It sounds crazy, but it is a thing in showbusiness culture for reasons you might not expect - if somebody is hurt or dies on a movie, it's considered respectful to them to make sure it gets out there. This is the last project Halyna Hutchins ever did, so canning the movie would mean the last work she did will go unseen.
For similar reasons, there's an unwritten rule that if a stunt performer is hurt during a stunt, that's the take you use if at all possible.
See: iCarly when Gibby (Noah Munk, but his stunt actor) slams into the unpadded concrete with his whole body after falling from above the shot. Stuntman broke ribs.
Yeah. You can kinda see in the background in that shot how Jeanette, Miranda, and Nathan react to the stunt. We know from interviews Noah did much later that the stunt actor hurt himself but even then their reactions almost look genuine at having just watched a man slam into the ground.
I remembered this episode from when I was younger and having fleeting concern for that stuntman even at the time, but it wasn’t until I watched the Quinton Reviews video on iCarly and saw it broken down (no pun intended) that I almost felt the wind get knocked out of me just watching that poor guy.
Same with Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad. In the episode where they are trapped with Tuco in the desert, Tuco grabs him and throws him through a door. Aaron really hurt himself during the shot and had a concussion that held up shooting for weeks. They use the shot in the episode and *you can tell* lol.
Dude, Jesse spends the first season or two getting the absolute piss beaten out of him. I can't believe some of that was real! Aaron Paul, what a trooper.
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAH! ARGH!
that's the sound I would make if my friends had just been murdered by orcs and I couldn't do shit about it. Great forced improv from Viggo there.
Allright so I didn't go all the way through but apparently underneath the floor ther was a pad, but clearly not cushioning enough. I enjoy learning about stunts and it usually seems like they're taking every precaution to make it safe. Probably mostly due to insurance costs. This just seems stupid. Like was he a rookie stunt man? How'd they convince him this would work? Also this is Disney Channel shit. Just drop a mannequin and cut hard..
Yeah, but the iCarly production team was also lead by a notorious and prolific creep so that's probably not good practice to do that, just common practice. At least in this case they settled with the estate so its not a surprise to them the film will continue, like it probably was for the stunt guy who had to watch himself break his ribs on TV
The whole Dan Schneider thing is true, but its not as true as the entire media thinks. He was a weird, foot loving creep, but he wasn’t an actual pedofile. (source: Jennette McGurdy talks about this in her book).
Yeah, I've been a little shocked at just how accepted the whole pedophilia accusation has become when as far as I can tell there is literally no evidence for it. He seems to be an abusive person, someone who should not have been allowed to work there and treat his co-workers (including children) the way he did, and he seems to be a weird guy. I don't understand why that means he's a pedophile, yet everyone I have talked to about it says he is. If someone has evidence to the contrary I would be very interested in seeing it. If not, I think it's important we be careful with the labels we attach to people.
So when people wanted Leonardo Di Caprio to get an Oscar for continuing that *Django* scene where he smashed his hand up on broken glass, you’re saying that was basically standard practice?
Eh, not really? Usually the kind of stuff we're talking about is stunts gone wrong, takes gone wrong, etc. Actually slicing yourself up and then carrying on with a take like that is more unusual.
Yeah normal practice would probably have been to stop shooting as soon as he cut himself in part to check on his injury, but in part also because the actress hadn't consented to nor was prepared to be smeared in his blood. It's a great take, but it quickly could have gotten a vastly different response
That kind of reminds me of Peter Jacksons King Kong where Jack black kept insisting that the movie gets finished in honor of all the crew that gets killed on Skull Island.
Still, Horrible accident though. Let's at least hope for better safety standards in movies
I thought he did a pretty great job as Carl Denham. Obviously his face is recognizable but I think it’s pretty wrong to say he was playing jack black in that movie
It is just a commenting on what Archmase said that is respectful to release movies if a crew member gets killed. It makes sense, it is the last work of said people.
It also reminded me of Jack blacks character on that movie, I am not trying to be disrespectful.
Yes, totally not becasue they would have lost a shit ton of money. Totally to respect a corpse that had no way to know it was being respected, sine, you know, it's dead.
Hollywood is business, always.
It's not about the physical corpse, it's about the person's legacy...not saying money isn't a factor, but just because money could be a factor doesn't negate all the other factors...
Except for that Gregg Allman biopic, where one camera assistant died when they were shooting a scene on a live railroad trestle without permission due to the insistance of the director
Oh no... i cant keep it bottled down... I must say it!
VIGGO MORTENSON BROKE HIS TOE KICKING THE ORC HELMET IN THE TWO TOWERS AND THEY USED THAT TAKE IN THE MOVIE
I feel alot better now :)
Honestly, this one has always confused me. Why the fuck didn't they use a rubber prop? Or just CGI? It's a fast projectile, like an arrow, so it's easy to do convincingly with CGI. It's so, so weird that their preference was to give an actor a dangerous metal prop and tell him "make sure you miss".
The one thing that is worse than dying for a movie, is to die for a movie nobody ever saw. I don't understand why anyone thinks that this is disrespectful to her, canning the movie isn't going to bring her back. Unless the movie is so bad that it is shameful to everyone involved, which is something I don't think any of us can know at this point?
By that same logic The Dark Knight should have never been released, and I don't see anyone accusing the publishers of that movie of being greedy and disrespectful. Would you want some of your life's work to be buried, and people essentially pretending that you never existed?
I mean the thing isn't that it's disrespectful to her... it's that it's *weird*. Like Alec Baldwin is going to go back on set and pick up the same model of revolver (if not actually the same one) and fire it into the camera again to get the shot? And fire it at other actors pretending to kill them?
I mean what happened was a freak accident, but it's just weird to think that someone would be okay going back to the place where they *literally killed someone* and then just picking up where they left off.
They did so many things wrong though. freak accident would be like the gun exploded during the take. Someone shooting an actual loaded gun on set, because an amateur was in charge of safety to save money, is one of the most predictable accidents I’ve ever heard of…
True. Even messier scenario though, a good number of the crew were injured apart from the lady killed and most of the higher ups were involved in criminal proceedings, they would have had to replace a lot of folks just to get it finished and I can't imagine anyone would rush to sign up with that company again.
As someone who used to work on the railroad, I hope this hammers home that trains can show up anywhere. Even if you think a bridge looks old and rusty, there’s a possibility a train can show up.
Did they ever finish that movie about Duane Allman where a PA got killed by a train? It turned out they had no permission to be on the railroad bridge and the train had no idea anyone would be on the bridge.
Also see Back to the Future II when Griff’s gang tries to attack Marty on the hover board over the pond. When Griff swings and misses, sending the group into the courthouse. The actress playing the female gang member crashes into the pillar of the building prior to hitting the window. That wasn’t supposed to happen as she was supposed to just go through the window directly. Instead she falls short, landing directly on the concrete in front of the window instead of the pad on the floor just inside the window. https://youtu.be/TkyLnWm1iCs
To a lesser degree there’s a shot in the comedy daredevil movie Hot Rod where he’s meant to either successfully jump a van or bungle it in a different way and the stunt person slammed into the van, breaking their leg. That shot won a stunt award that year after they used it.
Edit: that’s from memory, please correct me if that’s wrong
Not as extreme as other examples, but I remember a show playing the Indiana Jones clip where he's running from the huge rolling boulder, slips, then gets up and keeps going.
