There's 2 TV shows that are filmed in LA. SWAT and The Rookie and they used a lot of fake CGI muzzle flashes and it looks and feels fake. There's no recoil vs a LITTLE recoil with blanks and it just doesn't feel real
While I think there should be some blame on the armorer, ultimately, you are responsible for anyu firearm you are holding. If someone hands you a gun and says its clear, you still open the chamber and check it yourself. In addidtion, Baldwin shouldnt have even pointed the "Blank" gun at the cinemetographer, as even blank gun can cause injury if you arent careful.
Hogwash. Anyone picking up a firearm IS responsible for such not anyone else. As such, I fully disagree with Spartan’s opinion. “HollyWeird” has no business owning let alone using firearms in productions. Period. CGI (today) can be perfected to mimic live fire should it be wanted.
There were several hundred rounds of live ammo on that set(I want to say 500, but I don't feel like looking it up.).... there is the beginning, middle and end of the problem. What the hell was live ammo doing on a set?
I'm with every one who loves action movies! I also believe that is they can take another step to filming safly they should take it. Im not saying remove fire arms from movies. Im saying use replicas as in airsoft replicas or training firearms. I seen a movie with Anthony Mackie. They used 1:1 scale replicas. With all the sound and effects added in to inhances the experience anyway. You couldn't really tell uses you sat n pulled the movie apart. They are making airsoft replicas took so real nowadays. I play airsoft and I have 4 m4s and 5 1911s and they all look real. Just saying a 1 safer way is another step to gun accidents on movie sets is a good thing.
SAG needs to raise it's safety, responsibility and accountability about firearms across the board. I'm going to be a hardass, but I think in order to get a S.A.G. card, every actors has a go through a firearms training and safety course with range time, and have to get it renewed every two, three, or five years. No exceptions. Okay, sounds crazy, but whether an actor likes or hates firearms, they will know what to do. Just like any endorsement on a Drivers License/CDL. With the armorers and assists, and the Directors. Again, no exceptions. Drag in explosives, aircraft, and heavy machinery. Firearms safety should be hands on, and these others should be a serious in depth familiarization course. This won't solve All issues, but it may provide that extra margin of safety, responsibility, and accountability that is needed. Yes it's draconian and "you can't be on a stage/movie because you don't have X endorsement", but alleviating the Risks by serious "education" can be worth it. I'm Pro 2A/ Gun, and Pro "Learning ". Doing away with "Guns" in movies with "guns" just isn't going to work. There's no easy fix.
I appreciate your background and your POV on the handling of firearms training for all cast and crew. What is the chain of custody? Who should be touching? Who monitors chain of custody? So many questions, but the industry needs to do a better job in safety.
@@spartan117gw I think one of the main reasons John Wick looks better than most other films with CG muzzle flashes is the fact that the guns are still real, they just have plugged barrels. That forces the actors to still treat them like a real gun rather than a plastic toy. They have real weight to them and you still get realistic shell ejections.
I think this is a awful take bro. One death at work is to many. a lot of us do dangerous jobs but we should never have to risk our lives to make some rich oligarch on wall street more money. Its just money. Your argument is that it's ok to trade lives for money. If there's a way to mitigate harm by engineering controls we should use it. Films ask us to suspend belief, I am sure we can invest in making muzzle flashes in post look a little better in exchange for a little boy can expect his mother home after work. I understand slippery slope and yes there is a point at where safety ruins things but let's be responsible. Never again.
Rigging a stunt properly or flying a helicopter is no different then using a blank fire weapon on set. If you're ok with the others but not blank firing weapons you're cherry picking.
@@spartan117gw In my previous reply I told you not to straw man the argument. let's stick with your logic. No stunt man would do a dangerous car stunt with out having a modified car with a roll cage. No licensed aviation pilot would wrecklesly perform a maneuver that would endanger their passengers. Let's go further with your logic. If there was a stunt that required the use of let's say a beer bottle being struck in the head of an actor. Would it be less pure not to strike the actor with a real bottle? Further less pure not to strike them with a bottle that was just drunk by the actor and still have actual beer in it? How 'pure' does it need to be? We have the technology to remove a hazard from the work place. A replica firearm is nearly indistinguishable from a real one. Make an argument for using real guns that is not it's just not cool enough because it's not real.
@@theroboticcobra7036 R slur bro. It's 2017. The man was pointing a gun at a camera and people because that's what the shot required. I do not see how muzzle control would have helped in this situation. Isn't the first rule never point at what you don't want to shoot?
13 Hours 4k is a must own.
There's 2 TV shows that are filmed in LA. SWAT and The Rookie and they used a lot of fake CGI muzzle flashes and it looks and feels fake. There's no recoil vs a LITTLE recoil with blanks and it just doesn't feel real
Exactly
Then fix incompetence. Oh you can't? People are just dumb? Got it
The prop master needs to be held fully accountable. No way should the rest of us suffer because of the incompetence of a few.
While I think there should be some blame on the armorer, ultimately, you are responsible for anyu firearm you are holding. If someone hands you a gun and says its clear, you still open the chamber and check it yourself. In addidtion, Baldwin shouldnt have even pointed the "Blank" gun at the cinemetographer, as even blank gun can cause injury if you arent careful.
