imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Guns & Movies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-23-2021, 10:54 AM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 543
Default

I'm not 100% sure that when they say "live rounds" there they actually mean rounds with a bullet in them. It sort of seems like they may be using the term "live" to mean loaded, be it with blanks or something else. This part, "Halls handed the gun to Baldwin and yelled "cold gun," meaning the gun did not have live rounds, the affidavit states" would suggest that a blank loaded gun would also be a "cold gun" which would not be the case, so in this context "live rounds" seems to be any rounds other than dummies or unloaded.

My guess woud be that the gun was a revolver so it needed dummy cartridges in it to appear loaded, and somehow one of the dummy rounds was actually a live round. That situation requires the one fuck up, of the wrong kind of round getting in the pile of dummy rounds. Any other situation would need multiple fuckups, so the former seems the most likely to me.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2021, 11:57 PM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,603
Default

Multiple eff-ups appears to be the case:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/enter...day/index.html

"Three crew members who were on the set last weekend told the Times there were two accidental prop gun discharges before Thursday.

The rounds were accidentally fired October 16 by Baldwin's stunt double after he was told the gun was "cold," two of the crew members, who witnessed the discharges, told the newspaper."
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-24-2021, 12:31 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
For what it's worth: There are MANY productions where people who are not movie armorers are in charge of some or all of the firearms. In the U.S., a licensed handler is only required when there are NFA weapons being used on-set (this is different, of course, in other countries which have stricter gun laws). If the production is only renting non-NFA firearms, it's generally going to be the property master and their assistant(s) who handle those guns, and most propmasters are not weapons experts.
Ummmm. Not quite true, the laws have changed in the last 10 years. Sorry. in California ANY LIVE firearms on set must have a licensed person (either an FFL or a state issued Firearms Entertainment Permit). That includes all firing weapons, even pre 1898 ones. The fact that many productions VIOLATE the law (these are codified in CA penal code) doesn't make it not true. Since the vast majority of Movies and TV shows filmed in the US are still in California, that makes those rules, the rule, not the exception.

It is interesting that the CREW of the movie "The Crow" in 1993 was from North Carolina. The CREW of "Rust" in 2021 were from New Mexico. Notice that none of them were California Crews. If anything we in CA have the most draconian gun regulations on movie sets. And yet, it's the CA politicians that want to punish us more.

Interesting that we have some of those indie films who designate some "know nothing" 20 yr old girl, who doesn't know firearms at all, as the set 'weapons wrangler'. That's a recipe for disaster sadly. I heard that the 'Armorer' was a 24 year old woman, and this was her FIRST job EVER as an armorer and that she was terrified of 'blanks'. Uh, what???? Also she may not have been on set when the accident occurred and the 24 yr old Assistant Director (who was another woman who knew nothing about guns) was the person who handed the firearm to Baldwin. The entire thing sounds bizarre.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)

Last edited by MoviePropMaster2008; 10-24-2021 at 12:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-24-2021, 12:36 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
Multiple eff-ups appears to be the case:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/enter...day/index.html

"Three crew members who were on the set last weekend told the Times there were two accidental prop gun discharges before Thursday.

The rounds were accidentally fired October 16 by Baldwin's stunt double after he was told the gun was "cold," two of the crew members, who witnessed the discharges, told the newspaper."
Yep. Those are 'negligent discharges'. WTF. I hate how the media calls them 'misfires', which actually means FAILURE to fire. What they were witnessing were Accidental discharges or Negligent Discharges. Also who is telling the actors that their guns are cold "aka not loaded with blanks". A 'hot gun' on set means it's loaded with blanks. No one ever expects LIVE aka real lethal ammunition on a set since they're BANNED from even being on site. I've had security kick out people who brought live ammo to a set and I personally inspected ALL blanks being loaded into weapons on the set.

