Could be Funny at Some Point

[ussinners]

So, the two actors who have worked their ass off on the production desperately want it to be complete.

I've already given up on it, and I told every one exactly that. My Invisible Producer is like "Just see it through. Once it's done you'll be happy." I know I won't. I just don't give a shit anymore.

I told the Invisible Producer and the two actors, to go to town and finish shooting.

It took ONE DAY for the Producer to e-mail me that he was quitting. They haven't even set a shooting schedule yet. I told him he couldn't quit till after June or July.

 

[jax_rox]

I'm not sure if you know the story about Brandon Lee in the Crow - but guess what: The Crow was a high budget movie. And Brandon Lee died because the propmaster didn't take the right precautions. There were trained people on set earlier in the day. You admitted yourself you have 0 knowledge about guns. This is a guy who should've known. But he was inexperienced, the armourer had gone home for the day. You're a guy who doesn't know. You wanted to be your own armourer. That doesn't save you from being responsible for someone's death or injury and it also means you're more likely to have accidents, not less.
Not only that, but did you notify the authorities you were filming with a gun, as is standard protocol? They would've asked who your armourer was and would've put a stop to you filming with a live gun without one. Even if the gun was unloaded.

To add, have you not just pointed out that he said the only way the gun is safe is to strip it? And that he wouldn't feel comfortable even if it were unloaded?

There was a worker killed on the set of the upcoming Spiderman movie. These are high budget, studio features that should have or would have taken precautions. They have trained safety professionals on set whose job it is to pick out dangerous and unsafe activity and either put a stop to it or consult about a better, safe way to achieve the same thing. Yet, still accidents happen. Do you think your untrained self is immune to all accidents simply because you think you know something? I'm not saying whether or not it is safe because I don't know. I don't know guns. But I do know that Brandon Lee was killed on a set where they thought they had taken all the precautions necessary. That's why I certainly wouldn't be a part of a film set where there is a live gun being used by inexperienced people, especially against the cautions of the person who owned the gun and (presumably) the only person on set with any experience with guns..

I'm sure it is a long story, but at the end of the day all productions have 'long stories'. Hell, a 3-day short film I shot early last year has a 'long-story' about things going wrong and causing stress on and off set. Does that mean our Director went screw this you can do it yourselves? I'm ACing for a low-budget feature that's had an insurmountable amount of issues from cast and crew pulling out (with 4 days til shooting) to issues with equipment and hire. I'm sure it frustrated the Director. I'm sure he's had issues. But he kept plugging away at it. Because he wants to see his vision come to life. Sure, we all do this for the fun of it and some of us are lucky enough to make a living out of it but at the end of the day it's hard work even if it is fun. You can talk about how people don't know what it's like and that's cool. But that doesn't mean it was necessarily anyones fault, and if the truth be told, even if it something wasn't actually your fault, the fact that you're the Director means the fault lies with you. So it's your job to fix it. In my opinion, I don't think you should quit just because you've had problems, especially if you could've potentially fixed those problems in the first place. Though, in my opinion you shouldn't want to risk an actor's life with a live gun after you've already been cautioned that it could cause injury to them. But that's just me.

Edit: to add a quote from an armourer I've worked with before:

Firearm Licences are specific to the person named on the license and are issued for a specific purpose - No other type of firearm licence holder can hand a firearm ( loaded or otherwise ) ( working or not working ) to an unlicensed person and as most actors would not be licensed for that type of firearm, an additional offence would be committed (and as it would be recorded on film, would be evidence for a prosecution). Only a Licensed Film Armourer can hand a firearm to an unlicensed person

So there's the legal standpoint, regardless of the safety.

I don't mean to patronise, I just feel that this information should be here for anyone who reads this in the future and thinks it might be okay to use a real gun in a scene without all the proper safety precautions.

 

[Jack Lynt]

I too know little about guns. But I had a little hunter safety when I was a kid and I've also been trying to get educated by reading stuff online and watching youtube videos about them, of which there are plenty, etc.

I also know from observation (or at least suspicion) that there are Indietalkers who are gun enthusiasts and are no doubt much more knowledgeable on the subject. Perhaps they will chime in.

Anyway.

Try looking at some of those instructional gun videos on Youtube. What will the serious, responsible ones say? They will say to treat a gun with grave respect. They will say to treat any gun as though it is loaded.

As far as I understand, treating any gun as though it is loaded is gun safety 101. It's a cardinal rule. Though I imagine it doesn't fully apply to a gun that is completely disassembled.

Truly, a gun that has no bullet in it will not shoot a bullet.

So...let's point this gun, that we're confident has no bullets in it, at an actor? After all, we both inspected it and we saw no bullets in it.

