Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Alec Baldwin 'Rust' shooting: Officials present first findings | DW News" video.

  1. To be clear, you can't get a movie shot down the barrel of a gun without pointing the gun at camera. Think of every western you've ever seen and you'll understand it's completely normal to point props to camera in this genre. The thing crew were upset about, and many had already walked off the job because of, was that the executive producer was lax on safety, rushed every scene, didn't give everyone a chance to do their jobs, refused to pay for the correct safety equipment, pushing the crew into longer hours than they should be so everyone was tired (and making mistakes). Conditions were so bad from the outset that the original choice for armorer has stated publicly that despite it being a lifelong dream of his to work with Alec Baldwin he turned the job down because it was clear to him from the outset someone was going to get injured. The producer of Rust they're talking about, funding the movie with his own money was... Alec Baldwin. Despite being an accident, it was preventable. So Baldwin might actually be charged afterall. On set the armorer is supposed to secure all guns and rounds when not in take. That Baldwin was using them to fire live rounds inbetween takes, and without the knowledge of his cinematographer and director speaks volumes about how that set was being run. Edit: Formatting
    3
  2.  @lamebubblesflysohigh  getting an explosives expert to make that hole would cost thousands. You have to get the fire marshal in, have all this safety equipment, it's a huge thing. Doing it in CGI costs tens of thousands, you've got whole teams of highly paid artists and programmers doing their small piece of the CGI pipeline. CGI also rarely looks realistic, and where bullets are being fired in a film you don't want anything that can take away the stakes you're trying to portray from the audience.
    1
  3.  @lamebubblesflysohigh  The point was the larger numbers.
    1