Being a western It's most likely a single action revolver. I wonder if that particular gun, when the hammer was cocked, had a 'hair trigger'. Either way, to fire the gun meant that the DOUCHBAG STUNT DOUBLE or the DOUCHBAG BALDWIN were still DRY FIRING a supposedly unloaded gun. Something they're not supposed to do, even with a 'cold gun'.
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-24-2021, 12:57 AM
Jcordell Jcordell is offline
Formerly "Checkman"
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,002
Default

Based on my experience I had a feeling many interesting details would emerge. What a giant goat-rope.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-24-2021, 12:55 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
Yep. Those are 'negligent discharges'. WTF. I hate how the media calls them 'misfires', which actually means FAILURE to fire. What they were witnessing were Accidental discharges or Negligent Discharges. Also who is telling the actors that their guns are cold "aka not loaded with blanks". A 'hot gun' on set means it's loaded with blanks. No one ever expects LIVE aka real lethal ammunition on a set since they're BANNED from even being on site. I've had security kick out people who brought live ammo to a set and I personally inspected ALL blanks being loaded into weapons on the set.

Being a western It's most likely a single action revolver. I wonder if that particular gun, when the hammer was cocked, had a 'hair trigger'. Either way, to fire the gun meant that the DOUCHBAG STUNT DOUBLE or the DOUCHBAG BALDWIN were still DRY FIRING a supposedly unloaded gun. Something they're not supposed to do, even with a 'cold gun'.
Baldwin was not intentionally dry firing from what I have read. Apparently they were rehearsing a scene where he was drawing the revolver and pointing it at the camera. He did it once, reholstered, and the 2nd time he ND'd on the draw.

As for where the live rounds came from, supposedly crew members were taking the movie guns out into the desert on their down time to do target practice with live rounds. That sounds so ridiculously and obviously risky that it makes me wonder if it is true, but based on the past conduct and comments of the armourer I think I can believe it.

Just to add, the thing about here being scared of blanks is not being correctly reported by a lot of places which make it seems like she was scared of blanks themselves. The full context is that she described it as "scary" when she first had to load a blank into a revolver with dummy rounds in the other chambers and make it so that the blank was the round that fired on the first trigger pull. I think the thing that makes it "scary" for her is that she admits that she looks down the front of the cylinder to check that the blank is next to the barrel. To me this is worse than her just being scared of blanks, as it shows her fundamental lack of understanding for the mehanics and safe handling procedures.

Quote from the podcast whe was on: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCdB5cQX...jpg&name=large

Last edited by commando552; 10-24-2021 at 12:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-24-2021, 07:08 PM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,603
Default

So apparently the AD had some safety issues in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/24/enter...nts/index.html

As for the armorer, according to an earlier article, she's a second generation armorer, so I'd be odd if she was afraid of blanks.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-25-2021, 03:02 AM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
So apparently the AD had some safety issues in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/24/enter...nts/index.html

As for the armorer, according to an earlier article, she's a second generation armorer, so I'd be odd if she was afraid of blanks.
The media is now widely reporting that the armorer was Hannah Gutierrez-Reed; she's the daughter of Thell Reed, who is one of the most respected armorers and gun coaches in the business. (He's worked on a lot of Westerns, ranging from "Gunsmoke" to "Tombstone", plus modern action films that are IMFDB favorites, such as "Proof of Life" and "44 Minutes.") And...predictably, some media outlets are already digging up derogatory reporting on her:

https://nypost.com/2021/10/23/rust-a...o-child-actor/

I have to admit that I'm ready to just throw up my hands and say that we need to just shut it all out until the investigation is complete. I suspect, though, that the ultimate finding will be that this incident was the result of collective irresponsibility on the part of many folks involved in the production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
Ummmm. Not quite true, the laws have changed in the last 10 years. Sorry. in California ANY LIVE firearms on set must have a licensed person (either an FFL or a state issued Firearms Entertainment Permit). That includes all firing weapons, even pre 1898 ones. The fact that many productions VIOLATE the law (these are codified in CA penal code) doesn't make it not true. Since the vast majority of Movies and TV shows filmed in the US are still in California, that makes those rules, the rule, not the exception.