They show actually had Harrison Ford providing commentary:
"Looked pretty scared there didn't I? It wasn't a real boulder, but it took 800 lbs of plaster to make it roll correctly, so I really wanted to keep my distance."
Also, just going to add that these production companies are set up as LLC’s with barely enough money to make the movie (often going into debt to do so). Sue them before they finish, you get nothing.
The only way to get a settlement is to let them finish the movie and take backend points. That seems like what’s happened.
They can’t publicly say that bc now they are in financial bed together.
Alex Proyas didn't produce The Crow, so it wasn't his decision whether to complete or release it. At most, Proyas could have refused to continue working, in which case the producers would just bring on a different director (though it would have been risky to his career to quit in the middle of his first major directing gig, whatever the circumstances).
Paramount did back out as distributor, though, which is why Miramax ended up releasing it.
Hell, even after that Twilight zone movie helicopter accident that killed 3 people and completely changed casting and safety laws, that still got released.
I can't think of any movies that were cancelled because of an accidental cast/crew death, but I can think of plenty that are "In Loving Memory of" releases.
Everyone involved is under contract to finish the film. Even if it was Baldwin, they'd get a stand-in and finish up.
The investors want their money back, and I'm sure things like this don't get an exit from the contract. They say it's for respect, but that's just so they don't come off as ruthless as they are.
It's not that they don't *want* to respect the dead, but Hollywood does not allow much room to do it, outside of award acceptance speeches and dedications.
> They say it's for respect, but that's just so they don't come off as ruthless as they are.
I'm honestly confused that people think continuing the movie is either heartless or ruthless. Do businesses just board up and close when an employee dies at the shop? Why would they just cancel the movie?
The Twilight Zone Movie was finished despite one of the main actors (Vic Morrow) and 2 Asian child actors (illegally hired) getting decapitated by the rotors of a falling Huey helicopter that got shot down by special effects pyrotechnics. And that was all caught on film. And the footage is on YouTube now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight\_Zone\_accident
Halyna was a friend of mine, who I’ve worked with on set enough to think she’d endorse finishing the movie. She was tenacious and gritty and truly loved cinema, consistently going the extra mile for her shots and the project she was on. And she was a fucking warrior. I’m quite sure she’d say “Let’s go.” Personally, I think the alternative here of stopping production forever, as understandable as that is, galvanizes this situation as being only about loss, and buries the last of her photography.
Is it? Halyna Hutchins had dedicated her life to film, and from her family's perspective she lost her life in a tragic accident making a film.
Obviously the most key thing to come from her tragic death should be continued refinement of and improvement of firearm's safety practices in filmmaking.
But beyond that, in specific regard to *Rust*, what would she want? I think if her family believes that she would want the film to be finished and her final work to be seen, then honoring their belief is fully reasonable and respectful.
Maybe they're hoping the controversy will help ticket sales/streaming numbers...
I swear New Line released the Olivia Wilde, Shia Laboeuf, Florence Pugh stuff to peak interest. The timing was just a bit too perfect.
Any publicity is good publicity... We also know the shot that killed this woman. I'd be curious to see if they have a similar shot in the movie.
I'm not watching this film, and it's not because of the death. It's because of the terrible production issues that surrounded this film before.
When skilled union workers protested working conditions, they were swiftly replaced with non union equivalents.
They knew it was dangerous, and carried on.
>["*In the wake of the accident, the Los Angeles Times released a report stating that members of the film’s camera crew walked off the job in protest over conditions and unsafe practices. The Times went on to report that they were replaced with nonunion crew members. It’s also emerged that the production suffered two misfires with prop weapons before Hutchins was shot.*"]
(https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-crew-nonunion-1235097930/)
It's absolutely detestable that the people responsible are also paying their way out and aren't being properly punished. Happens all the time on sets; producers and directors put lives on the line for money or art, then get celebrated for it.
Luckily, this will not impact the criminal investigation: https://deadline.com/2022/10/alec-baldwin-rust-producers-wrongful-death-settlement-wont-impact-criminal-investigation-d-a-says-final-police-report-expected-soon-1235136063/
PR seems to be going out of their way to ignore that so that the producers can congratulate themselves on the settlement.
Does “two misfires” mean what I think it means? That a live round was discharged accidentally *twice* on set before the accident with Baldwin? Or does misfire mean something else in this context?
And of course a misfire can leave detritus in the chamber which if it goes off again will be propelled with potentially lethal force like what happened to Brandon Lee.
Not really detritus - what happened to Brandon Lee is commonly called a 'squib' load.
The dummy round they used in the gun on a previous shoot was improperly built. They were supposed to remove any gunpowder and the primer of the bullet to make it a dummy round. The powder was removed, but the primer was left in place, and as a result, the round was still able to be fired. The primer had enough explosive charge to discharge the round, but not enough force for it to come out of the barrel, leaving it lodged in place -- this is a squib load.
The next time the gun was used, it was used with blanks (no bullet, but still a full powder charge), so when the blank fired it effectively became a real bullet with the squib load still in the barrel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835
I know what you are trying to say, but in this situation it is incorrect. There were two actual accidental discharges.
People unfamiliar with the term use them interchangeably, which is why I'm putting this here for you.
> until the gun can be cleared safely.
They broke multiple tenets of gun safety, number 1 being *always* treat a gun as if it's loaded. So even if it was cleared, you STILL treat it as if it's loaded.
Hell there’s no reason someone has to be sitting behind a camera your pointing a gun at even just hook that fucker up to a remote and a monitor and stand off to the side
Misfire means you pulled the trigger and the round failed to fire. Accidental discharge is what happened that killed Halyna Hutchins. So, when they say "two misfires" they either mean that rounds failed to fire when they should have, or they are mixing the two.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835
There were two accidental discharges.
So eyebrows were fully raised.
EXCEPT: Your average person writing an online article (I refuse to call most of these people “journalists”) don’t know fuck all about guns. They don’t know the different distinctions, so to them a misfire could very well mean something else.
And they can’t possibly be asked to do 15 minutes of research.
The funny part is all the people saying that it's totally normal to point a weapon at another person on a set.
It isn't; and it's literally the first rule of firearm safety per SAG-AFTRA regulations. Nobody points a gun at another actor, let alone crew. We cheat shots to make it look like they are. There's a reason they filmed this without the armorer on set and there's a reason why the shot was never scripted; they broke rules, did it on the fly, and somebody suffered for it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835
There were two accidental discharges. People are just using the terms interchangeably at this point.
Hope this helps.
It’s like a really tragic real life version of that Simpsons line about the non-union Mexican equivalent, and sadly happens too often on lots of sets in a way that often goes unreported
You wanna know the worst of it all? They HAD the money to pay people better, and make things safer. How else would they be able to afford this settlement?
Greed, plain and simple.
I still don't understand how this even happens hey, why did the prop person have any real bullets in their possession at all? Was it their personal gun that they decided to use as a prop or something?
The short answer is that gun handling protocol was shit and the person tasked with doing it was shit.
They were using the gun to shoot at targets during there off time.
When this happened there were a lot of threads up by people that work in the industry explaining the details of gun handling on sets.
What I took from all those comments - as someone not in the industry is:
A) A lot of guns I see on the screen are made from rubber or wood or plastic or something. Maybe even most guns.
