this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
147 points (98.7% liked)
movies
1932 readers
108 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Alec Baldwin is guilty of at least negligence with a firearm, although I'd go for manslaughter.
Being an actor doesn't absolve you of all responsibility. Anyone else who accidentally kills someone else get charged with manslaughter. The fact that the public doesn't see this obvious fact proves the stranglehold the rich have on American ideals. In any other professional job if I killed someone accidentally, whether it be with a gun, a car, or my own two hands, I would expect to atleast get tried for it.
That and Mr Baldwin straight up LIED about how it even happened. He told a story of the gun firing itself that several firearms experts, including the agency that was investigating, all said is impossible on the model of firearm he had. Yet everyone believes he shouldn't be charged.
If you had nothing to worry about, you wouldn't lie. He lied because he knows he didn't do his job.
I realize you hate the actor for whatever reason, but the fact of the matter is in the article you won't read.
Yes Alex is the real victim here lol
The prosecutor never wanted to prosecute and only did so due to public sentiment them proceeds to botch the case....
This what corruption looks like folks.
The prosecutor never wanted to prosecute because... some vague reason in your head?
I recommend spending time with your family the next couple of days.
Keeping you busy having to work on holidays?
Hehe
What in the world are you talking about?
Are you a legit mental person?
I do have this guy tagged for being completely incoherent from some other discussion before, so... maybe?
They spent like five solid hours doing nothing but arguing in this post, on xmas eve lol
Yes, every person who doesn't share your opinions is "crazy"
Strong rhetoric chief!
Ok, you're not making any sense at all so we're done here.
Bye!
Wonder if there's been any money transfers to the prosecutor from the Baldwin family...
That's not how corruption works in US but if there transfers, there would not be a trace.
Generally, treating an elite parasite "fairly" will expedite the career of the prosecutor
He gets to make a good name in the proper circles.
I was just wondering if the loss of reputation would prevent career progression, and therefore if money would have been needed for this kind of treatment.
Peasants will forget the prosecutors name. They don't care about public perception eitherway. You get promoted by being a good servant to the regime.
They could give two fucks about what working class thinks with a few exceptions like luigi case.
Making powerful friends is the name of the game. Stepping on peasants is how you get ahead.
Very much disagree. This was the responsibility of the firearms master and barring that the prop master.
As an actor on a professional set, it would be irresponsible to mess with a potentially dangerous prop in a way not indicated by the individual in charge of it. It could be a specialized gun modified in such a way that trying to remove a round makes a specialized effect charge go off. Way to go Alec. Now we need to take a 2 hour break as the prop master resets your fuck up when you were supposed to set off that smoke charge pulling the trigger.
It's the actor's job to get into the moment and act, there are other roles explicitly in charge of on set safety. Their prop master failed at their job. A professional pretender is one of the few situations where it is not their responsibility to actually know everything about what they're supposed to be pretending to do.
It isn't an actor's job to send a sample of sugar glass to a lab to make sure it's safely fragile enough to throw a co-star through, or rip open the foam bag they're supposed to push a Co star "off a building" into to check for sharp objects. Such a disruptive actor wouldn't get very far in their career.
"It isn't an actor's job"
Yeah... But he wasn't just an actor. Baldwin was a Producer. An actor and producer who ON THE DAY BEFORE HIS WEAPON WENT OFF had his stunt double have an accidental discharge of a weapon on set that fired a real ass bullet. I repeat. He had a complete dry run of the accident with his own fucking stunt double where nobody gor hurt because of complete chance after which he had crew approach him with extreme concerns over which a number resigned in protest. If he had been working on a union show they would have shut the whole thing down for a bloody week when the stunt double discharged that bullet but they didn't... Because union shows and studios have chains of safety liability that are designed to stop productions cold when they are in danger of causing a death. This serves not just to protect workers but Producers because if something goes wrong they are liable. Studios generally employ Production Managers who in exchange for veto power over Producers decisions assume the liability for safety.
