I honestly have no idea about prop guns or what their capabilities are, but as my husband and I just discussed, what were ANY live rounds doing on a movie set? Why would they be there in the first place to be "mistaken" for blanks at all? Obviously there was a reason there were live rounds present. Time will tell as to why.
I think you're right. The deniability is so plausible in that, "I'm just an actor, I just used the gun they handed me, other people are responsible for making sure only blanks are in it," etc. The rest of us responsible gun owners know that you check to make sure you know exactly how many rounds are in your gun and if it's chambered before you fire it, and if it is, you don't so much as point it at anything you don't want to kill. AND that you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun. But since he sits on his high horse and tells the rest of us lowly flyover country people how we shouldn't have any guns, it's making him look pretty damn ignorant at best, and completely involved, responsible and implicated at worst. He's a piece of shit with no soul, so I can see how he can act like someone who "accidentally" shot someone, despite being fully aware of what he was doing.
"Prop" guns that only fire blanks are real guns, they just might not be built to handle the pressure of a live load though. I know people in theater in Illinois who had to get FOID cards just to be able to handle them on set.
Aside from props such as lawn mowers, saddles, and vintage glass bottles, Independent Studio Services (ISS) houses 15,000 working firearms from all eras. From flintlocks to miniguns, this prop house has it all, and then some.
Well, it was a prop (property) on the set. The “plan” that the director, camera operator, and Baldwin were following was that the gun would be loaded with a wad so the camera would get the shot of the flash from the muzzle.
Lots of stupidity here: who wrote the scene that way or wanted THAT angle. Even with that angle, why were the 2 people standing down barrel from an even blank loaded gun—why couldn’t the camera be operated remotely? Perhaps the focus needed to switch from Baldwin to the end of the barrel—but why couldn’t that be done remotely? Where did the load come from? Who handed the person who loaded the gun that specific round—the live one? The prop master? Who was visiting the set that day? Who was back in the prop area not assigned to the film that day? That’s your guilty party. Not that Baldwin’s a nice guy, but he more than likely was surprised as everyone else that an actual round came out of the gun.
Prop revolvers are real revolvers and use prop blanks with caps in front of the blanks because you can see into the cylinder and you would see there are blanks in it. the movie is a wester so they likely didnt have semi-auto pistols. Afaik, the fake cap can sometimes get launched by the blank firing.
The real question is why did he aim a gun at somebody and fire it. with todays cgi tech theres never a reason to do this. especially considering most cinematographers wouldnt want to fire a blank gun at someone just for a silly scene that could be filmed from infinite angles.
Also rubber bullets are loaded into casings with a primer but no powder, the primer alone can generate enough pressure to launch the rubber bullet.
However I thought one of the reasons they just add CGI muzzle flashes so much nowadays was to take these accidents out of the equation. I think on John Wick even some scenes are using are airsoft replicas and they add muzzle flash and ejected casings with CGI, Keanu does train with real guns though hence it looks so authentic.
Ever see "In Bruges"? In one scene Colin Farrel disarms an attacker to find the revolver has blanks in it, when the attacker tries to take it back he gets shot in the face point blank with the blanks and is shown to be permanently blinded in that eye later in the film.
The rubber ones are for scenes when they don't shoot but need to be carrying it around. The "Jurassic World" behind the scenes shows this with Chris Pratt's 45-70 lever rifle, which would be tiring to carry around for hundreds of takes. Pratt even bends it a bit to show that it's really rubber despite being convincing at a distance.
Its a western right? One would assume they were using revolvers. Unlike semi-auto pistols which require a certain amount of force to cycle a revolver doesn't require that. A semi-auto that is a "prop gun" has a restricted barrel because when a blank is fired it won't cycle the action. Some revolvers are props with restricted barrels but others aren't because they are used for close up shots where the camera can see down the end of the barrel. Thus it might have just been a gun. It's just got blanks in it. You can put live rounds in it and shoot someone just like any other gun.
Most people don't get this but many of the guns on movie sets are quite dangerous. I can't remember which actor it was but there was an actor killed once because a piece of debris from a previous scene got into the barrel of a prop. So when a blank was fired in it doing the next scene that debris acted like a bullet and hit the actor he was pointing the gun at.
I think the McCloskeys should start inspecting all prop guns used in movies from now on, to ensure they are truly inoperable.
I honestly have no idea about prop guns or what their capabilities are, but as my husband and I just discussed, what were ANY live rounds doing on a movie set? Why would they be there in the first place to be "mistaken" for blanks at all? Obviously there was a reason there were live rounds present. Time will tell as to why.