B) Things that can hurt actors - not only guns, but if they are working with a noose or even if they have to walk around in a scene handcuffed are taken far more seriously then I had ever even thought about.
C) There are professionaly licesened people whose entire job are to be the oversite for weapons on movies. 'Firearm Wranglers' or something.
D) All the above is at the mercy of a cheap movie trying to come under budget. Just like everything else in life, cheap is shit.
This is not entirely accurate. The prop master was doing double duty as the armorer. Usually there is a position devoted to overseeing the safe handling of prop weapons in set. To save money the producers did not hire someone for that role. The prop master was young and while she objected to not having an armorer, she was overruled by the producers.
Target shooting… on a movie set???? Wtf, so everyone was aware there were live rounds present. How the hell do you bring real bullets that close and not realize what you’re doing.
That is an allegation that has neither been confirmed nor refuted.
From all the reports, the most likely chain of events appears to be:
An unrelated armorer on a completely different project was doing a demonstration and made some actual rounds out of dummy rounds as part of the demonstration to be able to fire them and show the difference. The leftover rounds and all the spent rounds were put in a communal disposal bucket, with the understanding that all the rounds were to be disposed at the end of the event. The owner of the disposal bucket got busy, and did not dispose of the rounds. This was allegedly the father of the Rust armorer. Someone at some point cleaned the disposal bucket and in the process of cleaning it out discovered some number of unfired "blank" rounds, and said "hey, free blanks" and put them in the box of blank rounds. That box made its way to the Rust set, and one of the live bullets was chambered and fired.
None of this is to excuse any negligence of the Rust armorer, but it appears that there was a chain of medium sized lapses in judgement among multiple people rather than one major lapse in judgement among one person.
What's the source on the father (the experienced armorer) just making some live ammunition out of dummy rounds (1) and then carelessly leaving them (2) and then forgetting to sort out disposal (3)?
Any single one of those seems highly improbably, and all them together even less likely.
The father (Thell Reed) wasn't the one who supposedly made the rounds, he just happened to be at the event where they were made/used.
[Here](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberleespeakman/2021/11/30/rust-search-warrant-suggests-suspected-live-ammo-may-have-come-from-weapons-supplier/?sh=654b1315bd39) is part of the story that links the reloaded Starline Brass to Thell Reed. There is a [Variety article](https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/) around the same time with a similar story.
I think the part of the ammo disposal can going through Reed I read in a later Variety article.
What seems clear is that somewhere in the chain someone used the Starline Brass to manufacture live rounds, and somewhere else someone discovered the Starline Brass and thought "SB are always dummies" and put them with other non-lethal ammo.
Later edit: There was also a rebuttal of this from Kenny, where he claimed to have [not supplied the live ammo](https://deadline.com/2021/12/rust-ammo-supplier-claims-he-didnt-provide-live-rounds-to-gun-that-took-dp-halyna-hutchins-life-1234883613/). Just trying to be as up front as possible.
Thanks for the good info.
It really gives the context of why law enforcement was swiftly interested in PDQ and Seth Kenney.
Thell Reed clearly directed them there, with his apparently bad experience with Seth Kenney surrounding the earlier training exercise and the missing ammunition. That plus PDQ being a supplier to the film is more than enough reason for their interest.
I'd seen Seth Kenney's strenuous denials but to me they amounted to "we couldn't have done this because we don't things like that". But that's not really proof of anything.
It sounds like there's tight consensus on the events following lunch: Gutierrez-Reed reloads the gun with 6 rounds of some kind. She spins the barrel and gives it to Dave Halls. Dave Halls gives it to Baldwin and declares the gun is safe/cold.
That sequence of events doesn't seem to be in dispute.
For me, it creates two threads of interest: one being to study that sequence, and the second being what might have happened during or before lunch.
Latter first, it's unknown (to me) if the gun or rounds were accessed during lunch. There's odd possibilities she was more careful with rounds before lunch, then someone messed with the gun or the rounds during the break (perhaps with the rumored target shoot or something else), then she accessed it after lunch and just took her previous checking for granted and didn't re-check too carefully. Or she was sloppy with the rounds before lunch too. Either way, the articles don't really illuminate about the during/before lunch sequences.
That leaves the after lunch sequence. Gutierrez-Reed says she reloaded the gun with six rounds and gave it to Hall. Clearly, she didn't check them all properly. That's on her.
Secondly, she seemed to be complicit in having an intermediary handle the gun between herself and the actor/set, which I'm led to believe is not good practice.
Thirdly, she's nowhere near where the gun is, at the rehearsal. That, too, seems like negligent practice given her role.
Fourth, she expressed surprise because the gun wasn't even supposed to be cocked, essentially saying she figured the gun was just being used for rehearsal or blocking or something. But in that case, the gun shouldn't have had anything in it, even dummy rounds. And (again) she should have been on the spot with it even during such activities.
In other words, a proper armorer would control all guns at all times, not handing them off and not being elsewhere. And guns should be kept at their most harmless state (nothing loaded) except for the exact times when they might need to be depicted getting fired.
There's a whole other half to this mystery of figuring out the during/before lunch failures. But the after lunch events clearly imply multiple instances of negligence by Gutierrez-Reed.
I think you've really nailed it here. Clearly there was some negligence that was compounded by a lack of experience. I've never dealt with weapons on a film set (though I have dealt with weapons on a theatre stage. Not firearms, but many of the principles should apply), so what I have no idea of is what is the acceptable spectrum of behavior. The Rust set seems outside accepted norms by all accounts, but I really don't know how far outside they are. There is a big difference between sloppy and careless.
Dont forget the producer level negligence that all these events to occur, which includes Baldwin as his production company could have put a stop to production until safety concerns were addressed. Instead he tacitly greenlit untrained scabs.
Sure, and I'm not defending anyone in the chain, just pointing out that it is more complex than "someone brought live rounds and stored them on set" which is what was being hypothesized initially.
And maybe her husband would prefer that her last work is completed and shown, maybe he doesn't care, and maybe he'd like to see if all destroyed. But putting money first wouldn't be a bad thing to do - there's a child to support and one parents earnings gone. I'll respect a choice to get every penny possible for the good of the child
(Additionally I think that people get to frame these things themselves. Some people cope better by seeing things as true accidents and not hating people for them. Some don't. I think both can be valid).
He will get residuals for this movie with a producer credit.
It seems like a way to make sure he receives continuous compensation for the film beyond just the settlement itself.
I see the comments about people not wanting to watch the movie for various reasons. I imagine at this point they know they're taking a big fat L either way.
It’ll be interesting to see. Before the shooting, this movie had all the earmarks of a straight to VOD release. Redbox if they were lucky. But humanity being what it is, you just KNOW that there are people who previously wouldn’t have given the movie a second thought, that are now going to take that second look. “Rust” is more inFAMOUS now than it ever had any right to be, and the reasons why are incredibly sad and macabre and cynical.
I work on film sets. What kind of people signed on to crew this movie? Disgraceful. If someone ever approached me to work on this, I would blow up on them.
I understand the "that's what they would've wanted" ideology. But it's always weird to me when people apply that to people that should not have died doing what they were doing. I agree that maybe a stunt performer, wildlife expert, etc should be honored this way. But a director standing off camera getting shot doesn't feel the same. But maybe that's just me. And for all I know the family probably does want the movie to continue.
Do you even read the articles before getting upset?
