Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





The redundancy is that the armorer AND the assistant director were supposed to have checked the gun. Most "safety chain" type protocols are made up of two professionals.
I'm not saying there was no redundancy, I'm saying the question--why have more people check?--is a very odd one, since redundancy is a huge component of safety.

Again, if I go get my tires rotated and one mechanic says "I tightened the lug nuts." And then another mechanic wanders in and says, "Hey, yeah, I checked them too--you're good to go," that should be sufficient.
Right, the argument in this part of the thread is not whether the checks were sufficient (I'm agnostic on that for the moment). As is often and unfortunately the case, a lot of things are said in the course of arguments that are themselves a lot less reasonable than the conclusions they're supporting.



it amazes me that stupidity prevails even on yoda and members here
Sorry, but you're hopelessly confused about what my position even is. As I've explained multiple times, we're mostly discussing whether an actor (since Baldwin is both an actor and producer) has a responsibility here, independent of the producer's responsibility.

If you can't grasp this sliver of hypothetical (or, more likely, can't be bothered to read even a fraction of the posts in this thread), you should probably not participate, especially if every reply is going to be this kind of breathless condemnation. You seem to want to be outraged, which is fine, but kindly direct your outrage elsewhere.



Registered User
The more I'm learning about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the more I'm wondering how the hell anybody let her near any kind of weapons anywhere, much less a on a movie set. It's like hiring the Trashcan Man to do your pyrotechnics. Eventually, things will go bad. Got me wondering how insurance plays a role in all this. You'd think an insurance company would like to know who the armorer on set of a movie featuring guns is going to be before providing coverage and that they would do a little bit of background on that person. Now I'm no insurance agent and know even less about insuring a movie set but if the reports about her activities on her previous film are true who would insure her?
She appears to be total goofball with TikTok vids, interview statements that don't inspire confidence, lack of experience in her on-set role/job, and a prior incident involving an 11-year-old actor and gun safety protocol. Now, there is a story emerging about how she paid off a family $50,000 to make a prior incident involving a death go away quietly.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/27/rust-...orcycle-crash/

There are reports that on her prior film Nicholas Cage wanted her fired for not being professional. Think about that.

According to the New York Post, Cage ďwalked off set screaming at Gutierrez-ReedĒ for allegedly firing a gun without warning twice. ďMake an announcement, you just blew my f****** eardrums out!Ē cage yelled at her, according to the movieís key gripís interview with the Post. He said he told the assistant director ďshe needs to be let go.Ē
https://heavy.com/news/hannah-gutierrez-reed/

If Nick Cage is afraid to work with you...

So how did she get here? My best guess? She has a famous dad who works in the industry who is kind of a big deal.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715715/bio

She apprenticed under him, so she is implicated in his network of contacts and circle of trust in the industry. In a word, how do many get ahead in Hollywood? Nepotism.

Why wasn't she fired? Sounds like the set was mess overall and that she benefited from the halo of her famous father. So again, nepotism, is my primary guess.

My other guess is that youth-ism (give a kid a break) and gender bias may be in the mix (don't be mean to girls).

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-w...-gap_n_1874742

As with anything involving gender, however, it is politics all the way down and there are conflicting empirics

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/80926...ments-than-men

Our world is complicated. In one context a pro-female bias can be elicited (i.e., sentencing at trial). In another context, anti-female bias can kick in (i.e., punishing inmates in prison).

Seeing as how we're in a moral enthusiasm where every action film claims to "finally be breaking the glass ceiling for woman" as heroes and as actress have boiler-plate feminist speeches to give at the Oscars about how far there is left to go to include women, and how there are now procedural rules getting ramped up for gender inclusion, however, if there is bias primed in this moment relative to this community, I'd say she would be more like to have a protective halo for being a young woman (as a contrast to the old white male who is in everyone's way) as this is what is on the lips and in the hearts of people in the industry.



It certainly is remarkable how eagerly some folks here have been to capitalize on this tragedy in order to inject their own politics into the mix. Especially considering that this forum was supposed to have some kind of policy against people doing that sort of thing. I hope it's not an escalation to point out what's been obvious to everyone.