I think you're right. The deniability is so plausible in that, "I'm just an actor, I just used the gun they handed me, other people are responsible for making sure only blanks are in it," etc. The rest of us responsible gun owners know that you check to make sure you know exactly how many rounds are in your gun and if it's chambered before you fire it, and if it is, you don't so much as point it at anything you don't want to kill. AND that you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun. But since he sits on his high horse and tells the rest of us lowly flyover country people how we shouldn't have any guns, it's making him look pretty damn ignorant at best, and completely involved, responsible and implicated at worst. He's a piece of shit with no soul, so I can see how he can act like someone who "accidentally" shot someone, despite being fully aware of what he was doing.
"Prop" guns that only fire blanks are real guns, they just might not be built to handle the pressure of a live load though. I know people in theater in Illinois who had to get FOID cards just to be able to handle them on set.
Who has one of the worlds largest gun collections?
Hollywood.
Real guns - not fakes or replicas.
But a giggle search doesn't turn up much of anything.
Here is one such collection: https://www.recoilweb.com/preview-independent-studio-services-hollywood-guns-5865.html
Well, it was a prop (property) on the set. The “plan” that the director, camera operator, and Baldwin were following was that the gun would be loaded with a wad so the camera would get the shot of the flash from the muzzle.
Lots of stupidity here: who wrote the scene that way or wanted THAT angle. Even with that angle, why were the 2 people standing down barrel from an even blank loaded gun—why couldn’t the camera be operated remotely? Perhaps the focus needed to switch from Baldwin to the end of the barrel—but why couldn’t that be done remotely? Where did the load come from? Who handed the person who loaded the gun that specific round—the live one? The prop master? Who was visiting the set that day? Who was back in the prop area not assigned to the film that day? That’s your guilty party. Not that Baldwin’s a nice guy, but he more than likely was surprised as everyone else that an actual round came out of the gun.
cinematographers are the camera angle directors. The cinematographer chose this shot.
Prop revolvers are real revolvers and use prop blanks with caps in front of the blanks because you can see into the cylinder and you would see there are blanks in it. the movie is a wester so they likely didnt have semi-auto pistols. Afaik, the fake cap can sometimes get launched by the blank firing.
The real question is why did he aim a gun at somebody and fire it. with todays cgi tech theres never a reason to do this. especially considering most cinematographers wouldnt want to fire a blank gun at someone just for a silly scene that could be filmed from infinite angles.
Also rubber bullets are loaded into casings with a primer but no powder, the primer alone can generate enough pressure to launch the rubber bullet.
However I thought one of the reasons they just add CGI muzzle flashes so much nowadays was to take these accidents out of the equation. I think on John Wick even some scenes are using are airsoft replicas and they add muzzle flash and ejected casings with CGI, Keanu does train with real guns though hence it looks so authentic.
Blanks alone can kill. Large muzzle flash. A lot of force out of Barrell. Killed John Erik Hexum
And Brandon Lee.
Ever see "In Bruges"? In one scene Colin Farrel disarms an attacker to find the revolver has blanks in it, when the attacker tries to take it back he gets shot in the face point blank with the blanks and is shown to be permanently blinded in that eye later in the film.
News is calling it a prop gun to implant that in the minds of the zombie sheep that are still watching them.
Most prop guns are real guns, especially for close up shots. But they use rubber and plastic guns as well.
The rubber ones are for scenes when they don't shoot but need to be carrying it around. The "Jurassic World" behind the scenes shows this with Chris Pratt's 45-70 lever rifle, which would be tiring to carry around for hundreds of takes. Pratt even bends it a bit to show that it's really rubber despite being convincing at a distance.
Its a western right? One would assume they were using revolvers. Unlike semi-auto pistols which require a certain amount of force to cycle a revolver doesn't require that. A semi-auto that is a "prop gun" has a restricted barrel because when a blank is fired it won't cycle the action. Some revolvers are props with restricted barrels but others aren't because they are used for close up shots where the camera can see down the end of the barrel. Thus it might have just been a gun. It's just got blanks in it. You can put live rounds in it and shoot someone just like any other gun.
Most people don't get this but many of the guns on movie sets are quite dangerous. I can't remember which actor it was but there was an actor killed once because a piece of debris from a previous scene got into the barrel of a prop. So when a blank was fired in it doing the next scene that debris acted like a bullet and hit the actor he was pointing the gun at.