be fine with less realism and better story telling.

 

[DLD]

Mendoza said during a press conference Wednesday that, despite armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed saying there was no live ammunition kept on set, a live round was recovered in director Joel Souza’s shoulder — that same bullet passed through cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, resulting in her death.

In addition to the bullet removed from Souza’s shoulder, investigators found 500 rounds of ammunition, including a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and what appeared to be live rounds.

So, there was an actual bullet in the gun. Now, they'll have to figure out the propellant load,etc.

Alec Baldwin shooting investigation focused on who brought live rounds to the set: sheriff | Fox News

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

It's as simple as this Peter. Real guns kill. So when you talk about "what's needed," you really are just weighing at what point risk becomes acceptable. Personally, I'd be fine with less realism and better story telling.

https://www.tested.com/premium/593807-adam-savage-tests-weta-workshops-machine-gun-props/