Live ammo on film set?

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by bladeracer » 13 Mar 2022, 10:40 am

"Baldwin also claims in the court documents that his contract indemnifies him for any damages. He believes that he’s not responsible for the shooting."

https://www.savagetakes.com/03/2022/12/652757

"In a shocking development, actor Alec Baldwin now claims that cinematographer Halyna Hutchins asked for the gun to be pointed at her during the filming of the movie “Rust.”

Court documents were filed on Friday using this “despicable defense.” NY Post reporter Maureen Callahan has covered the case in detail.

Baldwin appears to be blaming his victim for her tragic death by claiming she told him to cock the gun that killed her.

Despite facing mulitple lawsuits, Baldwin still found time to purchase a $1.75 million Vermont farmhouse.

However, it appears that Baldwin’s words are quickly catching up to him as blatant contradictions are surfacing.

During a highly publicized interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Baldwin previously claimed that he did not point the gun at anyone or pull the trigger.

“I would never point a gun at anyone,” Baldwin had proclaimed to ABC, “and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

This clearly contracts page 20 of the court filing shared by Deadline as Baldwin now says he was directed to point the gun at Hutchins. “She [Hutchins] directed Baldwin to hold the gun higher, to a point where it was directed toward her,” the document reads.

Baldwin is now being hammered as a “liar” and “coward” over the situation.

Halyna Hutchins’ widower, Matthew, has reportedly changed his demeanor “from amenable to vengeful.”

Baldwin also claims in the court documents that his contract indemnifies him for any damages. He believes that he’s not responsible for the shooting."


"Callahan could not repress her disgust, writing, “Alec Baldwin is a liar and a coward. Blaming the dead — how unspeakably reptilian. Baldwin also claims that it was Hutchins who directed him to pull back the hammer on the gun.”
"Far from the well-oiled machine that Baldwin claimed the film was, it seemed actually a tragedy waiting to happen. The LA Times reported that there had been no less than three accidental shootings on the set before Hutchins was killed. The outlet also reported on a lack of safety protocols and a penchant for cutting corners as well as an inexperienced armorer and an overworked crew. Six of the crew walked off the set the morning that Hutchins was shot due to unsafe conditions.

“The gun used by Baldwin,” the filing reads, “discharged a live round.”

“Yes, an inanimate object pointed itself and ‘discharged’ — such a softer verb than ‘fired’ — the bullet that killed a young wife and mother,” Callahan caustically commented."

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/alec-baldwin-blames-victim-of-rust-fatal-shooting-in-new-docs/news-story/e5058cbfc9efee60921d3dcaf2853621

"Actor Alec Baldwin insists every single mistake leading to the fatal shooting on the set of his movie was “performed by someone else” in new legal papers. Alec Baldwin filed legal papers Friday in the US denying any responsibility for shooting dead Halyna Hutchins — even blaming the late cinematographer for giving him the directions that led to the deadly accident.

The 63-year-old actor insisted that every single mistake leading to the October 21 shooting on the New Mexico set of Rust was “performed by someone else”, the NY Post reports.

“This is a rare instance when the system broke down, and someone should be held legally culpable for the tragic consequences,” the star’s lawyer, Luke Nikas, wrote in an arbitration filing Friday shared by Deadline.

“That person is not Alec Baldwin,” said the filing, adding that he is just “an actor”.

The arbitration demand against Baldwin’s fellow producers claims the star’s contract protects him from any financial responsibility in a slew of lawsuits filed against him, including the wrongful death complaint filed by Ms Hutchins’ widower. Even without that clause, Baldwin was completely innocent in the “unthinkable tragedy,” according to the filing, which revealed he was paid $US250,000 to star in and produce the low-budget Western.

“As he had done throughout his career, Baldwin trusted the other professionals on the set to do their jobs,” Mr Nikas wrote.

“The facts make clear that Baldwin is not culpable for these events or failures.”