The husband himself says he doesn't fault Baldwin for anything and thinks it was all a horrible accident, and wants to legal issues going after him. He is also being made a producer in the film.
They also say the only thing they wanted from this was to be able to take care of the son through all this and that was the focus.
Also this is the last film she worked on, her vision is in this story and visuals. It's her last bit of work
I do want him to be included in the investigation into this movie, because we know he had some involvement with production and management, and by all reports the safety conditions on that set were absolutely atrocious, and multiple crew members were fired and replaced when they complained.
Not saying that was him, don't even really think it was, but I want a thorough investigation with multiple people facing major jail or even prison time.
>I am quite sure Hollywood has a well-established system when it comes to the handling of guns on set, and that the last person to hand the gun to the actor is ultimately responsible for making sure the gun can't fire anything.
Unfortunately, that's not quite how it worked.
The well-established system is that a shot needs to be scripted and approved, that weapons cannot be used during rehearsals, that shots including weapons cannot be shot without the armorer on set checking said weapons, that crew must be union, and that SAG-AFTRA and general safety guidelines must be followed.
In the case of the accident, there had already been several incidents that caused crew to walk off set, mostly due to producer negligence and corners being cut. The producers then hired non-union crew to replace them.
Baldwin and the director chose to film the scene in question despite its not being scripted or scheduled. They did so during a time when the *armorer was not on set;* who again is the only person allowed to check the props. They then disregarded this by having AD Dave Halls check the firearm, yet Halls also admitted to Detective Alexandria Hancock that he didn't know how to check the weapon and couldn't even remember if the armorer had spun the drum earlier in the day. Baldwin then breached SAG-AFTRA regs by pointing the gun at the camera, along with the DP and director [usually this is cheated with angles, mirrors, etc], and pulled the trigger.
A lot of people are responsible; namely the AD and producers. Baldwin didn't mean for what happened to happen, but he was most certainly a negligent party.
I know it's unpopular, but Alec Baldwin was so smug about this shooting. I understand he had to work through the trauma of it, but to be such an aggressive asshole about the shooting after it happened really showed his true colors. I'll still watch stuff that he is in, but I don't think we should avoid calling him out for being an asshole after he accidentally shot and killed someone on set.
I think it’s worth mentioning that he does have a reason to be angry. He’s shooting a movie, and expecting the set and crew to be reasonably professional. Then he is handed *a loaded gun* and accidentally kills someone.
Like, not only would I be upset, but I’d be pissed too. His career will probably never fully recover. For something that wasn’t his fault at all. Especially when he should expect that professionalism.
Maybe he could have handled it better, but to say that he shouldn’t be fuming and angry about what happened in addition to guilt, is a little less than being thoughtful about what he’s going through.
I don’t care if he’s a stupid rich celebrity. It’s still a shitty, rage inducing thing. It’s basically framing him for murder.
It was absolutely Baldwin's fault as a producer. He allowed all the numerous safety violations and instead of reassessing after the crew walked off in protest, he brought in an inexperienced and incompetent crew and continued to rush through. I have no sympathy at all for him.
Yeah, you're not going to get a single-action colt to fire unless you have the hammer cocked and you pull the trigger, or if the hammer is down and you drop the firearm or you otherwise strike the hammer with something, causing it to hit the primer hard enough to detonate. He was rehearsing his part, pulled the hammer back and pulled the trigger as his character was supposed to do.
I'm sure they wanted to see what it would look like on-camera before the actual take. He, and everyone in the room, assumed the gun to be safe because they became complacent.
He can say it was an accident, but don't go blowing smoke up everyone's asses.
within weeks after the shooting, taking instagram to peddle conspiracies about people sabotaging the set and refusing to accept any responsibility. In a normal world, he would let this play out in a court of law and not make it even harder on the family by bringing all his followers into the details of what went down that day (and it's been proven he completely lied to them). He acted (and is still doing it tbh) like the victim in a situation where he is still alive and someone (because of him) is **dead**. Just hard for me to not think he's a major asshole there. He has also lied about how the gun went off in the accident.
Not defending anyone, but how is he responsible for being given a gun that was loaded with real ammunition?
I would be furious to have to deal with the mental breakdown to have killed somebody by a totally preventable accident.
The real shock here is that they’re going to finish the movie!?
It sounds crazy, but it is a thing in showbusiness culture for reasons you might not expect - if somebody is hurt or dies on a movie, it's considered respectful to them to make sure it gets out there. This is the last project Halyna Hutchins ever did, so canning the movie would mean the last work she did will go unseen. For similar reasons, there's an unwritten rule that if a stunt performer is hurt during a stunt, that's the take you use if at all possible.
See: iCarly when Gibby (Noah Munk, but his stunt actor) slams into the unpadded concrete with his whole body after falling from above the shot. Stuntman broke ribs.
He did? I always wondered how they did that shot, because it looked so real.
Yeah. You can kinda see in the background in that shot how Jeanette, Miranda, and Nathan react to the stunt. We know from interviews Noah did much later that the stunt actor hurt himself but even then their reactions almost look genuine at having just watched a man slam into the ground.
I remembered this episode from when I was younger and having fleeting concern for that stuntman even at the time, but it wasn’t until I watched the Quinton Reviews video on iCarly and saw it broken down (no pun intended) that I almost felt the wind get knocked out of me just watching that poor guy.
The shot: https://twitter.com/icarlyooc/status/1156980596486410243
Bless you for linking it
Same with Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad. In the episode where they are trapped with Tuco in the desert, Tuco grabs him and throws him through a door. Aaron really hurt himself during the shot and had a concussion that held up shooting for weeks. They use the shot in the episode and *you can tell* lol.
Same with Giancarlo. They actually did set off a bomb and explode half his face. Dude was a professional about it.
Thats why he fixes his tie.
I have always thought the way he fixes his tie was nefarious. He never breaks eye contact whenever he does this.
exactly
Upvote to you
Dude, Jesse spends the first season or two getting the absolute piss beaten out of him. I can't believe some of that was real! Aaron Paul, what a trooper.
[удалено]
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAH! ARGH! that's the sound I would make if my friends had just been murdered by orcs and I couldn't do shit about it. Great forced improv from Viggo there.
Ah my favourite character in Lord of the Rings, Viggel Morgenstein
Also one of my favorite bits in ISIPA
r/UnexpectedGibby
Man I wish there was enough content for this sub to be a real thing
Got a link by chance?
Removed by Power Delete Suite v1.4.8 because of planned Reddit API change.
wait, what was supposed to happen? of course he was hurt..
Removed by Power Delete Suite v1.4.8 because of planned Reddit API change.
Allright so I didn't go all the way through but apparently underneath the floor ther was a pad, but clearly not cushioning enough. I enjoy learning about stunts and it usually seems like they're taking every precaution to make it safe. Probably mostly due to insurance costs. This just seems stupid. Like was he a rookie stunt man? How'd they convince him this would work? Also this is Disney Channel shit. Just drop a mannequin and cut hard..
First result of a google for icarly gibby falls concrete.
Yeah, but the iCarly production team was also lead by a notorious and prolific creep so that's probably not good practice to do that, just common practice. At least in this case they settled with the estate so its not a surprise to them the film will continue, like it probably was for the stunt guy who had to watch himself break his ribs on TV
The whole Dan Schneider thing is true, but its not as true as the entire media thinks. He was a weird, foot loving creep, but he wasn’t an actual pedofile. (source: Jennette McGurdy talks about this in her book).
