Rust

JAMedia said:
Or this forum.
Click to expand...
I found your comment funny not that I don't feel bad for the victim and her family, its just this topic has been talked to "death". Who's the idiot who started this stupid thread... Oh right I did. lol

I find Baldwin morally guilty in his capacity of producer allowing or turning a blind eye to an unsafe work place. In low budget production with such a famous star the movie in reality goes through him. If he's not happy with the safety or the performance of the armorer, this movie isn't going forward. With his long history in the industry he should know the safety protocols around guns and never said anything when they weren't followed. This all started by hiring an armorer with no experience who brought live ammo on set. But who hired her and who ignored her poor performance after numerous incidents?
 
Peter C. said:
This all started by hiring an armorer with no experience who brought live ammo on set. But who hired her and who ignored her poor performance after numerous incidents?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. That was a specific group of producers who had the actual boots on the ground involvement in this process. They went out to multiple experienced armorers who turned the job down because of rate and combined duties with props, then chose to hire an inexperienced armorer. They were informed of safety issues on set and made no changes to improve the situation. These are truly culpable parties. As a producer, Baldwin was not tasked with overseeing any of these aspects. I'm not suggesting he should be immune to charges, but I am definitely suggesting these other producers who made the actual decisions that resulted in these safety concerns should be included. Of course their lawyers are working very hard to deflect this.
 
Peter C. said:
I found your comment funny not that I don't feel bad for the victim and her family, its just this topic has been talked to "death". Who's the idiot who started this stupid thread... Oh right I did. lol
Click to expand...

That was my point. Like a post match analysis in the bar, no matter what the referee says, or the CCTV cameras show, the discussion will go on forever.
And since you started the thread, its: ALL YOUR FAULT (forever :tongue:)
 
CharlesPapert said:
EXACTLY. That was a specific group of producers who had the actual boots on the ground involvement in this process. They went out to multiple experienced armourers who turned the job down because of rate and combined duties with props, then chose to hire an inexperienced armourer. They were informed of safety issues on set and made no changes to improve the situation. These are truly culpable parties. As a producer, Baldwin was not tasked with overseeing any of these aspects. I'm not suggesting he should be immune to charges, but I am definitely suggesting these other producers who made the actual decisions that resulted in these safety concerns should be included. Of course, their lawyers are working very hard to deflect this.
Click to expand...

That is what I think. At one level, Baldwin was a produce and is culpable to some extent. However, as you point out it was a different producer who was in charge of the set. Also, on set, on that day, Baldwin was The Actor and others were more responsible. The thing is, whilst the armourer is clearly responsible, can it be argued that the armourer was too inexperienced for the job and did not have the experience and understanding to turn down the job? Though haven't we all, when starting out, grabbed the "big break" we weren't 100% certain we could Handel, but it was too good to miss?

BTW I was looking at a BTS of the last Bond film and there they were using prop fire arms that had muzzle flashes and ejecting cases. These were being pointed directly at the camera and crew. The BTS video was from the side and or behind the crew, showing this and the set-up for the cars. You could see the wires and the squibs etc. So I can't imagine that they spent a lot of time in post adding the flashes and flying cases. Especially as there were background shots of the cases being swept up.
 
JAMedia said:
That is what I think. At one level, Baldwin was a produce and is culpable to some extent. However, as you point out it was a different producer who was in charge of the set. Also, on set, on that day, Baldwin was The Actor and others were more responsible. The thing is, whilst the armourer is clearly responsible, can it be argued that the armourer was too inexperienced for the job and did not have the experience and understanding to turn down the job? Though haven't we all, when starting out, grabbed the "big break" we weren't 100% certain we could Handel, but it was too good to miss?
Click to expand...

I'm sure every possible defense have and will be raised by each of their lawyers because, that's what lawyers do. The armorer did in fact tell the producers that she was being stretched thin by having extra prop duties (one of the reasons the more experienced ones turned down the job), and of course they did nothing.

I've probably told this detail somewhere earlier in this thread--this came to me straight from the horse's mouth as it were (I know several of the camera dept that was on Rust). When the UPM was sent an email detailing the safety concerns about the armorer a week before the shooting occurred, when there was the accidental misfire on set, the UPM's entire response was "awesome! Thanks!". And duly ignored.