I don't know how Hollywood does it. Well, I take it that they do fire blanks at actors. That's fine I guess for big productions that, as Jax Rox has pointed out, have "armourer and safety officers" and "trained safety professionals on set."

Let's try to put ourselves in your DP's shoes for a moment. He's an ex-cop. He's probably had gun training up the wahzoo...normal, real world gun training, that is, not filmmaking-make-believe-world training. And what does he know that every responsible gun handler knows? That you treat any gun as if it were loaded.

Is this poor fellow a trained propmaster? Nope. By the way, how does one become a propmaster? Do you just declare yourself a propmaster? Or is there some kind of licensing or certification for that? So if you're operating on a micro-budget without a propmaster and the rest, is it okay to just fudge through things like the handling of real guns on set?

So his director says, here, lets take your gun and point it at our lovely colleague for this scene. No harm can come from it because we've both verified that it has no bullets, therefore it cannot do harm.

Anything for art? Is that the M.O. we're working with?

Yeah but, pointing a gun at the young lady, however empty we think it is, violates a (normal) basic safety rule of gun handling.

I fully empathize with your DP. I also would have been way uncomfortable with that. It would have been a deal breaker for me as well. To expect otherwise from a former police officer -who knows better- is unreasonable.

I applaud your DP for acting in a responsible and professional way and, as far as I can make out, doing the right thing. He is not a moron, nor is the actress who became uncomfortable with those sketchy proceedings. And I would welcome the chance to work with a DP who has shown such level headed, good sense.

I hope your next project goes better for you and for all involved.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Jax: No offense, but this is one thread on a very long story. But, I enjoyed your stupid response to the gun incident.

I may know nothing about guns, but I DO KNOW - AN UNLOADED GUN CAN NOT SHOOT YOU WITH A BULLET. No STUPID ASS MORONIC EXCUSES.

Did you not read that he WOULD NOT answer the question 5 times? You know WHY? Guess? AN UNLOADED GUN CAN NOT SHOOT YOU WITH A BULLET.

Oh and just one other thing, because I'm not a MORON. If he'd have put the barrel and pin back in the gun and handed it to me, I'd have pointed it at myself and pulled the trigger to show that a gun WITHOUT BULLETS CAN NOT SHOOT YOU WITH A BULLET.

For some stupid reason, a gun I know is not loaded will not scare me.

I know this is just the internet, but can't we keep things civil?

 

[Morris]

In my state, technically an unlicensed indidvidual with a handgun could get one year in jail. With automatics, a bullet remains in the chamber after you take out the clip. Pulling back the bolt to get it out should always work. Could something weird happen and a bullet remain in the chamber even after the last bullet supposedly ejected. Unlikely, but I would want the gun completely broken down and inspected.

 

[Murdock]

I know this is just the internet, but can't we keep things civil?

Good thing no one has a gun?

 

[ussinners]

I went to a gun site and asked the questions I asked of my DP.

Question 1: If a handgun (that uses a clip) is unloaded. The bullet is removed from the chamber. Then all the bullets are removed from the clip. Can this unloaded gun now shoot someone with a bullet?

Answer ONE: If there are no bullets in the gun it cannot fire one unless one or more are put back in.

Answer TWO: An unloaded fork can no more make a person fat than an unloaded gun can shoot. There is no way a gun can produce a bullet from thin air.

Question TWO: But, even without bullets, what can happen if the hammer is pulled back and the trigger goes off? Keeping in mind there's no bullets in the gun. What's the worst case scenario?

Answer: It goes "click". Then you throw the gun at the bad guy and you miss him/her.

Both of them stressed SAFETY.

I'd be willing to bet these guys know a lot more about guns then my DP. His only interest in his gun is that he was a cop.

There is one person who said he's against using any firearm unless it's being used for what it's intended.

BTW: for all of you who scream about safety. I, the "unsafe" one had to pick up the bullets that the DP tossed on the floor after removing them from his gun. Somehow if it was me, I'd have put them in my pocket, bag or perhaps left them in the car before bringing the gun into the house. But, that's just unsafe me.

The gun makes 2 appearances in the movie. They now both suck because of the way they had to be handled. Had he handed the unloaded gun to the actor, we'd have had the shot (running three cameras) in 2 minutes. It was a one take shot. The second shot, he's holding the gun and pointing it at the floor. The worst damage that could have been done, is it blew a hole in the floor. Oh wait, an unloaded gun can't do that. I guess the worst thing that could have happened is he got the meat of his finger caught in the hammer if he decided to pull the trigger back. Of course he didn't.