Hogwash. Anyone picking up a firearm IS responsible for such not anyone else. As such, I fully disagree with Spartan’s opinion. “HollyWeird” has no business owning let alone using firearms in productions. Period. CGI (today) can be perfected to mimic live fire should it be wanted.
@@inhocsignovinces1419 CGI can not mimic live fire, and it is really easy to spot. It will ruin a perfectly good movie/tv show.
Everything must be as analog as possible, until it's impossible. That's where digital steps in.
There were several hundred rounds of live ammo on that set(I want to say 500, but I don't feel like looking it up.).... there is the beginning, middle and end of the problem. What the hell was live ammo doing on a set?
Yup. Armorer dropped the ball
@@spartan117gw that's a very charitable way of saying she was utterly incompetent.
Perfectly said.
I'm with every one who loves action movies! I also believe that is they can take another step to filming safly they should take it. Im not saying remove fire arms from movies. Im saying use replicas as in airsoft replicas or training firearms. I seen a movie with Anthony Mackie. They used 1:1 scale replicas. With all the sound and effects added in to inhances the experience anyway. You couldn't really tell uses you sat n pulled the movie apart. They are making airsoft replicas took so real nowadays. I play airsoft and I have 4 m4s and 5 1911s and they all look real. Just saying a 1 safer way is another step to gun accidents on movie sets is a good thing.
SAG needs to raise it's safety, responsibility and accountability about firearms across the board. I'm going to be a hardass, but I think in order to get a S.A.G. card, every actors has a go through a firearms training and safety course with range time, and have to get it renewed every two, three, or five years.
No exceptions.
Okay, sounds crazy, but whether an actor likes or hates firearms, they will know what to do. Just like any endorsement on a Drivers License/CDL.
With the armorers and assists, and the Directors. Again, no exceptions. Drag in explosives, aircraft, and heavy machinery. Firearms safety should be hands on, and these others should be a serious in depth familiarization course.
This won't solve All issues, but it may provide that extra margin of safety, responsibility, and accountability that is needed.
Yes it's draconian and "you can't be on a stage/movie because you don't have X endorsement", but alleviating the Risks by serious "education" can be worth it.
I'm Pro 2A/ Gun, and Pro "Learning ". Doing away with "Guns" in movies with "guns" just isn't going to work.
There's no easy fix.
Knowledge is power!
What’s that movie with the helicopters and soldiers with gas masks and red bands on their arms?
Tenet
@@spartan117gw thank you
Haven’t seen you in a min. Glad to see you back on the set brotha.
How’s your legal battle doing
There isn't one
@@spartan117gw acquittal? A deal?
@@spartan117gw Good to hear. Although I was ready to donate to your legal funds if necessary because that was some BS they put on you.
I appreciate your background and your POV on the handling of firearms training for all cast and crew. What is the chain of custody? Who should be touching? Who monitors chain of custody? So many questions, but the industry needs to do a better job in safety.
What’s the film/show/video at 0:47?
Tenet
@@spartan117gw
Thanks. I thought it might be but wasn’t sure.
why the fuck are there real guns in the first place?
Welcome Back
John wick?
Mostly CGI muzzles for the close contact stuff which is common
@@spartan117gw I think one of the main reasons John Wick looks better than most other films with CG muzzle flashes is the fact that the guns are still real, they just have plugged barrels. That forces the actors to still treat them like a real gun rather than a plastic toy. They have real weight to them and you still get realistic shell ejections.
Arent you the clown that got arrested for trying to larp with the national guard
No, he was going to defend a friend's jewelry store when the National Guard decided to arrest him rather than arrest the rioters.
I think this is a awful take bro. One death at work is to many. a lot of us do dangerous jobs but we should never have to risk our lives to make some rich oligarch on wall street more money. Its just money. Your argument is that it's ok to trade lives for money. If there's a way to mitigate harm by engineering controls we should use it. Films ask us to suspend belief, I am sure we can invest in making muzzle flashes in post look a little better in exchange for a little boy can expect his mother home after work.
I understand slippery slope and yes there is a point at where safety ruins things but let's be responsible. Never again.
Rigging a stunt properly or flying a helicopter is no different then using a blank fire weapon on set. If you're ok with the others but not blank firing weapons you're cherry picking.
If one death at work is to many we should stop using stunt people according to your logic
Here’s a logical solution: teaching anti gun retards gun safety
@@spartan117gw In my previous reply I told you not to straw man the argument. let's stick with your logic. No stunt man would do a dangerous car stunt with out having a modified car with a roll cage. No licensed aviation pilot would wrecklesly perform a maneuver that would endanger their passengers.
Let's go further with your logic. If there was a stunt that required the use of let's say a beer bottle being struck in the head of an actor. Would it be less pure not to strike the actor with a real bottle? Further less pure not to strike them with a bottle that was just drunk by the actor and still have actual beer in it? How 'pure' does it need to be? We have the technology to remove a hazard from the work place. A replica firearm is nearly indistinguishable from a real one. Make an argument for using real guns that is not it's just not cool enough because it's not real.
@@theroboticcobra7036 R slur bro. It's 2017. The man was pointing a gun at a camera and people because that's what the shot required. I do not see how muzzle control would have helped in this situation. Isn't the first rule never point at what you don't want to shoot?