JAMedia said:
BTW I was looking at a BTS of the last Bond film and there they were using prop fire arms that had muzzle flashes and ejecting cases. These were being pointed directly at the camera and crew. The BTS video was from the side and or behind the crew, showing this and the set-up for the cars. You could see the wires and the squibs etc. So I can't imagine that they spent a lot of time in post adding the flashes and flying cases. Especially as there were background shots of the cases being swept up.
Click to expand...

There have been various versions of this technology developed in recent years, and since the Rust incident there is a greater push to get these to become the norm. The problem is having every type of gun built. A Bond film can afford to commission the particular weapon they want built to those specs, or just use ones already built that are common. For Rust they required period-appropriate revolvers and it may well be that those have yet to have been built with the ejecting cases and muzzle blast, but even if they were certainly they would have been much more expensive and thus out of the range of this penny-pinching production. The general philosophy on low budget filmmaking is to go with the cheapest route and keep fingers crossed that it will work out, as it usually does 99 times out of 100, as in "we've done this 100 times, it will be fine". I have been involved with productions where the 1 percent has happened (nothing as serious as on Rust of course, more like equipment getting damaged or techniques not working) and when a producer has expressed frustration at the resulting cost to repair or reshoot, I remind them that they were lucky to have gotten away with it on their previous projects, but even when the odds are in your favor, any kind of gambling can result in a loss.
 
It is a mess that will be argued over, and re-tried in documentaries and forums like this one long after any court case is "settled"
However, it seems from the post above, the main person we can blame is Peter C. :D (he started this thread)
 
If I ever get charged for a crime, let it be in New Mexico.

"The prosecutor, Kari Morrissey, inadvertently turned over hundreds of text messages between Gutierrez Reed and her lawyer to a key witness last July.
Baldwin’s co-defendant, armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, sought Friday to have her case thrown out, citing the prosecutor’s mishandling of attorney-client communications."

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/r...ss-1235877977/
 
Paul, I think the important questions are what is not in that story. It sounds like they strongly think Gutierrez Reed was responsible for the loaded cartridges. If they didn't already think that, why would they offer immunity to Zachry for her testimony? Similarly with Kenney and his cooperation with the prosecution? So they already believe Gutierrez Reed is responsible or have more evidence than we know about. Her agreeing to turn over her phone without a search warrant is also mystifying as well as leaving a trail of written communications with her attorney. As well, the attorney participating with her in leaving the breadcrumb trail of messages. That's just not done. Those actions are either stupid, or intentional. On the flip side, if the prosecution is perceived as being heavy handed against a low wage gig worker, a sympathetic jury could make that backfire on them. But it doesn't look good for her, nor the prosecution. They could end up with no convictions for anyone, violating her privacy right to attorney client privilege. There's no law against mixing up ammunition, the prosecution has only circumstantial witness hearsay to a dereliction of safety leading up to the involuntary manslaughter. Or they have more on her, maybe much more than we know, e.g. witness testimony. But to think, you could go to jail for 3 years as a $20/hr wage earner or be a Hollywood A-lister and wealthy millionaire that paid her wage and have no culpability? What $20/hr person is held to that standard of responsibility? I somehow think that won't play well in front of a jury of New Mexico lower income residents.
 
This would make for a good movie about making a movie gone wrong. The only thing I haven't figured out is the title?
 
Peter C. said:
This would make for a good movie about making a movie gone wrong. The only thing I haven't figured out is the title?
Click to expand...

There are so many GREAT films about films going wrong already!

Demon Lover Diary is a favourite. In the opening, the director goes off to his day job and deliberately chops off his finger in an "accident" knowing he will get a payout from insurance and uses that to fund the movie.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206681/

American Movie is wonderful and a horrible train wreck to watch
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181288/

Lost In La Mancha - if anything can go wrong.....
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0308514/

Hearts Of Darkness about the making of Apocalypse now.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/

And a great film about the making of Dr Moreau (and Brandos second appearance in a genre of doco films about films going off the rails!)
https://goldenglobes.com/articles/fo...r-moreau-1996/

Also Making Venus is great
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325774/
 
"An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert,” - Statement from SAG-AFTRA.

Someone should proof-read statements before publishing them.

And then this in the same statement - “Firearms are provided for their use under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm.”

So "Our SAG-AFTRA union members are innocent, but those IATSE people"...... Nice that SAG-AFTRA throws IATSE under the bus after IATSE members sat idle during the SAG-AFTRA strike. So much for backing up "our brothers and sisters".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top