• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Strange Deaths

escargot said:
My thoughts too.

This movie was on a low budget so perhaps CGI looked to expensive? That went well.
Click to expand...
That kind of simple CGI is not expensive at all.
 
Nosmo King said:
I think the main reason is to get a convincing recoil, it's very hard to act a proper recoil
Click to expand...
True, but actors playing big he-men* never seem to suffer recoil, as demonstrated weekly in that totally reliable firearms documentary series The A-Team. Nobody gets hurt either of course.

*or from a British point of view wimps who have to use guns :hahazebs:
 
Mythopoeika said:
That kind of simple CGI is not expensive at all.
Click to expand...
Baldwin would not even pay for the crew to stay in town, they had to commute 50 miles each day.

"After previously being told their hotel rooms in Santa Fe, where the set is located, would have their cost covered by the production, the crew learned they'd actually have to commute 50-miles from Albuquerque to set daily, according to the LA Times"

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rust-camera-crew-reportedly-walked-203422086.html
 
Nosmo King said:
Baldwin would not even pay for the crew to stay in town, they had to commute 50 miles each day.

"After previously being told their hotel rooms in Santa Fe, where the set is located, would have their cost covered by the production, the crew learned they'd actually have to commute 50-miles from Albuquerque to set daily, according to the LA Times"

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rust-camera-crew-reportedly-walked-203422086.html
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound good for Baldwin. He's stuffed.
 
Nosmo King said:
Some machine guns do
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that those are 'machine cannon'.... which are quite different, and similar to 'Phalanx', used on ships to destroy incoming missiles and other threats.
You wouldn't want to get in front of one of them.

Actual 'machine guns' have a much slower rate of fire, and you need to fire them in short bursts to avoid overheating of the barrel etc.
Seen here the US Marines using their M2 which has a distinctive thok-thok-thok-thok-thok sound and only a little bit of wispy smoke being emitted.
 
escargot said:
True, but actors playing big he-men* never seem to suffer recoil, as demonstrated weekly in that totally reliable firearms documentary series The A-Team. Nobody gets hurt either of course.

*or from a British point of view wimps who have to use guns :hahazebs:
Click to expand...

Yeah: James Bond, Simon Templar…bunch of pansies.

:rofl:

maximus otter
 
escargot said:
True, but actors playing big he-men* never seem to suffer recoil, as demonstrated weekly in that totally reliable firearms documentary series The A-Team. Nobody gets hurt either of course.

*or from a British point of view wimps who have to use guns :hahazebs:
Click to expand...
Gen. Fulbright gets killed in one episode.

"During the entire series, only five people died on-screen, this Includes General Harlan "Bull" Fulbright, who was shot in the back by a hostile during an operation working together with the A-Team. The deaths of at least three more characters were left ambiguous."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...o Vietnam, Fulbright is,last words as he dies.
 
maximus otter said:
Amen. Why the **** was there even a live round present? There is no result produced by firing a live round that can’t be replicated by the use of blanks, special effects or squibs.

lt seems that my suspicions about Baldwin’s involvement were groundless. Someone needs to do time for this jaw-dropping laxness and stupidity.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Yes the update is that now no one knows how he got the gun off the table, but clearly the negligence in this case is gross.

As a side note, the industry just averted a strike by technicians based primarily on issues of profit-sharing for streaming services and crew safety. I don't think however anyone has thought it necessary to put into the workrules that a licensed armorer is required whenever a firearm will be discharged. Because of the prominence of the actor involved in this case, I think this change will be made. If I am remembering correctly, the last film crew member who was killed on location was working on a train trestle and the crew had been assured that no train would approach that day. She was the one of three who didn't jump in time, and the person responsible did prison time.
 
Last edited:
Lb8535 said:
Yes the update is that now no one knows how he got the gun off the table, but clearly the negligence in this case is gross.

As a side note, the industry just averted a strike by technicians based primarily on issues of profit-sharing for streaming services and crew safety. I don't think however anyone has thought it necessary to put into the workrules that a licensed armorer is required whenever a firearm will be discharged. Because of the prominence of the actor involved in this case, I think this change will be made. If I am remembering correctly, the last film crew member who was killed on location was working on a train trestle and the crew had been assured that no train would approach that day. She was the one of three who didn't jump in time, and the person responsible did prison time.
Click to expand...
There will have to be even stricter rules and extreme-OCD levels of vigilance.
 
Mythopoeika said:
That kind of simple CGI is not expensive at all.
Click to expand...
Actually for professional-level CGI to be used in public hi-def product it is, and that's the reason it's not always done CGI. At least for a bottom-scooper like this film. But there are always alternatives, and yes there is really no reason at all any more to fire a gun on the primary set. This is a film where the crew was given so little sleeping time between commuting to the hotel and work calls that they walked off the job. The rate of car accidents to film crew driving home to get their few hours of sleep is high, one reason timing of time off was included in the recent strike demands.
 
Nosmo King said:
Here are some rules regarding the use of firearms on a film set.

Whose responsibility is it?​

Safety on set is the responsibility of the producer, the director and the first assistant director (First AD). The First AD is the producer’s voice on set: responsible for on set safety calls with input from the safety supervisor and armourer. He or she will have been briefed by the producer, who provides a risk assessment and an industry standard safety report.

The armourer is responsible for inducting anyone handling the firearm on set and safely keeping the weapons. Police and neighbors should be notified by the production office of the presence of firearms and intended blank firing to avoid distress and false alarm calls.

Each day, the First AD and the armourer should discuss the proposed schedule of use and the safe storage of the firearms between use. The First AD should be satisfied that the guns brought to set are safe and unloaded and that no live ammunition is on set.

The First AD must, if it hasn’t been possible in rehearsal, arrange for all cast who are scheduled to be handling the firearms on the day to be inducted in the safe handling of the firearm that they will be using.

The armourer (who holds the guns) will then be on standby to issue firearms as required by the script. This is where it all gets a little Full Metal Jacket.

Each time a gun is handed to a performer, the armourer must open the weapon’s breach and present it to the performer with verbal confirmation such as, “The weapon is clear”.

When the performer is satisfied that the gun is not loaded they should audibly confirm “Clear”.

When it is returned to the armourer following the take, the same clear verbal confirmation is required.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-rules-for-shooting-on-film-sets-71797
Click to expand...
All true but note that these are the rules for Australia.
 
Trevp666 said:
I think you'll find that those are 'machine cannon'.... which are quite different, and similar to 'Phalanx', used on ships to destroy incoming missiles and other threats.
You wouldn't want to get in front of one of them.

Actual 'machine guns' have a much slower rate of fire, and you need to fire them in short bursts to avoid overheating of the barrel etc.
Seen here the US Marines using their M2 which has a distinctive thok-thok-thok-thok-thok sound and only a little bit of wispy smoke being emitted.
Click to expand...
Best machine cannon - the awesome thing on an A10 Tankbuster.
 
Cochise said:
on an A10 Tankbuster.
Click to expand...
I was watching some documentary one day where they were talking to an A-10 pilot and he said he loved using the 'gun' as you could "watch it peeling open a tank and turning the occupants into mush."
 
Trevp666 said:
I was watching some documentary one day where they were talking to an A-10 pilot and he said he loved using the 'gun' as you could "watch it peeling open a tank and turning the occupants into mush."
Click to expand...
Was there not some weapon created that was capable of firing a million rounds per minute, but was banned? It apparently could disintegrate virtually anything and reduce a human body to the consistency of smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top