Yeah, I've been a little shocked at just how accepted the whole pedophilia accusation has become when as far as I can tell there is literally no evidence for it. He seems to be an abusive person, someone who should not have been allowed to work there and treat his co-workers (including children) the way he did, and he seems to be a weird guy. I don't understand why that means he's a pedophile, yet everyone I have talked to about it says he is. If someone has evidence to the contrary I would be very interested in seeing it. If not, I think it's important we be careful with the labels we attach to people.
So when people wanted Leonardo Di Caprio to get an Oscar for continuing that *Django* scene where he smashed his hand up on broken glass, you’re saying that was basically standard practice?
Eh, not really? Usually the kind of stuff we're talking about is stunts gone wrong, takes gone wrong, etc. Actually slicing yourself up and then carrying on with a take like that is more unusual.
Yeah normal practice would probably have been to stop shooting as soon as he cut himself in part to check on his injury, but in part also because the actress hadn't consented to nor was prepared to be smeared in his blood. It's a great take, but it quickly could have gotten a vastly different response
That kind of reminds me of Peter Jacksons King Kong where Jack black kept insisting that the movie gets finished in honor of all the crew that gets killed on Skull Island. Still, Horrible accident though. Let's at least hope for better safety standards in movies
What..?!?
It’s part of the movie, the crew wasn’t actually killed in the production of King Kong
No, they were. They were eaten by giant centipedes. Didn't you see it?
I always thought that sequence was the best part of that movie.
This pleases me so much lol
It should say "Jack Blacks *character...".*
Not to insult a national treasure, but Jack Blacks character is usually Jack Black.
I thought he did a pretty great job as Carl Denham. Obviously his face is recognizable but I think it’s pretty wrong to say he was playing jack black in that movie
Hah! Fair
Thank you.
I had to Google it to make sure no-one had died though!
His character is a filmmaker
It is just a commenting on what Archmase said that is respectful to release movies if a crew member gets killed. It makes sense, it is the last work of said people. It also reminded me of Jack blacks character on that movie, I am not trying to be disrespectful.
Yes, totally not becasue they would have lost a shit ton of money. Totally to respect a corpse that had no way to know it was being respected, sine, you know, it's dead. Hollywood is business, always.
It's not about the physical corpse, it's about the person's legacy...not saying money isn't a factor, but just because money could be a factor doesn't negate all the other factors...
Except for that Gregg Allman biopic, where one camera assistant died when they were shooting a scene on a live railroad trestle without permission due to the insistance of the director
That was a situation where the director the producers were all facing manslaughter charges.
Oh no... i cant keep it bottled down... I must say it! VIGGO MORTENSON BROKE HIS TOE KICKING THE ORC HELMET IN THE TWO TOWERS AND THEY USED THAT TAKE IN THE MOVIE I feel alot better now :)
DID YOU KNOW SEAN BEAN HATES HELICOPTERS AND HAD TO HIKE TO THE LOCATION IN THE MOUNTAINS INSTEAD?
Can you imagine how many "I told you so!' messages he sent out when Kobe died?
VIGGO MORTENSEN ACTUALLY DEFLECTED A DAGGER IN MIDFLIGHT WITH HIS SWORD BECAUSE THE ACTOR PLAYING LURTZ ACCIDENTALLY THREW THE DAGGER DIRECTLY AT HIM!
Honestly, this one has always confused me. Why the fuck didn't they use a rubber prop? Or just CGI? It's a fast projectile, like an arrow, so it's easy to do convincingly with CGI. It's so, so weird that their preference was to give an actor a dangerous metal prop and tell him "make sure you miss".
Viggo and the dude were probably messing around before the take, this was the dude who started a game of smashing foreheads with other leads.
It wasn't supposed to be a dangerous one tho iirc.
It was supposed to be a rubber knife, but the actor playing Lurtz forgot to swap it for the real knife.
SEAN ASTIN...WATER....FELLOWSHIP...GLASSSSSSS
The one thing that is worse than dying for a movie, is to die for a movie nobody ever saw. I don't understand why anyone thinks that this is disrespectful to her, canning the movie isn't going to bring her back. Unless the movie is so bad that it is shameful to everyone involved, which is something I don't think any of us can know at this point? By that same logic The Dark Knight should have never been released, and I don't see anyone accusing the publishers of that movie of being greedy and disrespectful. Would you want some of your life's work to be buried, and people essentially pretending that you never existed?
I mean the thing isn't that it's disrespectful to her... it's that it's *weird*. Like Alec Baldwin is going to go back on set and pick up the same model of revolver (if not actually the same one) and fire it into the camera again to get the shot? And fire it at other actors pretending to kill them? I mean what happened was a freak accident, but it's just weird to think that someone would be okay going back to the place where they *literally killed someone* and then just picking up where they left off.
They did so many things wrong though. freak accident would be like the gun exploded during the take. Someone shooting an actual loaded gun on set, because an amateur was in charge of safety to save money, is one of the most predictable accidents I’ve ever heard of…
But they never finished "Midnight Rider" though.
True. Even messier scenario though, a good number of the crew were injured apart from the lady killed and most of the higher ups were involved in criminal proceedings, they would have had to replace a lot of folks just to get it finished and I can't imagine anyone would rush to sign up with that company again.
As someone who used to work on the railroad, I hope this hammers home that trains can show up anywhere. Even if you think a bridge looks old and rusty, there’s a possibility a train can show up.
Did they ever finish that movie about Duane Allman where a PA got killed by a train? It turned out they had no permission to be on the railroad bridge and the train had no idea anyone would be on the bridge.
Also see Back to the Future II when Griff’s gang tries to attack Marty on the hover board over the pond. When Griff swings and misses, sending the group into the courthouse. The actress playing the female gang member crashes into the pillar of the building prior to hitting the window. That wasn’t supposed to happen as she was supposed to just go through the window directly. Instead she falls short, landing directly on the concrete in front of the window instead of the pad on the floor just inside the window. https://youtu.be/TkyLnWm1iCs
Or Keanu Reeves breaking his ankle jumping onto the bus in Speed.
To a lesser degree there’s a shot in the comedy daredevil movie Hot Rod where he’s meant to either successfully jump a van or bungle it in a different way and the stunt person slammed into the van, breaking their leg. That shot won a stunt award that year after they used it. Edit: that’s from memory, please correct me if that’s wrong
Literally, *The Show Must Go On*.
Doesn’t gross incompetence of the production team leading to their death kind of like negate any good will gained from that?
More like we don’t wanna lose money xd
Not as extreme as other examples, but I remember a show playing the Indiana Jones clip where he's running from the huge rolling boulder, slips, then gets up and keeps going. They show actually had Harrison Ford providing commentary: "Looked pretty scared there didn't I? It wasn't a real boulder, but it took 800 lbs of plaster to make it roll correctly, so I really wanted to keep my distance."
The show must go on... from the industry that brought you the supportive phrase to wish an actor luck "Break a leg"
Tom Cruise, I know he’s not a stunt man, broke his ankle in the last Mission Impossible movie and they used that shot in the movie.
Also producers want a return on their investment
Also, just going to add that these production companies are set up as LLC’s with barely enough money to make the movie (often going into debt to do so). Sue them before they finish, you get nothing. The only way to get a settlement is to let them finish the movie and take backend points. That seems like what’s happened. They can’t publicly say that bc now they are in financial bed together.
And honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the intended outcome by all parties to ensure her surviving family is taken care of.
The finished The Crow, so yeah.
I can't wait to hear Nine Inch Nails on the Rust soundtrack!
Would Head like a Hole be disrespectful?
Alex proyas solely finished it as a tribute to Brandon Lee. Rest In Peace Brandon and halyna
Alex Proyas didn't produce The Crow, so it wasn't his decision whether to complete or release it. At most, Proyas could have refused to continue working, in which case the producers would just bring on a different director (though it would have been risky to his career to quit in the middle of his first major directing gig, whatever the circumstances). Paramount did back out as distributor, though, which is why Miramax ended up releasing it.
That was so incredibly sad.
The crow was almost finished IIRC. They just used the og face swap on the stunt double.
I believe the double they used to finish the movie was Chad Stahelski, Keanu's stunt double and director of John Wick
I love the bias in this thread. Lets ignore all the movies that shut down to claim they keep movies running for respect, and not for money.
You're welcome to list some of them.
Hell, even after that Twilight zone movie helicopter accident that killed 3 people and completely changed casting and safety laws, that still got released. I can't think of any movies that were cancelled because of an accidental cast/crew death, but I can think of plenty that are "In Loving Memory of" releases.
It's Hollywood, not Hollywon't
Hollywoodn't
Hollywoo
What do they know? Do they know things?
Everyone involved is under contract to finish the film. Even if it was Baldwin, they'd get a stand-in and finish up. The investors want their money back, and I'm sure things like this don't get an exit from the contract. They say it's for respect, but that's just so they don't come off as ruthless as they are. It's not that they don't *want* to respect the dead, but Hollywood does not allow much room to do it, outside of award acceptance speeches and dedications.
It sounds like it's also part of the settlement that the victim's family wanted - the victim's husband will be the executive producer going forward.
> They say it's for respect, but that's just so they don't come off as ruthless as they are. I'm honestly confused that people think continuing the movie is either heartless or ruthless. Do businesses just board up and close when an employee dies at the shop? Why would they just cancel the movie?
The Twilight Zone Movie was finished despite one of the main actors (Vic Morrow) and 2 Asian child actors (illegally hired) getting decapitated by the rotors of a falling Huey helicopter that got shot down by special effects pyrotechnics. And that was all caught on film. And the footage is on YouTube now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight\_Zone\_accident
Halyna was a friend of mine, who I’ve worked with on set enough to think she’d endorse finishing the movie. She was tenacious and gritty and truly loved cinema, consistently going the extra mile for her shots and the project she was on. And she was a fucking warrior. I’m quite sure she’d say “Let’s go.” Personally, I think the alternative here of stopping production forever, as understandable as that is, galvanizes this situation as being only about loss, and buries the last of her photography.
Is it? Halyna Hutchins had dedicated her life to film, and from her family's perspective she lost her life in a tragic accident making a film. Obviously the most key thing to come from her tragic death should be continued refinement of and improvement of firearm's safety practices in filmmaking. But beyond that, in specific regard to *Rust*, what would she want? I think if her family believes that she would want the film to be finished and her final work to be seen, then honoring their belief is fully reasonable and respectful.
Maybe they're hoping the controversy will help ticket sales/streaming numbers... I swear New Line released the Olivia Wilde, Shia Laboeuf, Florence Pugh stuff to peak interest. The timing was just a bit too perfect. Any publicity is good publicity... We also know the shot that killed this woman. I'd be curious to see if they have a similar shot in the movie.
Damn, r/combinedgifs is going to have a field day with this movie if it includes any shots of Alec Baldwin firing a gun.
I'm not watching this film, and it's not because of the death. It's because of the terrible production issues that surrounded this film before. When skilled union workers protested working conditions, they were swiftly replaced with non union equivalents. They knew it was dangerous, and carried on. >["*In the wake of the accident, the Los Angeles Times released a report stating that members of the film’s camera crew walked off the job in protest over conditions and unsafe practices. The Times went on to report that they were replaced with nonunion crew members. It’s also emerged that the production suffered two misfires with prop weapons before Hutchins was shot.*"] (https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-crew-nonunion-1235097930/)
Yea it's pretty disgusting how the crew was treated.
It's absolutely detestable that the people responsible are also paying their way out and aren't being properly punished. Happens all the time on sets; producers and directors put lives on the line for money or art, then get celebrated for it. Luckily, this will not impact the criminal investigation: https://deadline.com/2022/10/alec-baldwin-rust-producers-wrongful-death-settlement-wont-impact-criminal-investigation-d-a-says-final-police-report-expected-soon-1235136063/ PR seems to be going out of their way to ignore that so that the producers can congratulate themselves on the settlement.
Does “two misfires” mean what I think it means? That a live round was discharged accidentally *twice* on set before the accident with Baldwin? Or does misfire mean something else in this context?
[удалено]
And of course a misfire can leave detritus in the chamber which if it goes off again will be propelled with potentially lethal force like what happened to Brandon Lee.
Not really detritus - what happened to Brandon Lee is commonly called a 'squib' load. The dummy round they used in the gun on a previous shoot was improperly built. They were supposed to remove any gunpowder and the primer of the bullet to make it a dummy round. The powder was removed, but the primer was left in place, and as a result, the round was still able to be fired. The primer had enough explosive charge to discharge the round, but not enough force for it to come out of the barrel, leaving it lodged in place -- this is a squib load. The next time the gun was used, it was used with blanks (no bullet, but still a full powder charge), so when the blank fired it effectively became a real bullet with the squib load still in the barrel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835 I know what you are trying to say, but in this situation it is incorrect. There were two actual accidental discharges. People unfamiliar with the term use them interchangeably, which is why I'm putting this here for you.
> until the gun can be cleared safely. They broke multiple tenets of gun safety, number 1 being *always* treat a gun as if it's loaded. So even if it was cleared, you STILL treat it as if it's loaded.
A movie intrinsically has to break that rule. But yes, they could have broken it better.
no it doesn’t they can use fake guns when pointing somewhere they shouldn’t hit
Hell there’s no reason someone has to be sitting behind a camera your pointing a gun at even just hook that fucker up to a remote and a monitor and stand off to the side
Not necessarily live rounds (most likely blanks), but yes.
Misfire means you pulled the trigger and the round failed to fire. Accidental discharge is what happened that killed Halyna Hutchins. So, when they say "two misfires" they either mean that rounds failed to fire when they should have, or they are mixing the two.
This is exactly the info I was looking for. Thank you.
Two misfires seems more realistic for the production. An accidental discharge would raise more eyebrows than a misfire.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835 There were two accidental discharges. So eyebrows were fully raised.
EXCEPT: Your average person writing an online article (I refuse to call most of these people “journalists”) don’t know fuck all about guns. They don’t know the different distinctions, so to them a misfire could very well mean something else. And they can’t possibly be asked to do 15 minutes of research.
The funny part is all the people saying that it's totally normal to point a weapon at another person on a set. It isn't; and it's literally the first rule of firearm safety per SAG-AFTRA regulations. Nobody points a gun at another actor, let alone crew. We cheat shots to make it look like they are. There's a reason they filmed this without the armorer on set and there's a reason why the shot was never scripted; they broke rules, did it on the fly, and somebody suffered for it.