Those whose directions Baldwin followed included Ms Hutchins herself, the filing stated, calling it “the worst day in Alec Baldwin’s life” that “will continue to haunt” him. Ms Hutchins “directed Baldwin” in the rehearsal scene to “determine how best to angle the camera and what movements Baldwin should make for her to capture the cocked gun that the script had called for”, it said.

“Hutchins described what she would like Baldwin to do with the placement of the gun … She directed Baldwin to hold the gun higher, to a point where it was directed toward her,” the filing detailed.

“In giving and following these instructions, Hutchins and Baldwin shared a core, vital belief: that the gun was ‘cold’ and contained no live rounds.

“Baldwin asked Hutchins whether she wanted to see him cock the gun, as the script required. She responded yes,” the filing stated.

On her instructions, “Baldwin then pulled back the hammer, but not far enough to actually cock the gun.”

“When Baldwin let go of the hammer, the gun went off,” the filing noted. “As later became known, a live bullet discharged from the gun and struck Hutchins, traveling through her body and striking [director Joel] Souza in the shoulder. Both Hutchins and Souza fell to the ground,” it said.

“No one understood what had happened,” the filing stated of the “panic and confusion” immediately after.

It was only when Baldwin was interviewed by Santa Fe sheriff’s deputies that he saw “a photograph of the object that had just been removed from Souza’s shoulder at the hospital — a .45 caliber slug”.

“Baldwin recognized the object as a live bullet, and he finally began to comprehend what had transpired on the set of Rust that day,” the filing stated, saying the actor was “shocked”.

But the star took no responsibility for failing to double-check that the gun had no live bullets in it — claiming rookie armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed ordered him not to, saying “it was her job to check the gun — not his”.

“An actor cannot rule that a gun is safe,” the filing said. “That is the responsibility of other people on the set.”

The filing also detailed Baldwin’s initial communications with Hutchins’ widower, Matthew, in which the star told him, “I guess we’re going to go through this together.”

But their relationship broke down after Baldwin’s now-notorious TV sit-down in which he claimed he had not fired the fatal shot, which the grieving husband called “absurd” and left him “so angry”.

Matthew Hutchins is one of many who have sued Baldwin over the fatal incident, saying he “recklessly shot and killed Halyna Hutchins on the set”.

Some of the others suing him were also initially supportive, according to the filing.

That included script supervisor Mamie Mitchell, who now blames Baldwin for not checking the gun — but immediately after the shooting told him, “You realise you’re not responsible for any of what happened in there, don’t you?”, the filing alleged.

The filing listed a series of mishaps possibly to blame for the fatal accident, none of which were Baldwin’s responsibility, according to his lawyer.

“He didn’t announce that the gun was ‘cold’ when it really contained a live round; he didn’t load the gun; he didn’t check the bullets in the gun; he didn’t purchase the bullets; he didn’t make the bullets and represent that they were dummies; he wasn’t in charge of firearm safety on the set; he didn’t hire the people who supplied the bullets or checked the gun; and he played no role in managing the movie’s props,” the filing said."
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11628
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Oldbloke » 20 Jan 2023, 6:44 am

Alec Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64337761
Treat trolls with the contempt they deserve.
Reminder. I am of average intelligence, therefore 50% of people are dumber than me.
Member. NSC, SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 9744
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Barbarian » 24 Jan 2023, 7:14 pm

End of the day, without being super familiar with the tolerances of a Single Action Army and assuming various surfaces weren't wildly worn down/altered. I can see someone inexperienced with firearms holding the trigger down when pulling the hammer back even if unintentionally.

That said outside of any liability as part of the production team legally, regardless of the man's politics I don't think the actor deserves the charge of manslaughter.