It is interesting that the CREW of the movie "The Crow" in 1993 was from North Carolina. The CREW of "Rust" in 2021 were from New Mexico. Notice that none of them were California Crews. If anything we in CA have the most draconian gun regulations on movie sets. And yet, it's the CA politicians that want to punish us more.
Interesting. I did not realize California's laws have changed. And I also acknowledge that the movie gun business is not my profession; I'm just a guy who has talked to many armorers over the years (yourself included).

With that being said, you do acknowledge that a licensed handler was not ALWAYS required on set until recently in California? That is something I have been told many times by the armorers that I know - when I've discussed shows with them, plenty of them have told me that they only handled the NFA weapons on-set and that the propmaster's team handled all other (non-NFA) firearms. It has been widely reported that the incident on "The Crow" happened, in part, because the production decided to send the armorer home, since the scene involving Brandon Lee's death didn't require any NFA weapons and they were trying to save money by not having to pay somebody whose presence wasn't required on-set. So they left one of the assistant propmasters in charge of the guns (all pistols and revolvers) that were being used, and the particular propmaster who handled the .44 Magnum revolver used to kill Lee was not experienced enough to know what he was doing. While "The Crow" was shot in my home state of North Carolina (as you mention), I've heard similar stories about propmasters handling the non-NFA firearms from other armorers who are working (or worked) in California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 View Post
Being a western It's most likely a single action revolver. I wonder if that particular gun, when the hammer was cocked, had a 'hair trigger'. Either way, to fire the gun meant that the DOUCHBAG STUNT DOUBLE or the DOUCHBAG BALDWIN were still DRY FIRING a supposedly unloaded gun. Something they're not supposed to do, even with a 'cold gun'.
Out of curiosity, are most revolvers nowadays being plugged? I know that revolvers don't need a BFA to cycle, the way that semi-autos do, but not sure what safety measures are taken even with those guns. I do find it interesting that all of the deaths that have occurred in Hollywood with prop weapons happened with revolvers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552 View Post
As for where the live rounds came from, supposedly crew members were taking the movie guns out into the desert on their down time to do target practice with live rounds. That sounds so ridiculously and obviously risky that it makes me wonder if it is true, but based on the past conduct and comments of the armourer I think I can believe it.
I can't...I had deja vu when I read your post. I remember reading that after Brandon Lee's death on "The Crow," the exact same rumor began circulating: Folks involved in the production began leaking to the media (and the early Internet) that members of the crew would take the guns from the propmaster's trailer, buy live ammunition from a local sporting goods store in Wilmington, and shoot them in the backlot of the studio. The implication being, somebody brought a live .44 Magnum round to the set and mixed it with the blanks, and that's how a real bullet got put into the gun. As far as I know, that rumor has never been verified and was largely debunked by the final investigation report. (Remember: this was the 1990s, in the days before the Internet and smartphones made it almost impossible to get away with spreading those kinds of rumors.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552 View Post
Just to add, the thing about here being scared of blanks is not being correctly reported by a lot of places which make it seems like she was scared of blanks themselves. The full context is that she described it as "scary" when she first had to load a blank into a revolver with dummy rounds in the other chambers and make it so that the blank was the round that fired on the first trigger pull. I think the thing that makes it "scary" for her is that she admits that she looks down the front of the cylinder to check that the blank is next to the barrel. To me this is worse than her just being scared of blanks, as it shows her fundamental lack of understanding for the mehanics and safe handling procedures.

