this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
153 points (98.7% liked)
movies
1927 readers
124 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:
- !showsandmovies@lemm.ee
- !animation@lemm.ee
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !horrormovies@lemm.ee
- !martialartsmovies@lemm.ee
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 title’s 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
Why do you feel like this is a shame?
Because rich people now know that if they midhandle a fire arm and kill a person, nothing will happen. They can blame some poorly paid wagie, they don't have to accept any consequences for bad gross negligence
I mean he shot that woman and killed her as far as I know, are there more details I'm not aware of?
Ah. Ok. I mean, I'm of the opinion that he has every reason to believe he wasn't going to shoot her when he pulled the trigger.
But I just wasn't sure if you were misunderstanding the headline or if you were in the camp of punish everybody all the time.
That's true, it sort of seems like negligent homicide to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
I always thought that killing someone, even on accident, is against the law.
Personally, I just don't think Baldwin is the one who deserves the charge. There were people on set responsible for ensuring his gun wasn't loaded. Those people failed in their job.
The armoror was sentenced awhile ago.
As she should been but that doesn't resolve issue of alecs Liabit as the guy who didn't murder and the guy in charge of the set.
These parasites love taking profit but they are never there to take any negative consequences
Ok. Well, enjoy your holidays.
Folks really wanted Baldwin's balls over this because he was Trump on SNL. A large part of this whole case was disguised political animus.
But wasn't Baldwin not even supposed to be shooting at the person he killed? If he had shot someone he was supposed to fire a blank at, I understand. Aren't you supposed to practice gun safety even with replicas? Don't point at anything you're not willing to shoot?
He was following the directions of the director and everybody involved, including the woman who died, agreed to do the scene. She wasn't just some random person on set, she was behind the camera because she was the director of photography.
If she didn't feel the scene was safe to film, she had the right to say no to using a realistic prop. This is an obviously sad incident. But Manny people were found or pleaded guilty to the events. Baldwin just isn't I've of them. Actors can't be expected to be experts and have to defer to experts on set all the time.
Ah I see. That makes sense then. I didn't know she was behind the camera when she got shot.
I think a lot of the confusion is that they were between takes.
He was drawing the weapon and rehearsing what he was going to do as they were discussing the next take and she was watching him through the camera. But the shot they were going for was most definitely him pointing the gun at the camera. The AD, I believe, was the one that handed him the gun without verifying it was cleared.
Baldwin is guilty of putting trust in the people around him doing their jobs correctly.
Wasn't he a producer for this movie? I think one of the arguments against him was that he had some responsibility over the filming including safety. If there is a safety incident, he's somewhat responsible.
I'm of 2 minds about this. On one hand, I think he's not at fault, the armorer is. As long as he hired a qualified armorer with a good safety record, what more could he have done? On the other hand, if we hold the higher ups more responsible for safety issues, they will put in place better safety controls to reduce risk.
I think that argument gets made by people who don't really know what producers do. It could be anything from managing the people on set to putting their name on it for cred. I'm this car, Baldwin was partially responsible for the story.
There are, yes. Unfortunately no one has written any articles about it, and multiple people haven't gone to court over the situation either. It's really too bad, it's just a big black hole of information. The only thing all of us can do is simply read a headline and make emotional guesses as to what happened.
It was on a movie set where it is to be reasonably expected that the armorer will clear weapons to be safe on set and that actors aren’t expected to be firearms experts so that they are able to perform with them.
It should also be expected that said armorers do their job as expected and NOT shoot real ammo out of prop guns. And if they do, they’re expected to properly clear them; even though they never should in the first place.
But yeah, this was totally about Alec Baldwin the elite bourgeois flexing his real ultimate power of wealth and crushing the matter-nothing proletariat, the people have lost once again because he was not held accountable for someone else’s actions.
I’m all for eating the rich but let’s not just make shit up, that makes us look ridiculous.
A really cheesy way to put it but I generally agree. However I don't think that Alec Baldwin pressured the prosecutor to back off, I think the prosecutor didn't want the smoke from other entities like Baldwin's managers or business partners, or Alec Baldwin's fans