The armorer 100% does and I hope they throw the book at her.
Barbarian
Private
Private
 
Posts: 70
Western Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Blr243 » 24 Jan 2023, 9:33 pm

That armourer is goin to the can for sure ... she is done . Useless . Should never have been allowed to do anything on that set other than make coffee and sweep the floor
Blr243
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4188
Queensland

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Jan 2023, 10:19 pm

Blr243 wrote:That armourer is goin to the can for sure ... she is done . Useless . Should never have been allowed to do anything on that set other than make coffee and sweep the floor


There is just one small problem here.
You get just 1 guess who her manager/supervisor was.
Treat trolls with the contempt they deserve.
Reminder. I am of average intelligence, therefore 50% of people are dumber than me.
Member. NSC, SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 9744
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by straightshooter » 25 Jan 2023, 6:24 am

Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.
The charge placed on Mr. Baldwin is the mildest imaginable, no doubt because he knows the right people.
Others also culpable are the armourer, whoever managed props and the deceased director.
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
“No nation can be freer than its most oppressed, richer than its poorest, or wiser than its most ignorant.” Henry George
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1044
New South Wales

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Blr243 » 25 Jan 2023, 7:00 am

Very true OB
Blr243
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4188
Queensland

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by on_one_wheel » 25 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm

straightshooter wrote:Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.


They hold guns hard up against people's heads, stick them in their own mouths, there's no angle of parallax going on there.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3397
South Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Lazarus » 25 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:
straightshooter wrote:Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.


They hold guns hard up against people's heads, stick them in their own mouths, there's no angle of parallax going on there.



Having worked in the film and TV industry in the long gone past OOW, I can assure you, anything in the scenarios you mentioned are non-functional prop guns.

Straightshooter is correct, a real, functional firearm is never supposed to be used in the contact situations you cited, and it's ALWAYS supposed to be perspective, camera angle and sight lines to give the desired effect.

There is never, not ever, supposed to be live rounds involved or even on set, the fact that there were means all in the chain of responsibility have to bend over for this tragic fiasco.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 859
New South Wales

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Barbarian » 25 Jan 2023, 3:33 pm

straightshooter wrote:Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.
The charge placed on Mr. Baldwin is the mildest imaginable, no doubt because he knows the right people.
Others also culpable are the armourer, whoever managed props and the deceased director.


Going off of the reported events where Baldwin was pointing the gun at the camera under the director's instruction. The mildness of any charge against Baldwin in his capacity as an actor has nothing to do with who he knows. Manslaughter is the only applicable charge, just because he's charged doesn't mean he'll be found guilty. The prop master and armorer have both failed, both in the presence of anything other than dummy rounds in the gun or the absence of a non functioning prop replica. Not to mention the presence of live ammo and repeated ND's over the course of the production. That said, there is an arguement for some liability on baldwin's part for mishandling the firearm by having his finger on the trigger and engaging the trigger while manipulating the hammer (likely what caused the shot)

Any fault for the firearm being pointed at another person in this case would likely rest with the director, though thats moot as she's not there to defend her choice to film from that angle without a remote camera.

Actors levels of firearms knowledge would vary wildly from individual to individual, while they are performing as instructed under a script they reply wholly upon the training and expertise of those handling the props. The management from the production are still likely responsible as a whole for any liability created by hiring inexperienced or unqualified persons in props and armory.

The sad part is the knee jerk reactions from other productions about not needing real firearms on set. I've worked with people in both props, wardrobe, film and lighting and there are elements of real gunshots that take more time to fix in post. Especially if your production have a fixed budget for CGI
Barbarian
Private
Private
 
Posts: 70
Western Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by bladeracer » 25 Jan 2023, 4:38 pm

Barbarian wrote:The management from the production are still likely responsible as a whole for any liability created by hiring inexperienced or unqualified persons in props and armory.


Baldwin was the management as well...
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11628
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by bladeracer » 25 Jan 2023, 6:16 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:They hold guns hard up against people's heads, stick them in their own mouths, there's no angle of parallax going on there.


When such shots are required, a proper armourer will disable the firearm so as to be non-fireable if they can't use a dummy in place of it. There are certainly places that don't bother using such safety procedures, and this appears to be one of them.

I have seen old movies where I'm certain live ammo has been used in some scenes, because the recoil is far too well modelled to be a prop, and where bullet impacts are made on various surfaces, like dirt, glass and trees. There are situations where it is possible to safely use live ammo, and where local ordnances won't allow it due to the location, some scenes can be shot elsewhere using live ammo and spliced into it.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11628
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Jan 2023, 7:06 pm

Oldbloke wrote:
Blr243 wrote:That armourer is goin to the can for sure ... she is done . Useless . Should never have been allowed to do anything on that set other than make coffee and sweep the floor


There is just one small problem here.
You get just 1 guess who her manager/supervisor was.