I remember the Brandon Lee story well. It was a terrible tragedy. It has nothing to do with the two shots I needed an unloaded gun for. I SAW with MY OWN TWO EYES every bullet being removed from the gun. He KNEW the gun was empty. Everyone in the room saw the gun get emptied. But, by making a huge fucking stink about "The only way to be sure" he literally LIED to the actors into believing that an empty gun is still dangerous. An empty gun for our purposes was in no way dangerous.

You can scream safety all you want. But, the one person on that set that day looking out for the actors safety was me. If he was so worried about how it was going to be used, perhaps he should have read the script. I knew exactly how the gun was going to be used, and what was going to happen to it.

 

[jax_rox]

The one person on that set that day looking out for the actors safety was me.

Even though you're the one who wanted to fire the gun at an actor simply because you thought that's what would happen?

Again, you know as much about guns as I or the next average person with no knowledge. You know what? If I didn't have either the necessary training and experience or someone on set with the necessary training and experience, I wouldn't let it happen unless it was an imitation firearm. What if something had happened? What if she'd been injured in some way? 'But the gun had no bullets in it, I swear!' doesn't save you and doesn't save her.

Not to mention the fact you just brushed past the legality side of it. At the end of the day, had the DP actually given you the gun to use, as I've specifically pointed out - you, him, and the actor would be committing a criminal offence and considering it would be taped on film, that would be enough for a prosecution.

I wouldn't risk it. Guns aren't fun, and they're no laughing matter. At the end of the day, it's just a film. It's not worth even risking getting hurt or killed over. I certainly wouldn't want to work with someone that callous, and someone who couldn't even see that although they have no knowledge about guns, think they know enough to be able to shoot with one that fires. As I say, the crew on The Crow thought they'd taken the right precautions, and they were professionals.

If it was that big an issue, why couldn't you have just framed it so you could only see the barrell? You know what the mark of a good Director is? Someone who can adjust and get things done, especially under the stress of production. A good Director is not someone who throws a tantrum because his DP wants to make sure the gun is safe, and then won't even consider re-framing the shots to look better.

Not only that, but why would you go through the whole deal in front of the actors? If I was an actor, I'd be freaked out seeing someone hand over a loaded gun, unload it and then go 'alright let's shoot'. If anything, if I was going to take the risk, I'd at least make sure the gun had been unloaded days before, stripped and rebuilt to make sure and tested a number of times before we even got on set. Surely you can understand the hesitation? It's just not worth the risk.
My $0.02

 

[NickClapper]

I really can't be bothered to address all the various issues swirling about in this thread but, as every filmmaker ought to know, you should never have a gun, even an unloaded one, anywhere near your set without, at the very least, a professional armorer being present.

Common sense.

 

[ussinners]

Even though you're the one who wanted to fire the gun at an actor simply because you thought that's what would happen?

Again, you know as much about guns as I or the next average person with no knowledge. You know what? If I didn't have either the necessary training and experience or someone on set with the necessary training and experience, I wouldn't let it happen unless it was an imitation firearm. What if something had happened? What if she'd been injured in some way? 'But the gun had no bullets in it, I swear!' doesn't save you and doesn't save her.

Not to mention the fact you just brushed past the legality side of it. At the end of the day, had the DP actually given you the gun to use, as I've specifically pointed out - you, him, and the actor would be committing a criminal offence and considering it would be taped on film, that would be enough for a prosecution.

I wouldn't risk it. Guns aren't fun, and they're no laughing matter. At the end of the day, it's just a film. It's not worth even risking getting hurt or killed over. I certainly wouldn't want to work with someone that callous, and someone who couldn't even see that although they have no knowledge about guns, think they know enough to be able to shoot with one that fires. As I say, the crew on The Crow thought they'd taken the right precautions, and they were professionals.

If it was that big an issue, why couldn't you have just framed it so you could only see the barrell? You know what the mark of a good Director is? Someone who can adjust and get things done, especially under the stress of production. A good Director is not someone who throws a tantrum because his DP wants to make sure the gun is safe, and then won't even consider re-framing the shots to look better.

Not only that, but why would you go through the whole deal in front of the actors? If I was an actor, I'd be freaked out seeing someone hand over a loaded gun, unload it and then go 'alright let's shoot'. If anything, if I was going to take the risk, I'd at least make sure the gun had been unloaded days before, stripped and rebuilt to make sure and tested a number of times before we even got on set. Surely you can understand the hesitation? It's just not worth the risk.
My $0.02

I'll just say this Jax, LEARN HOW TO READ! Your FACTS are COMPLETELY WRONG. But, I'm not surprised. As far as your opening, "Even though you're the one who wanted to fire the gun at an actor simply because you thought that's what would happen?" Well that's just a LIE. But, again I'm not surprised.