I don't know if you actually think some rule is being misapplied here or if you're just trying to get in as many swipes at me and the moderation as you can (with my earnest explanations and follow-ups mostly conspicuously ignored), but I've posted on the subject many times, and each time I've been candid about how that line is drawn, and why, and how inherently difficult it is.

My solution to this is to distinguish between things naturally touching on political/cultural issues and discussions that become exclusively about them, with some wiggle room based on how civil and substantive people are being. It's not really plausible to make a rule against indirectly involving your politics, and it seems your premise there is being actively disputed, anyway.



The trick is not minding
At some it needs to be askedÖ.why does this discussion need to continue? Itís obviously not going to be resolved, and itís obvious neither will ever agree on this.
I bowed out days ago when I became just how aware Corax was never going to be convinced of Baldwins lack of complicity, which is fine, but there is only so much one can debate before that point becomes painfully obvious.
So I must ask, what is the point of furthering this when itís obvious itís getting to you?
Certainly, youíd feel far better if you avoided engaging him any further (indeed, at all really) in whatís become a largely personal debate that has eclipsed any merit this thread had originally, donít you agree?



I don't know if you actually think some rule is being misapplied here or if you're just trying to get in as many swipes at me and the moderation as you can
Yes, I guess I actually was under the impression that the forum discourages threads that are not inherently political from becoming political. This incident offers a number of areas of debate on safety standards, production responsibility, and even proper firearm handling. It has been when some posters have chosen to widen these issues to include less relevant but hot-button issues - like diversity standards, gender disparities, a broader pro-NRA stance (ala Corax's response to Flicker), and the consistent vindictive attacks on Baldwin based on the irony of his previous stances on gun control - where the thread slips into more contentious territory. And for pointing this out, I'm the one getting mod PMs. But it's a learning experience, and I'm catching the drift of the place.

(with my earnest explanations and follow-ups mostly conspicuously ignored)
Not ignored, just not entertained, because they don't address what I've been addressing.

It's not really plausible to make a rule against indirectly involving your politics, and it seems your premise there is being actively disputed, anyway.
Disingenuously disputed. There's been no ambiguity about the insertion of ridiculous diversity/gender issues here or the blatant hostility towards Baldwin based on his gun hypocrisy. And to clarify, I have not been injecting politics into this thread at all. My personal opinons on issues like gun control or my feelings on Alec Baldwin personally have not been mentioned in this discussion. I have called out those who have been exploiting this tragedy for their own politics, but I have also been trying to keep the topic focused on more relevant issues of safety protocols and production liability. I have been consistent in trying to update the thread on the newest details of the case, usually several pages before these stories are repeated by others. I may not be the problem here. But I'm getting the message.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
At some it needs to be askedÖ.why does this discussion need to continue? Itís obviously not going to be resolved, and itís obvious neither will ever agree on this.
I bowed out days ago when I became just how aware Corax was never going to be convinced of Baldwins lack of complicity, which is fine, but there is only so much one can debate before that point becomes painfully obvious.
So I must ask, what is the point of furthering this when itís obvious itís getting to you?
Certainly, youíd feel far better if you avoided engaging him any further (indeed, at all really) in whatís become a largely personal debate that has eclipsed any merit this thread had originally, donít you agree?

no, goat shadow. i will never agree with you. in my best Laura Charles of The Last Dragon 7th Heaven dance club video show voice, "NEV-AH!!!!"
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



...This incident offers a number of areas of debate on safety standards, production responsibility, and even proper firearm handling.... I have been consistent in trying to update the thread on the newest details of the case...
Then stick to that...and walk away from engaging in personal arguing...that's the only way one wins.



Then stick to that...and walk away from engaging in personal arguing...that's the only way one wins.
I'll happily oblige, but I would appreciate either Corax or Yoda to stop mischaracterizing and framing my positions with assumptions. I'm not defending Baldwin here. I think he's a jackass like most people do. I'm only trying to get an accurate understanding of the facts, and the facts don't happen to directly implicate Baldwin.



There's probably nothing more I can say except "told you so" anyway until they finally haul Halls and HGR into court. So have fun arguing about problems with girls on movie sets over a girl's dead body. (Some of you really are despicable.)



