Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Ralph Hurley
Aug 3, 2009

:barf::sweep::zoid:



fartman posted:

do these people think that nobody ever gets shot and killed or something?

It’s what happens when 100% of your already small brain is focused on the fear of someone taking away your penis.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bad Purchase
Jun 17, 2019




camera footage of the event has been digitally remastered and now shows halyna shot first

Corn Glizzy
Jun 28, 2007



Bad Purchase posted:

camera footage of the event has been digitally remastered and now shows halyna shot first

yeah but you have to buy the prequels box set to see it

Der Kyhe
Jun 25, 2008

Blotto_Otter posted:

When a stuntman falls off a motorcycle or gets hit by a car, we don't say they were injured riding a prop motorcycle or got hit by a prop car.

If it is industry jargon to use the term "prop gun" for both a fake gun used only as a prop and a real gun that happens to be used as a prop, then that just speaks to the lousy industry safety philosophy that contributed to this incident. Real guns are fundamentally not safe movie props. And regardless of what the industry jargon is, the headlines going around now are meant for laypeople, not industry insiders, and it's bad reporting to use the ambiguous "prop gun" descriptor if it was a real gun. If it was indeed a real gun, the fact that movie sets still use real guns in the hands of actors and crew who apparently do not follow basic, fundamental principles of firearms safety is newsworthy.

I remember that some ten years ago there was a specific line of "6mm" replica pistols which looked like real guns but could only shoot specific type of blanks.

They used be permit free here, but were banned because A) they still looked and sounded like real guns so they were used in robberies and B) they were too easy to bore out and swap parts to accept real ammo, even if it resulted to a lovely pistol.

So yeah, there at least used to be an industry making realistic prop guns, which could have made using real guns in movies pointless, even illegal.

christmas boots
Oct 15, 2012

To these sing-alongs 🎤of siren 🧜🏻‍♀️songs
To oohs😮 to ahhs😱 to 👏big👏applause👏
With all of my 😡anger I scream🤬 and shout📢
🇺🇸America🦅, I love you 🥰but you're freaking 💦me 😳out
Biscuit Hider

Blotto_Otter posted:

When a stuntman falls off a motorcycle or gets hit by a car, we don't say they were injured riding a prop motorcycle or got hit by a prop car.

If it is industry jargon to use the term "prop gun" for both a fake gun used only as a prop and a real gun that happens to be used as a prop, then that just speaks to the lousy industry safety philosophy that contributed to this incident. Real guns are fundamentally not safe movie props. And regardless of what the industry jargon is, the headlines going around now are meant for laypeople, not industry insiders, and it's bad reporting to use the ambiguous "prop gun" descriptor if it was a real gun. If it was indeed a real gun, the fact that movie sets still use real guns in the hands of actors and crew who apparently do not follow basic, fundamental principles of firearms safety is newsworthy.

All true, but we also understand that motorcycles are fundamentally not weapons so we don't really need those descriptors. Like we understand that people aren't supposed to be hit by cars. Guns are typically used for killing things so "prop" is used as--admittedly misleading for the reasons you've noted--shorthand for "this gun wasn't supposed to work like that", immediately framing it as an accident in a way that "Alec Baldwin shoots two people with a gun" wouldn't so much.

Bronze Fonz
Feb 14, 2019




John Wick of Dogs posted:

Guns don't kill people.

Nothing kills people

People can't die.

You're obviously a deep state agent because VACCINES kill people. We're are not dumb!

Novo
May 13, 2003

Stercorem pro cerebro habes
Soiled Meat

christmas boots posted:

All true, but we also understand that motorcycles are fundamentally not weapons so we don't really need those descriptors. Like we understand that people aren't supposed to be hit by cars. Guns are typically used for killing things so "prop" is used as--admittedly misleading for the reasons you've noted--shorthand for "this gun wasn't supposed to work like that", immediately framing it as an accident in a way that "Alec Baldwin shoots two people with a gun" wouldn't so much.

it's about transparency in gun accident reporting

flubber nuts
Oct 5, 2005


Ralph Hurley posted:

It’s what happens when 100% of your already small brain is focused on the fear of someone taking away your penis.

wait who is trying to take away my penis

wa27
Jan 15, 2007

Blotto_Otter posted:

When a stuntman falls off a motorcycle or gets hit by a car, we don't say they were injured riding a prop motorcycle or got hit by a prop car.