Like I said a couple of days ago Baldwin was in charge of the site. It's US. But if it was here the bulk of the responsibility rests on his shoulders.

Its been reported that there was live fire on the site days before. He should have ensured all live ammo was removed from the site and at that point sacked the armourer. The rest is detail.
Treat trolls with the contempt they deserve.
Reminder. I am of average intelligence, therefore 50% of people are dumber than me.
Member. NSC, SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 9744
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by on_one_wheel » 25 Jan 2023, 8:28 pm

Lazarus wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:
straightshooter wrote:Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.


They hold guns hard up against people's heads, stick them in their own mouths, there's no angle of parallax going on there.



Having worked in the film and TV industry in the long gone past OOW, I can assure you, anything in the scenarios you mentioned are non-functional prop guns.

Straightshooter is correct, a real, functional firearm is never supposed to be used in the contact situations you cited, and it's ALWAYS supposed to be perspective, camera angle and sight lines to give the desired effect.

There is never, not ever, supposed to be live rounds involved or even on set, the fact that there were means all in the chain of responsibility have to bend over for this tragic fiasco.


Yes, no doubt, I was just pointing out what was said by ss
"It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm
"
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3397
South Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by straightshooter » 26 Jan 2023, 6:45 am

on_one_wheel wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:
straightshooter wrote:Most posters in this thread seem more intent on proffering their ill informed opinions rather than examining basic realities.
Under no circumstances should the gun have been aimed at a person.
It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm or a real firearm loaded with blanks. The appearance of reality is maintained by suitable camera angles or audience sight lines.


They hold guns hard up against people's heads, stick them in their own mouths, there's no angle of parallax going on there.



Having worked in the film and TV industry in the long gone past OOW, I can assure you, anything in the scenarios you mentioned are non-functional prop guns.

Straightshooter is correct, a real, functional firearm is never supposed to be used in the contact situations you cited, and it's ALWAYS supposed to be perspective, camera angle and sight lines to give the desired effect.

There is never, not ever, supposed to be live rounds involved or even on set, the fact that there were means all in the chain of responsibility have to bend over for this tragic fiasco.


Yes, no doubt, I was just pointing out what was said by ss
"It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm
"

Now if we are into nit picking the words, general rule, should have suggested a contextual relationship to theatrical events of the nature of the incident being discussed.
One would think that theatrical depictions that go beyond the generality of that rule would attract a markedly different level of safety procedures.
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
“No nation can be freer than its most oppressed, richer than its poorest, or wiser than its most ignorant.” Henry George
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1044
New South Wales

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Barbarian » 26 Jan 2023, 7:55 am

Oldbloke wrote:
Oldbloke wrote:
Blr243 wrote:That armourer is goin to the can for sure ... she is done . Useless . Should never have been allowed to do anything on that set other than make coffee and sweep the floor


There is just one small problem here.
You get just 1 guess who her manager/supervisor was.



Like I said a couple of days ago Baldwin was in charge of the site. It's US. But if it was here the bulk of the responsibility rests on his shoulders.

Its been reported that there was live fire on the site days before. He should have ensured all live ammo was removed from the site and at that point sacked the armourer. The rest is detail.


bladeracer wrote:
Barbarian wrote:The management from the production are still likely responsible as a whole for any liability created by hiring inexperienced or unqualified persons in props and armory.


Baldwin was the management as well...


Baldwin was a Executive Producer on Rust - so were 5 others (not sure if all 5 were still members of the production team at the time of the incident but 6 Executive Producers are listed) And there would be numerous producers below them.

They don't seem to be charging the other producers so that tells us that they are charging Baldwin based on his involvement as the man who pulled the trigger.