Yes, I guess I actually was under the impression that the forum discourages threads that are not inherently political from becoming political.
It does, but you're eliding a lot of obvious distinctions between that principle and this thread. Just off the top of my head:

1) Maybe guns are inherently political.
2) Maybe there is no magic line of demarcation where a thing has "become" political.
3) Maybe "discourages" can be distinct from whatever more forceful thing you'd rather I did.

And for pointing this out
This is disingenuous, given that there are hundreds of ways to "point something out," some a lot starker and more contentious than others.

I'm the one getting mod PMs.
First, I haven't sent you a PM. I left you a post comment, and it wasn't even a reprimand, so the implication here is perplexing (I'm happy to post it in full). You also didn't reply.

Second, how would you know which other people have received PMs from me?

Not ignored, just not entertained, because they don't address what I've been addressing.
This simply isn't true. Some of them addressed the things you said quite directly. And if you were criticizing in good faith you'd reply to note what I'd failed to address and how, anyway. It's bad form to level serious accusations (repeatedly!) like this in public and then ignore the responses.

Disingenuously disputed.
So you say, but I don't think that's evident from just the thread itself, and it's obvious that there's a lot of baggage here.

I may not be the problem here.
One of the problems is thinking that there is one "the problem," and as long as you're not "the problem" then everything you're doing is fine. Kinda mirrors the thread topic itself in that regard.

But it's a learning experience, and I'm catching the drift of the place.
But I'm getting the message.
If this kind of posturing/implication (that there's a corrupt sheriff in town that you now know to give a wide berth, or whatever) is what you're taking from this exchange, then, respectfully, I don't think you are.



I'll happily oblige, but I would appreciate either Corax or Yoda to stop mischaracterizing and framing my positions with assumptions. I'm not defending Baldwin here.
I don't believe I have, and I've explained my reasoning. I'll roughly summarize it, since I don't think it got much of a response the first time(s?):

On multiple occasions you were asked why you thought Baldwin was totally blameless. Since you say you don't think he's totally blameless (and I believe you!), it's confusing that you didn't take any of these opportunities to dispute the premise, even though you kept replying. There were some pretty obvious points of common ground in that nuance, too, but they were also glossed over.

When someone says "why do you believe X?" more than once and you never say "I don't believe X," you really shouldn't be surprised when someone thinks you maybe believe X. And if they do, you should probably simply inform them of that, rather than call the idea "bullsh*t" and immediately impugning their motives.



Wait, you can reply to post comments?
Not exactly, no. There's just a little "PM" button right next to them in case someone wants to.

I'll take full blame for the way the different avenues of communication can be confusing at first. They are super useful in their connotations and gradations once you're used to them, but I'm bad about articulating the intention sometimes.



Wait, you can reply to post comments?
By a PM, or by another post comment.

There's another feature at MoFo called Profile Comments (I think it's called that?) I don't have that enabled myself.


Edit: Yoda types faster than me



Then stick to that...and walk away from engaging in personal arguing...that's the only way one wins.



Registered User
https://thepostmillennial.com/alec-b...ts-nyt-article


Looks like Baldwin is doing apologia via retweeting.



The trick is not minding
I'll happily oblige, but I would appreciate either Corax or Yoda to stop mischaracterizing and framing my positions with assumptions. I'm not defending Baldwin here. I think he's a jackass like most people do. I'm only trying to get an accurate understanding of the facts, and the facts don't happen to directly implicate Baldwin.



There's probably nothing more I can say except "told you so" anyway until they finally haul Halls and HGR into court. So have fun arguing about problems with girls on movie sets over a girl's dead body. (Some of you really are despicable.)
Or, alternatively, you could have bowed out days ago rather then engage in some kind up gamesmanship where you both seemed intent on trying to one-up each other.

This approach didnít seem to be going anywhere, man. I mentioned this before, but at some point you have a responsibility to avoid getting caught up further in these things by simply removing yourself from this rather than acting like a victim where Yoda is some sort of corrupt sheriff giving you a hard time.

I have a lot of respect for you, and your posts in general, but this is starting to get out of hand. Surely by now, I would think you would take a small break away from this thread before deciding if itís worth getting further involved