Independent shows do not have those safety nets. If your Production manager comes to you and says "This has to stop" in an independent show that's more of a suggestion then a firm veto. In this case, the Producers flagrantly ignored those warnings and said that they would continue as is. People generally don't know what a Producer's role is... Hell Producers sometimes do not realize their full list of responsibilities because a lot of the less fun parts get outsourced but tje fact is if you are paying to make a show you are an employer who is liable for the safety of your employees.
In 2014 camera assist Sarah Jones was killed on a film set because Producers decided to okay a camera set up on train tracks for a shot. All but one was charged with manslaughter. The whole trial situation here missed the fucking point. They just as well told these rich independent nut jobs that they can get away with making shows under dangerous work conditions as long as they are popular.
Ordinarily I would agree, but there are a few issues with that.
For one, he's not just an actor. He's also credited as one of the 13 producers and co-producers. That producer hat does not disappear once the director yells action. That alone should open up a door for all 13 of these guys to get charges applied if they ignored warnings about safety. Not saying it's an open and shut case, hell maybe he's only producer in name for bragging rights and never attended a meeting, it's a valid argument he can make. But I think it definitely opens the door.
Secondly, the amount of star power he has does give him some power in this film. If people are complaining about safety and he's domineering over people going "Shut up! I need filming done in 3 months so I can move to x film, give me the gun lets go". He's culpable in my eyes. He actively silenced and ignored concerns in that hypothetical and proceeded to roll the dice himself. Again no idea if that happened but it would absolutely open the door for charges.
The fact that the case is being dropped suggests that maybe they thought they had a case in these two veins, but ultimately couldn't make the argument to a reliable degree.
Producer == investor. It's the only way acting talent gets real pay.
If the actor doesn't know how to handle a fire arm, he has no business holding one at all.
Movie set doesn't get soem sort of exception to these rules. Guns are made to kill peopel, the only reason why society permits non state actor handle guns is with understanding that you know how to handle the weapon. If you don't know, then use a fake.
A dead victim so actors can play with real guns for a circus for the plebs is unacceptable
What is his job in this case?
Not shooting his coworkers, for starters.
Also, IIRC he was the producer or something as well as an actor, so he was the firearms handler's boss and ultimately in charge of everything including on-set safety to begin with.
As an actor in the same movie hes not allowed to adjust weaponry on set or his whole production would be uninsurable.
The weaponmaster is where the buck stops.
As a producer in the same movie he also has a duty to make sure the weapon master knows what they're doing. Again I'm not saying he's the only one responsible, but to me the buck stops with the guy who pulled the trigger.
It doesnt matter what you think.
On set heirarchy exists for a reason and that reason has resulted in only two gun related deaths since 1993 despite being the mostly widely used weapon in all of cinema.
Well yeah, he did. The person is a credentialed expert, and he delegated all responsibilities to that person.
What exactly do you mean? He's an actor. My point is that that doesn't absolve you of firearm safety
Yes but his point is that Baldwin wasn't responsible for firearms safety on the set at all he was just an actor the armorer is the one who's responsible. Just like the person who hires the Hitman is responsible for the death, the person who is the armorer on the set is responsible for this person's death.
Rule #1 of firearms safety is to not point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot.
How the fuck would that work in a movie, exactly?
Easy, by not using real guns
Lots and lots of cuts, lol. Green screen everything. In an action scene, every single actor must be in completely different room, or shoot their part at different times, then composite everything together. No movies will ever have the weapon pointed at the camera, ever. Such scenes are now banned.
Also, if any scene involves picking up a weapon, they must cut, the actor must check the weapon, then resume filming after. This must be done on every take.
What's the actor going to check? How heavy it is? They don't have a clue.
If by "check" you mean somebody who is an expert or is informed by experts makes a judgement about the weapon and announces it, that happened.
The armourer who provided the weapon did receive a manslaughter conviction. It was their responsibility, and they either screwed up or let themselves get bullied into screwing up by the asshat AD.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-sentenced-deadly-set/story?id=98268586
He was sentenced already for negligence.
Woooosh
There's a bunch of comments that are 100% serious in suggesting this stuff :/