If it is industry jargon to use the term "prop gun" for both a fake gun used only as a prop and a real gun that happens to be used as a prop, then that just speaks to the lousy industry safety philosophy that contributed to this incident. Real guns are fundamentally not safe movie props. And regardless of what the industry jargon is, the headlines going around now are meant for laypeople, not industry insiders, and it's bad reporting to use the ambiguous "prop gun" descriptor if it was a real gun. If it was indeed a real gun, the fact that movie sets still use real guns in the hands of actors and crew who apparently do not follow basic, fundamental principles of firearms safety is newsworthy.

I think the headline writers are just trying to not make it sound like Alec got pissed and brought a gun to set.

sure okay
Apr 7, 2006





wa27 posted:

I think the headline writers are just trying to not make it sound like Alec got pissed and brought a gun to set.

Can you prove he didn't?

TheBuilder
Jul 11, 2001
They should have used the Vito Spatafore Boonton special

Klyith
Aug 3, 2007

GBS Pledge Week

Blotto_Otter posted:

If it is industry jargon to use the term "prop gun" for both a fake gun used only as a prop and a real gun that happens to be used as a prop,

It isn't, industry jargon is that a "prop gun" is a fake rubber or metal cast of a gun, which cannot ever fire a bullet.

But that's what the other posters were complaining about, general news reporting on the event is not following industry jargon. He didn't shoot someone with a fake rubber gun, he used a real gun. But in this case the industry jargon would be confusing to the general audience, so the news writers are rightfully avoiding it. Being "correct" in this case would be less clear.

Bad Purchase
Jun 17, 2019




will ‘stand your ground’ apply in this case because they were forcing him to do another take against his will?

Vengarr
Jun 17, 2010

Smashed before noon

Der Kyhe posted:

I remember that some ten years ago there was a specific line of "6mm" replica pistols which looked like real guns but could only shoot specific type of blanks.

They used be permit free here, but were banned because A) they still looked and sounded like real guns so they were used in robberies and B) they were too easy to bore out and swap parts to accept real ammo, even if it resulted to a lovely pistol.

So yeah, there at least used to be an industry making realistic prop guns, which could have made using real guns in movies pointless, even illegal.

There still is, it’s just that normally a real gun is cheaper and just as safe. You still have a bang tube shooting blanks no matter what.

Fun fact, prop departments often use real guns as the basis for sci-fi blasters too. Typically they just take a rare or cool-looking gun and hang grubbinz and greebles on them to make it look more futuristic.

Der Kyhe
Jun 25, 2008

Vengarr posted:

There still is, it’s just that normally a real gun is cheaper and just as safe. You still have a bang tube shooting blanks no matter what.

Fun fact, prop departments often use real guns as the basis for sci-fi blasters too. Typically they just take a rare or cool-looking gun and hang grubbinz and greebles on them to make it look more futuristic.

Yeah, a pull-up assault rifle reject from the 80's from our armed forces got a second life as the plasma rifle of the Terminator movies.

Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 22, 2021

Testvan
Nov 10, 2003
I just read that plot summary of this movie, it centers around an accidental murder :monocle:

Sedgr
Sep 16, 2007

Neat!

"DP Killed and Director Injured in Pyrotechnic Stunt Gone Wrong" doesnt get clicks like "Alec Baldwin Gun Murder Spree"

Play
Apr 25, 2006

Strong stroll for a mangy stray

BIG TIT LIL NIP posted:

wait who is trying to take away my penis

Me. Give it to me now.

Novo
May 13, 2003

Stercorem pro cerebro habes
Soiled Meat

Testvan posted:

I just read that plot summary of this movie, it centers around an accidental murder :monocle:

i've heard of method acting, but this is ridiculous!

Lucky Guy
Jan 24, 2013

TY for no bm

Play posted:

Me. Give it to me now.

no me

I'll pay more than they will

Bidding starts at 3 cans of Tab, room temperature

Nigmaetcetera
Nov 17, 2004

borkborkborkmorkmorkmork-gabbalooins
People dying is worth it because of just how loving lovely digital muzzle flashes look. Same with digital blood spatter. Seriously, have you seen that poo poo? It’s repugnant!

Mordja
Apr 26, 2014

Hell Gem
If only the cinematographer had a gun of her own, this entire tragedy could have been averted.

Blotto_Otter
Aug 16, 2013


Klyith posted:

It isn't, industry jargon is that a "prop gun" is a fake rubber or metal cast of a gun, which cannot ever fire a bullet.

But that's what the other posters were complaining about, general news reporting on the event is not following industry jargon. He didn't shoot someone with a fake rubber gun, he used a real gun. But in this case the industry jargon would be confusing to the general audience, so the news writers are rightfully avoiding it. Being "correct" in this case would be less clear.