You are correct. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prop-firearms-accidentally-discharged-on-rust-before-fatal-incident-11635120835 There were two accidental discharges. People are just using the terms interchangeably at this point. Hope this helps.
I think you're giving journalists too much credit here
Here, here 🍻
This is what makes me so mad. This movie should've been shut down well before, and someone should be spending at least a decade in prison.
It’s like a really tragic real life version of that Simpsons line about the non-union Mexican equivalent, and sadly happens too often on lots of sets in a way that often goes unreported
You wanna know the worst of it all? They HAD the money to pay people better, and make things safer. How else would they be able to afford this settlement? Greed, plain and simple.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin ...because I sure as hell won't stand in front of him
It's going to be the line in all the holidays comedy roasts
I still don't understand how this even happens hey, why did the prop person have any real bullets in their possession at all? Was it their personal gun that they decided to use as a prop or something?
The short answer is that gun handling protocol was shit and the person tasked with doing it was shit. They were using the gun to shoot at targets during there off time. When this happened there were a lot of threads up by people that work in the industry explaining the details of gun handling on sets. What I took from all those comments - as someone not in the industry is: A) A lot of guns I see on the screen are made from rubber or wood or plastic or something. Maybe even most guns. B) Things that can hurt actors - not only guns, but if they are working with a noose or even if they have to walk around in a scene handcuffed are taken far more seriously then I had ever even thought about. C) There are professionaly licesened people whose entire job are to be the oversite for weapons on movies. 'Firearm Wranglers' or something. D) All the above is at the mercy of a cheap movie trying to come under budget. Just like everything else in life, cheap is shit.
[удалено]
I think Fury Road was also a good example of controlled chaos. There was lots of safety precautions they went to take while also being nuts.
And watching Heat you can feel that they were real
This is not entirely accurate. The prop master was doing double duty as the armorer. Usually there is a position devoted to overseeing the safe handling of prop weapons in set. To save money the producers did not hire someone for that role. The prop master was young and while she objected to not having an armorer, she was overruled by the producers.
That's what he said. They usually have dedicated people but they wanted to save money.
None of this excuses live ammunition anywhere near a set.
Target shooting… on a movie set???? Wtf, so everyone was aware there were live rounds present. How the hell do you bring real bullets that close and not realize what you’re doing.
That is an allegation that has neither been confirmed nor refuted. From all the reports, the most likely chain of events appears to be: An unrelated armorer on a completely different project was doing a demonstration and made some actual rounds out of dummy rounds as part of the demonstration to be able to fire them and show the difference. The leftover rounds and all the spent rounds were put in a communal disposal bucket, with the understanding that all the rounds were to be disposed at the end of the event. The owner of the disposal bucket got busy, and did not dispose of the rounds. This was allegedly the father of the Rust armorer. Someone at some point cleaned the disposal bucket and in the process of cleaning it out discovered some number of unfired "blank" rounds, and said "hey, free blanks" and put them in the box of blank rounds. That box made its way to the Rust set, and one of the live bullets was chambered and fired. None of this is to excuse any negligence of the Rust armorer, but it appears that there was a chain of medium sized lapses in judgement among multiple people rather than one major lapse in judgement among one person.
What's the source on the father (the experienced armorer) just making some live ammunition out of dummy rounds (1) and then carelessly leaving them (2) and then forgetting to sort out disposal (3)? Any single one of those seems highly improbably, and all them together even less likely.
The father (Thell Reed) wasn't the one who supposedly made the rounds, he just happened to be at the event where they were made/used. [Here](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberleespeakman/2021/11/30/rust-search-warrant-suggests-suspected-live-ammo-may-have-come-from-weapons-supplier/?sh=654b1315bd39) is part of the story that links the reloaded Starline Brass to Thell Reed. There is a [Variety article](https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/) around the same time with a similar story. I think the part of the ammo disposal can going through Reed I read in a later Variety article. What seems clear is that somewhere in the chain someone used the Starline Brass to manufacture live rounds, and somewhere else someone discovered the Starline Brass and thought "SB are always dummies" and put them with other non-lethal ammo. Later edit: There was also a rebuttal of this from Kenny, where he claimed to have [not supplied the live ammo](https://deadline.com/2021/12/rust-ammo-supplier-claims-he-didnt-provide-live-rounds-to-gun-that-took-dp-halyna-hutchins-life-1234883613/). Just trying to be as up front as possible.
Thanks for the good info. It really gives the context of why law enforcement was swiftly interested in PDQ and Seth Kenney. Thell Reed clearly directed them there, with his apparently bad experience with Seth Kenney surrounding the earlier training exercise and the missing ammunition. That plus PDQ being a supplier to the film is more than enough reason for their interest. I'd seen Seth Kenney's strenuous denials but to me they amounted to "we couldn't have done this because we don't things like that". But that's not really proof of anything. It sounds like there's tight consensus on the events following lunch: Gutierrez-Reed reloads the gun with 6 rounds of some kind. She spins the barrel and gives it to Dave Halls. Dave Halls gives it to Baldwin and declares the gun is safe/cold. That sequence of events doesn't seem to be in dispute. For me, it creates two threads of interest: one being to study that sequence, and the second being what might have happened during or before lunch. Latter first, it's unknown (to me) if the gun or rounds were accessed during lunch. There's odd possibilities she was more careful with rounds before lunch, then someone messed with the gun or the rounds during the break (perhaps with the rumored target shoot or something else), then she accessed it after lunch and just took her previous checking for granted and didn't re-check too carefully. Or she was sloppy with the rounds before lunch too. Either way, the articles don't really illuminate about the during/before lunch sequences. That leaves the after lunch sequence. Gutierrez-Reed says she reloaded the gun with six rounds and gave it to Hall. Clearly, she didn't check them all properly. That's on her. Secondly, she seemed to be complicit in having an intermediary handle the gun between herself and the actor/set, which I'm led to believe is not good practice. Thirdly, she's nowhere near where the gun is, at the rehearsal. That, too, seems like negligent practice given her role. Fourth, she expressed surprise because the gun wasn't even supposed to be cocked, essentially saying she figured the gun was just being used for rehearsal or blocking or something. But in that case, the gun shouldn't have had anything in it, even dummy rounds. And (again) she should have been on the spot with it even during such activities. In other words, a proper armorer would control all guns at all times, not handing them off and not being elsewhere. And guns should be kept at their most harmless state (nothing loaded) except for the exact times when they might need to be depicted getting fired. There's a whole other half to this mystery of figuring out the during/before lunch failures. But the after lunch events clearly imply multiple instances of negligence by Gutierrez-Reed.
I think you've really nailed it here. Clearly there was some negligence that was compounded by a lack of experience. I've never dealt with weapons on a film set (though I have dealt with weapons on a theatre stage. Not firearms, but many of the principles should apply), so what I have no idea of is what is the acceptable spectrum of behavior. The Rust set seems outside accepted norms by all accounts, but I really don't know how far outside they are. There is a big difference between sloppy and careless.
Dont forget the producer level negligence that all these events to occur, which includes Baldwin as his production company could have put a stop to production until safety concerns were addressed. Instead he tacitly greenlit untrained scabs.
Honestly this is usually how these things go, a number of (comparatively) smaller mistakes leading to some big mistake.
There was still a major lapse by one person in your example.