Quote from the podcast whe was on: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCdB5cQX...jpg&name=large
Frankly, the only thing that I'm getting from that interview is that she's a typical Gen Z'er who overshares on the Internet (you tell that she's nervous, too, by the way she's rambling and almost losing her train of thought). If I were her, and I were in a job which requires me to be responsible for so many people's safety, I don't think I would have said what she said, certainly not on the record. There are some jobs where you should never share your feelings openly, and being an armorer strikes me as one of those jobs.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 10-25-2021 at 04:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-25-2021, 10:13 AM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
I can't...I had deja vu when I read your post. I remember reading that after Brandon Lee's death on "The Crow," the exact same rumor began circulating: Folks involved in the production began leaking to the media (and the early Internet) that members of the crew would take the guns from the propmaster's trailer, buy live ammunition from a local sporting goods store in Wilmington, and shoot them in the backlot of the studio. The implication being, somebody brought a live .44 Magnum round to the set and mixed it with the blanks, and that's how a real bullet got put into the gun. As far as I know, that rumor has never been verified and was largely debunked by the final investigation report. (Remember: this was the 1990s, in the days before the Internet and smartphones made it almost impossible to get away with spreading those kinds of rumors.)
In this case I am more inclined to believe the rumours about there being live rounds on set for one reason or another. Firstly, their are separate reports of people complaining that live and blank rounds were kept in the same place, and other reports about crew target shooting in the desert so there are multiple sources that there were live rounds in the vicinity. Secondly, everything about the injury suggests that it is a live round rather than a blank propelling some kind of foreign object.

The thing that makes this all a lot harder to keep track of in the news is that people are using the term "live rounds" very inconsistently in reporting to mean both blanks as opposed to inert, or real rounds with a bullet. I have seen a few articles that make a disclaimer that in the movie industry the term "live rounds" refers to blanks. Is that true? If so that seems kind of dumb and really confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-26-2021, 04:03 AM
MoviePropMaster2008's Avatar
MoviePropMaster2008 MoviePropMaster2008 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
With that being said, you do acknowledge that a licensed handler was not ALWAYS required on set until recently in California?
September 2010 , CA changed the requirement for all firearms to be received by an actual FFL to the creation of the Entertainment FIrearms Permit (EFP) to take the place of the FFL, because the ATF was complaining that CA had all these propmasters applying for FFLs who had no intention of selling anything. Also there is no requirement for ANY licensed person or FFL if the firearm was personally owned. As long as the legal owner was present, there was no transfer involved. The days of people just walking in a getting live firearms has been long over. But no UNLICENSED person can have a firearm shipped to them if the armorer is not bringing their own inventory. Say if a movie was filming and needed weapons from ISS, they still had to ship to an FFL and then given to the production and then returned to the FFL to ship back to ISS when they were done (the EFP did away with this in 2010). Prior to 2014 you could handle all long guns (rifles and shotguns) that weren't banned by the state, you just couldn't transfer handguns to the set without someone being licensed. After 2014, good Old California made ALL transfers require a license (ffl or EFP), the only exception being pre 1898 weapons (and any cartridge revolver was still restricted, regardless of whether it was pre 1898 or not). Technically you still needed a licensed person, but you're correct in that for un'restricted' weapons, that person does NOT have to be on set 24/7 when the guns are there. But you can't get the guns to set unless you're licensed, if that makes sense (I hope I didn't write it in a confusing manner).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
That is something I have been told many times by the armorers that I know - when I've discussed shows with them, plenty of them have told me that they only handled the NFA weapons on-set and that the propmaster's team handled all other (non-NFA) firearms.
Just curious were those California Armorers? In CA, if the Propmaster's team handled Title 1 firearms, the Propmaster's team MAY HAVE already had "permitted or FFL" folks in their ranks. Most high end armorers are usually only pulled out to set for the NFA guns, but there are many ways for the NON NFA folks to still get the weapons, but it's not like the 1980s when any random person can just check out a live firearm. And if you have a CA defined 'assault weapon' forget it. You needed an AW permit to rent out ANY CA classified weapons from ISS or Cinema Weaponry, etc. And those are just plain jane semi auto guns with evil scary features.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
It has been widely reported that the incident on "The Crow" happened, in part, because the production decided to send the armorer home, since the scene involving Brandon Lee's death didn't require any NFA weapons and they were trying to save money by not having to pay somebody whose presence wasn't required on-set. So they left one of the assistant propmasters in charge of the guns (all pistols and revolvers) that were being used, and the particular propmaster who handled the .44 Magnum revolver used to kill Lee was not experienced enough to know what he was doing. While "The Crow" was shot in my home state of North Carolina (as you mention), I've heard similar stories about propmasters handling the non-NFA firearms from other armorers who are working (or worked) in California.
Not true. The armorer would have been in charge of ALL weapons, if they were following the established SAFETY rules, particular those of the unions. They sent the armorer home at midnight because the guns were 'wrapped' for that shooting day. Apparently some NON ARMORER was fucking around with the .44 special (Charter Arms bulldog) locked up in the props trailer. They loaded up dummy rounds (which they initially did not have, so they went to a gun store, bought real ammo, popped the bullet off with a bullet hammer, and dumped out the powder, but sadly, kept the primer intact and reloaded the round. Some idiot dry fired the dummy round and the active primer popped and lodged the bullet an inch into the barrel. It wasn't an armorer who did that because when they dumped the cartridges they didn't notice that one of the bullets was missing. This would have been the FIRST THING I would have noticed and I would have been pissed at anyone dry firing the dummy rounds since it would indent the primers and thus make them unsuitable for a closeup shot. So the gun was put BACK into the prop trailer.

