Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Alec Baldwin film set shooting: How do prop guns become deadly? | DW News" video.

@davidsirmons Why did he shoot two people? Because he pulled the trigger at least twice before realizing he had shot someone. Did you know that even people who have been shot don’t always realize instantly that they’ve been shot? They don’t always immediately fall down before the second trigger pull. Plus, in this case you have an actor trained to imagine he’s looking at something else, not the crew in front of him. He’s not seeing them on purpose; his attention is on the imaginary scene.
5
@garrettcphillips All good points. Also G - Why use real firearms at all when there are very accurate non-firing replicas available. Muzzle flash can be added as a special effect in post. Recoil can be simulated by the actor (that sort of thing is supposed to be part of their job).
4
Your “simple” lesson is complicated by the fact that actors are inhabiting imaginary characters, and the character might have the intention to kill another imaginary character. And this is why there are supposed to be so many layers of safety. You’re 100% correct about about live rounds and crew behind the camera. Casing fragments (they’re not always cardboard and wax) can injure and potentially kill. At a minimum, the camera operator and the focus puller should be wearing ballistic vests and visored helmets with blank rounds if the weapon is pointed at the camera.
3
@jennymulinaro6036 I don’t think 20’ would have made a difference with a live round.
3
This is the problem of taking shortcuts and getting away with it. You start to think the protocols are unnecessary because “nothing bad happened the last 9 times”. Then the shortcut becomes the new normal, and more expedient short cuts are taken, and all is well until someone gets hurt or killed. Apparently the armorer was not on set at all. The take should have been held until she arrived and checked everything, so ultimately this is the AD’s responsibility, but there is the question of why live rounds were anywhere near the location AT ALL. There are questions about why even a blank-loaded prop gun was discharged in the direction of crew members without further precautions. And lastly, there’s the question of why real weapons were used at all, when highly accurate replicas are available (or can be fabricated). Recoil can be simulated by actors and muzzle flash can be added as a special effect in post production. Part of the problem is the nature of many low budget productions. Schedules are too ambitious, shortcuts are taken to stay within budget and on schedule. Equipment might be broken, but is still functional enough to use (until a malfunction injures someone). Inexperienced crew gets hired. Days go too long to stay on unrealistic schedules—when this becomes normal and not the exception, the crew is exhausted and doesn’t function as well, leading to more delays and slow downs. Wrt to crew experience, OJT is part of learning a craft. The experienced crew members train the less experienced on the job. The problem is when the inexperienced people outnumber the experienced people. It takes twice as long to do the job. This compounds the problem of overly ambitious schedules.
3
Low budget often means non-union. I highly doubt this production was under IATSE auspices.
2
@DoctorAustin Bullseye. Uh, I mean, correct!
2
@brandonwheaton1081 It’s possible, although it’s highly doubtful he’d be involved with practical production, running the set, hiring the crew. When an actor is involved as a producer, it might be a vanity credit, because they were involved in development, or because they helped raise funding. It might be how their deal was constructed to participate in profits in addition to salary—big name actors might take a cut in their regular rate, gambling that the project will eventually make a lot of money.
2
@DoctorAustin or he’s been lucky for 25 years and is courting disaster. That’s the problem with people who take shortcuts—the expedient way seems to work until it doesn’t. The person thinks, “Maybe the safety rule is overkill. Maybe it’s for other people not as smart or skilled as I am?” The more times things work out, the more ingrained the bad habit becomes, until an “accident” occurs with tragic results. This problem goes beyond gun safety. It’s a problem with workplace safety, driving, boating, flying an airplane. Safety protocols are there to provide a margin of safety. Shortcuts shave that margin down, until that day you “run out of runway”, as pilots say.
2
@tjmarx Not true, although the initial reporting assumed that it was a freak accident caused by blanks. This is an easy assumption to make because as the commenter asked, “Why on earth would live loaded guns be used in a film set????!!!!” That wasn’t the only safety violation, but it was the biggest one.
1
Or a steadycam, handheld, or dolly shot. That said, aesthetic choices should never take priority over safety. If the shot is going to be unsafe, find a different way to do it.
1