Some some cursory searches reveal that the Day-to-day Producer on set was Ryan Donnell Smith and he hired 3rd Shift Media who hired the Armorer.
Barbarian
Private
Private
 
Posts: 70
Western Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Oldbloke » 26 Jan 2023, 8:09 am

Mmmm, 5? First I've heard that. Thought it was usually 1?
Was he the only one on site? Don't know.
US laws will likely be different anyway.
Wait and see I guess.
Treat trolls with the contempt they deserve.
Reminder. I am of average intelligence, therefore 50% of people are dumber than me.
Member. NSC, SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 9744
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Lazarus » 26 Jan 2023, 8:36 am

on_one_wheel wrote:
Yes, no doubt, I was just pointing out what was said by ss
"It is a general rule in theatrical and film productions that any "gun" is never pointed at a person irrespective of whether that "gun" is an imitation firearm
"


Fair enough OOW, I missed that.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 859
New South Wales

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by on_one_wheel » 26 Jan 2023, 8:41 am

straightshooter wrote:[q


One would think that theatrical depictions that go beyond the generality of that rule would attract a markedly different level of safety procedures.


I agree, far more care should have been taken.
There was obviously serious flaws at every level and an extremely sloppy attitude towards firearm safety to have allowed the accident to happen.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3397
South Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Barbarian » 26 Jan 2023, 2:00 pm

Oldbloke wrote:Mmmm, 5? First I've heard that. Thought it was usually 1?
Was he the only one on site? Don't know.
US laws will likely be different anyway.
Wait and see I guess.


Just googled a little further, the following is IMDB's list of production credits.

Alec Baldwin ... producer
Kc Brandenstein ... co-producer
Matt DelPiano ... producer
Tyler Gould ... executive producer
Matthew Helderman ... executive producer
Matthew Hutchins ... executive producer
Nathan Klingher ... producer
Anjul Nigam ... producer
Gabrielle Pickle ... line producer
Ryan Donnell Smith ... producer
Luke Taylor ... executive producer
Ryan Winterstern ... producer
Barbarian
Private
Private
 
Posts: 70
Western Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Oldbloke » 26 Jan 2023, 2:05 pm

FMD 12 producer's . Lol

Edit. I wonder if 11 leading hands got promoted a few months ago? Lol
Treat trolls with the contempt they deserve.
Reminder. I am of average intelligence, therefore 50% of people are dumber than me.
Member. NSC, SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 9744
Victoria

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by on_one_wheel » 26 Jan 2023, 2:53 pm

It could've been much worse,
thank f*** they weren't messing around with "prop" RPG's
Screenshot_20230126-152153_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20230126-152153_DuckDuckGo.jpg (98.16 KiB) Viewed 98 times
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3397
South Australia

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by Lazarus » 26 Jan 2023, 8:45 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:It could've been much worse,
thank f*** they weren't messing around with "prop" RPG's
Screenshot_20230126-152153_DuckDuckGo.jpg


Ever noticed how often they fire an RPG or LAWS from inside a room or even worse, a vehicle in movies?

Or how often someone stops a round just below the clavicle, right about where the sub-clavian artery lives, then just soldiers on as if it was a mozzie bite?
Fecking Hollywood.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 859
New South Wales

Re: Live ammo on film set?

Post by on_one_wheel » 26 Jan 2023, 8:56 pm

Lazarus wrote:
on_one_wheel wrote:It could've been much worse,
thank f*** they weren't messing around with "prop" RPG's
The attachment Screenshot_20230126-152153_DuckDuckGo.jpg is no longer available


Ever noticed how often they fire an RPG or LAWS from inside a room or even worse, a vehicle in movies?

Or how often someone stops a round just below the clavicle, right about where the sub-clavian artery lives, then just soldiers on as if it was a mozzie bite?
Fecking Hollywood.


You won't catch me firing an RPG from the lounge room, mostly because I'll never get my hands on one, partly because I like my hair-do just the way it is.
Screenshot_20230126_212552.jpg
Screenshot_20230126_212552.jpg (122.34 KiB) Viewed 81 times
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3397
South Australia

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics