Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh R
Jeff
Think about it you have extras and actors opening a breech, racking a slide, dropping a mag,etc. who is to say what they actually did?
|
Hmm... I'm trying to sort this out... Are you saying that even extras are given real, live, operable firearms? I am well and truly dumbfounded by that, assuming I'm not misunderstanding part of this. Does this really happen? Is it a common practice? I can see (barely) some justification for giving one to the main subject(s) of the scene being shot, under very limited circumstances, but to the extras?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh R
Strict control is supposed to be followed in that the armorer show the revolver to the actor demonstrates it has blanks or dummies for a close up shot of the front of the revolver. The actor is told exactly what to do, if there are deviations the armorer yells “cut”.
|
I'm absolutely fine with this, if I understand you correctly. We do this at the range at times, when handing guns over to one another so a buddy can try out one of ours. It's very common that we both look while one opens the action, swings the cylinder out, drops the mag and checks the chamber, or whatever. That way both are satisfied that the gun is "safe", so it doesn't change possession without that verification.
It sounds as though that did not happen in this case. Someone handed Mr. Baldwin a gun and declared it a "cold gun", not bothering to even check for himself when doing so. First missed opportunity. When conducting the transfer of possession, these two guys did not check it together, verifying to one another it was indeed "cold". Second missed opportunity. In such a situation at my range (or any other for that matter), it becomes imperative that the individual receiving the gun check it for himself, regardless of what the other guy said. Third missed opportunity...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh R
Lexan shields, remote cameras, pointing the barrel to the side have all been discussed earlier. ABs fault is as a producer if it was just a title. He may well have not been involved in budgets or staffing. Don’t misunderstand me I don’t like him at all he’s arrogant, rude and a general schmuck.
|
As I've stated earlier, I really don't care what titles Mr. Baldwin may have held on this set. The only thing I care about is the gun that he held. He could have been the water boy - the instant he comes into possession of a firearm, he becomes responsible for anything that happens with it until he relinquishes possession. That is the "Golden Rule" of firearms responsibility. The only persons exempt are small children. I know some are saying "and Hollywood actors", but, obviously, I disagree.