Here's a COMMON SENSE way of telling whether or not a gun is unloaded. Have someone who KNOWS about guns (especially if it's their own) unload it. Ask if it's unloaded. If they answer yes take it to your backyard or somewhere where no one can get hurt (I have a huge backyard) Point it at the ground (where there's no animals lying) and pull the trigger about 20 times. If nothing goes off, the gun is empty. The owner was right, he had removed all the bullets. If the gun goes off, you've put a hole in the ground, and the cops will probably be at the door when the neighbors call them. So, you better have a good excuse lined up.

Now, ANYTHING can HAPPEN. But, bullets appearing in an unloaded gun isn't one of them. Brandon Lee was killed by HUMAN error, when A PROFESSIONAL ARMOURER DIDN'T do their job right. Thank God I didn't hire that jackass to make sure the gun was unloaded. But, I'm sure any of you would, because he's a professional. People get hurt because they DON'T THINK and they get lackadaisical.

THANK GOD, I have a brain which is obviously sorely missing in SO MANY OTHERS.

As much as I don't like guns, what this person wrote is actually true "But your experience is a demonstration of what we are all facing from the gun grabbers. They are so irrationally predisposed against guns that they imagine them to be dangerous even when the laws of physics would have to be violated for the imagined danger to become real."

 

[jax_rox]

There's too much to reply to here, and I don't really want to get into an argument, when there's not even common courtesy being shown.

I will say this though:

Here's a COMMON SENSE way of telling whether or not a gun is unloaded. Have someone who KNOWS about guns (especially if it's their own) unload it. Ask if it's unloaded. If they answer yes take it to your backyard or somewhere where no one can get hurt (I have a huge backyard) Point it at the ground (where there's no animals lying) and pull the trigger about 20 times. If nothing goes off, the gun is empty. The owner was right, he had removed all the bullets. If the gun goes off, you've put a hole in the ground, and the cops will probably be at the door when the neighbors call them. So, you better have a good excuse lined up.

Considering you just attacked me for being incapable of reading apparently... This is exactly what I suggested you do if you were going to take the risk. As you pointed out in your previous post, that's not what you did. You walked onto set and did it in front of everybody and didn't test it before wanting to shoot. Regardless on your position on guns, the common sense thing to do would be to at least have the owener completely unload and strip the gun, rebuild it and test it multiple times before shooting. Whilst it would still be a criminal offence, it would at least be less dangerous. Your statement above confirms that you also think it would be common sense... even though that's not what you did on set.

Anyway, enough of this silly name-calling.

 

[ussinners]

Yanks suck again tonight. Oh well...

There's too much to reply to here, and I don't really want to get into an argument, when there's not even common courtesy being shown.

Common courtesy would mean you responded factually to what I wrote. Pretty much everything you've written regarding what I wrote is so completely taken out of context that if you're not lying, you're a idiot. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

(regarding my common sense way of testing an unloaded gun) Considering you just attacked me for being incapable of reading apparently... This is exactly what I suggested you do if you were going to take the risk.

Are you NUTS! Seriously? You think I can't go back and re-read all your posts? There ain't a damn sentence that comes CLOSE to what I wrote. This IS a FLAT OUT LIE! Common courtesy really?

As you pointed out in your previous post, that's not what you did. You walked onto set and did it in front of everybody and didn't test it before wanting to shoot.

What I pointed out was, I WAS NOT allowed to do what I wanted to do to be sure the gun was safe. Because the owner refused to listen to anything.

The REAL EXPERTS at the gunsite thought my common sense test was in line with SAFETY. But, what some of the REAL EXPERTS were upset about was "How can a ex-cop bring a LOADED GUN to a set?" They couldn't believe how callous and stupid that was. He should have left the bullets at home or at least in the car. I completely agree with that. I couldn't believe that the gun was still loaded.

even though that's not what you did on set.

You have absolutely no idea what I did on set.

The simple common sense of 'let's not shoot an actress with a real gun because even if it's unloaded she could die or be seriously injured'? You'd rather risk her life..?

Even though you're the one who wanted to fire the gun at an actor simply because you thought that's what would happen?

These are my favorites. This was the basis for so many of your points. In your mind, my wanting to SHOOT AN UNLOADED GUN at a defenseless actress. THOSE ARE YOUR QUOTES.

Here's MINE from my VERY FIRST POST: We needed a gun for the shoot. The trigger is never pulled. When the barrel is touching the actress' skin, the finger is not in any way on the trigger.

When exactly does she get SHOT? When is the trigger pulled? How is the gun used?

Common courtesy goes in both directions. Not one of your posts showed me any common courtesy or respect for WHAT I WROTE. You just made shit up to make your points. Which in my case are completely worthless. Because they have nothing to do with what I did or didn't do.