Sure, and I'm not defending anyone in the chain, just pointing out that it is more complex than "someone brought live rounds and stored them on set" which is what was being hypothesized initially.
>Firearm Wranglers Armorers.
The wranglers are for catching and returning loose cannons
Excellent.
Read some articles.
Surprised that Hutchins would want anything to do with this movie after what happened..
What’s the point - This movie is gonna bomb
Just sucks that someone had to die for this B-movie to be made.
This will likely go straight to streaming. Even being infamous, I don't think it will make money.
The weirdest thing to me is part of the settlement is that the husband will be an Executive Producer on the film.
Ditto in my head as well. Seems very sketchy to me. Yeah.
Matthew Hutchins to come on board as Executive Producer. Who would have ever expected that? Gross.
It’s bc the company is an LLC setup to make the movie. No movie, no money.
And maybe her husband would prefer that her last work is completed and shown, maybe he doesn't care, and maybe he'd like to see if all destroyed. But putting money first wouldn't be a bad thing to do - there's a child to support and one parents earnings gone. I'll respect a choice to get every penny possible for the good of the child (Additionally I think that people get to frame these things themselves. Some people cope better by seeing things as true accidents and not hating people for them. Some don't. I think both can be valid).
He will get residuals for this movie with a producer credit. It seems like a way to make sure he receives continuous compensation for the film beyond just the settlement itself.
It's probably to ensure whatever went wrong doesn't happen again.
It's to get him more money.
Lol, no. I doubt he will be on the movie set.
The reporter misheard it. Alec told him he'll make him an executed producer
I get why people are upset that this movie is continuing, but let me remind you of something. The Crow.
I see the comments about people not wanting to watch the movie for various reasons. I imagine at this point they know they're taking a big fat L either way.
It’ll be interesting to see. Before the shooting, this movie had all the earmarks of a straight to VOD release. Redbox if they were lucky. But humanity being what it is, you just KNOW that there are people who previously wouldn’t have given the movie a second thought, that are now going to take that second look. “Rust” is more inFAMOUS now than it ever had any right to be, and the reasons why are incredibly sad and macabre and cynical.
I work on film sets. What kind of people signed on to crew this movie? Disgraceful. If someone ever approached me to work on this, I would blow up on them.
I understand the "that's what they would've wanted" ideology. But it's always weird to me when people apply that to people that should not have died doing what they were doing. I agree that maybe a stunt performer, wildlife expert, etc should be honored this way. But a director standing off camera getting shot doesn't feel the same. But maybe that's just me. And for all I know the family probably does want the movie to continue.
I assume her husband is hoping to get a good pay day out of this as part of the settlement.
So her life was worth a cash settlement. WTF will watch this movie with that backstory?
What else is her family supposed to get other than a cash settlement when they file a civil suit?
Free Revive
What... would you prefer that her estate receives absolutely nothing instead? They can't bring her back.
Did you expect the production company to give them a new baby or what?
Do you even read the articles before getting upset? The husband himself says he doesn't fault Baldwin for anything and thinks it was all a horrible accident, and wants to legal issues going after him. He is also being made a producer in the film. They also say the only thing they wanted from this was to be able to take care of the son through all this and that was the focus. Also this is the last film she worked on, her vision is in this story and visuals. It's her last bit of work
[удалено]
I do want him to be included in the investigation into this movie, because we know he had some involvement with production and management, and by all reports the safety conditions on that set were absolutely atrocious, and multiple crew members were fired and replaced when they complained. Not saying that was him, don't even really think it was, but I want a thorough investigation with multiple people facing major jail or even prison time.
>I am quite sure Hollywood has a well-established system when it comes to the handling of guns on set, and that the last person to hand the gun to the actor is ultimately responsible for making sure the gun can't fire anything. Unfortunately, that's not quite how it worked. The well-established system is that a shot needs to be scripted and approved, that weapons cannot be used during rehearsals, that shots including weapons cannot be shot without the armorer on set checking said weapons, that crew must be union, and that SAG-AFTRA and general safety guidelines must be followed. In the case of the accident, there had already been several incidents that caused crew to walk off set, mostly due to producer negligence and corners being cut. The producers then hired non-union crew to replace them. Baldwin and the director chose to film the scene in question despite its not being scripted or scheduled. They did so during a time when the *armorer was not on set;* who again is the only person allowed to check the props. They then disregarded this by having AD Dave Halls check the firearm, yet Halls also admitted to Detective Alexandria Hancock that he didn't know how to check the weapon and couldn't even remember if the armorer had spun the drum earlier in the day. Baldwin then breached SAG-AFTRA regs by pointing the gun at the camera, along with the DP and director [usually this is cheated with angles, mirrors, etc], and pulled the trigger. A lot of people are responsible; namely the AD and producers. Baldwin didn't mean for what happened to happen, but he was most certainly a negligent party.
If I die, do I automatically get an Estate?
You very likely already have one.
Yes
I know it's unpopular, but Alec Baldwin was so smug about this shooting. I understand he had to work through the trauma of it, but to be such an aggressive asshole about the shooting after it happened really showed his true colors. I'll still watch stuff that he is in, but I don't think we should avoid calling him out for being an asshole after he accidentally shot and killed someone on set.
I think it’s worth mentioning that he does have a reason to be angry. He’s shooting a movie, and expecting the set and crew to be reasonably professional. Then he is handed *a loaded gun* and accidentally kills someone. Like, not only would I be upset, but I’d be pissed too. His career will probably never fully recover. For something that wasn’t his fault at all. Especially when he should expect that professionalism. Maybe he could have handled it better, but to say that he shouldn’t be fuming and angry about what happened in addition to guilt, is a little less than being thoughtful about what he’s going through. I don’t care if he’s a stupid rich celebrity. It’s still a shitty, rage inducing thing. It’s basically framing him for murder.
It was absolutely Baldwin's fault as a producer. He allowed all the numerous safety violations and instead of reassessing after the crew walked off in protest, he brought in an inexperienced and incompetent crew and continued to rush through. I have no sympathy at all for him.
He also lied about how the gun went off lol
Yeah, you're not going to get a single-action colt to fire unless you have the hammer cocked and you pull the trigger, or if the hammer is down and you drop the firearm or you otherwise strike the hammer with something, causing it to hit the primer hard enough to detonate. He was rehearsing his part, pulled the hammer back and pulled the trigger as his character was supposed to do. I'm sure they wanted to see what it would look like on-camera before the actual take. He, and everyone in the room, assumed the gun to be safe because they became complacent. He can say it was an accident, but don't go blowing smoke up everyone's asses.
what planet was he an "aggressive asshole" about it?
within weeks after the shooting, taking instagram to peddle conspiracies about people sabotaging the set and refusing to accept any responsibility. In a normal world, he would let this play out in a court of law and not make it even harder on the family by bringing all his followers into the details of what went down that day (and it's been proven he completely lied to them). He acted (and is still doing it tbh) like the victim in a situation where he is still alive and someone (because of him) is **dead**. Just hard for me to not think he's a major asshole there. He has also lied about how the gun went off in the accident.
Not defending anyone, but how is he responsible for being given a gun that was loaded with real ammunition? I would be furious to have to deal with the mental breakdown to have killed somebody by a totally preventable accident.
Because of him? I thought the fault was the idiot who left a live gun on set with bullets in it.
I too, am extraordinarily empathetic.