Then at 4:30 am they had extra time and decided, "Hey let's film the scene where Funboy shoots Eric" So an untrained prop handler grabbed the gun, did not check the barrel for obstructions and loaded full power hot blanks into it. The rest is history, but all footage of that scene and any image of the .44 special Charter Arms Bulldog were edited out of the movie.

If you're talking to California Armorers about NON armorer propmaster handling live firearms, are they handling things like bolt action rifles, black powder weapons, etc. because there are TONS of weapons (Assault weapons, handguns, etc) that are not NFA federally but are still strictly controlled by California law. I would also be interested to inquire as to how long ago where their recollections of this happening? For example, the props dept took care of all the weapons that ISS shipped to the set of Hemingway & Gelhorn (2012) but they were ALL inoperable (over 300 weapons). All the propmasters on that set were licensed by ISS directly and were on their permits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post

Out of curiosity, are most revolvers nowadays being plugged? I know that revolvers don't need a BFA to cycle, the way that semi-autos do, but not sure what safety measures are taken even with those guns. I do find it interesting that all of the deaths that have occurred in Hollywood with prop weapons happened with revolvers.
No, the only plugged revolvers are those that are dewatted so that we can hand them off with no paperwork to anyone or they're the blocked barrel blank fire only fakes that you can buy online. We would never 'destroy' a real revolver by blocking the barrel. It can fire blanks and doesn't need to be converted back to fire live (when it is sold .... well except to those folks at the London Propstore, where they have to literally destroyed the weapon in order to make it legal, but you can't argue with all those rich Brits willing to spend their cash on screen used weapons that are ruined by being rendered permanently inoperable. ) The reason why all gun accidents ARE revolvers are because all semi and full auto firearms required a barrel restrictor device (BFA) in order to cycle. Lever or bolt actions rifles or lever/bolt/pump action shotguns are similarly UNMODIFIED. I think it's always revolvers because it's easier for crew and actors to fuck up with a handgun than a long gun. I'v screamed at more cast and crew than I can count when I catch them horseplaying with firearms. Ugh.

Hope this answers some questions
__________________
The trouble is, one requires a specific thing to understand Liam, that thing being "serious head injuries." (Evil Tim 09-09-2011)

Last edited by MoviePropMaster2008; 10-26-2021 at 04:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.