Ah, I see. I disagree that writing headlines that directly conflicts with industry jargon was the right choice; I think reporting it as “prop gun” makes things less clear to the average reader in gun-happy America. I suspect that when many people read the phrase “prop gun”, they might not realize that is describing a real, functional gun.

wa27 posted:

I think the headline writers are just trying to not make it sound like Alec got pissed and brought a gun to set.

I think describing it as “accidental” or “unintentional” could accomplish that without adding ambiguity around the fact that a real gun was used.

I realize some folks could see this as quibbling over semantics, but this kind of clarity and accuracy is what good journalists and editors get paid to care about. This kind of reporting both influences and is influenced by American gun culture, and that culture is part of the story of how accidents like this happen.

Bad Purchase
Jun 17, 2019




Testvan posted:

I just read that plot summary of this movie, it centers around an accidental murder :monocle:

we are all pawns in alec baldwin's game

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Klyith posted:

No, I think it's to make clear the circumstances of the accident -- that an actor fired a gun specifically intended to be a safe movie prop, which turned out to be not safe and killed someone by accident.

Because otherwise "Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crew member with real gun" sounds more like Alec Baldwin went crazy and pulled a glock on set and opened fire.



It may not be a "prop gun" but it's a "prop (an object on a movie set), gun".

Yes this is fair and probably at least partly true

Technical jargon is for the professionals and courts and in-depth articles, not headlines

Valentin
Sep 16, 2012

Blotto_Otter posted:

I think describing it as “accidental” or “unintentional” could accomplish that without adding ambiguity around the fact that a real gun was used.

I realize some folks could see this as quibbling over semantics, but this kind of clarity and accuracy is what good journalists and editors get paid to care about.

they do care, which is why they would avoid describing something as accidental or unintentional before it was established if either of those things were true*

*standard does not apply if a cop shot someone, then it's "unintentional" before during and after it turns out they shot the person on purpose

Steadiman
Jan 31, 2006

Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

silly sevens
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1451634746061168646
Yeah the camera crew walked off. partially because of huge safety issues on set, explicitily gun safety but also turnaround and hours. This whole show was an accident waiting to happen apparently.

kntfkr
Feb 11, 2019

GOOSE FUCKER
Was OSHA ever at the scene when John Lennon's son, Brandon Lee, killed himself by switching fake bullets with real bullets on the set of the Crow?

Also is the Crow the same as Sting from WCW???

happyhippy
Feb 21, 2005

Playing games, watching movies, owning goons. 'sup
Pillbug
Surprised there aren't headlines starting with " 'Trump' shoots woman! "

kntfkr
Feb 11, 2019

GOOSE FUCKER
He's gonna lose a lot of money.

Rahu
Feb 14, 2009


let me just check my figures real quick here
Grimey Drawer
He probably should not have shot those people, imo.

Blotto_Otter
Aug 16, 2013


Valentin posted:

they do care, which is why they would avoid describing something as accidental or unintentional before it was established if either of those things were true

Was that not pretty well established by the point most of these headlines were written?

If it wasn’t, then fair point. My opinion is still that describing a real gun as a “prop gun” adds ambiguity, not clarity.

Kirk Vikernes
Apr 26, 2004

Count Goatnackh

This kind of thing changes a man.

mom and dad fight a lot
Sep 21, 2006

If you count them all, this sentence has exactly seventy-two characters.
That's what I call a killer performance

Bad Purchase
Jun 17, 2019




happyhippy posted:

Surprised there aren't headlines starting with " 'Trump' shoots woman! "

they don't want him to get elected again

Cacator
Aug 6, 2005

You're quite good at turning me on.

kntfkr posted:

Was OSHA ever at the scene when John Lennon's son, Brandon Lee, killed himself by switching fake bullets with real bullets on the set of the Crow?

Also is the Crow the same as Sting from WCW???

No, he's Sting from The Police.

kntfkr
Feb 11, 2019

GOOSE FUCKER

Cacator posted:

No, he's Sting from The Police.

Now, you're wrong there. I know for a fact that Sting from the Police is Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner CBE.

ChunTheUnavoidable
Sep 27, 2021

Liz lemon: Jack, did you fire the union propmaster?
Jack donaghy: lemon, take my word for it— hiring non-union is always the way to go
Liz lemon: well, then who’s managing the props??
Kenneth: (running up, out of breath) Mr. donaghy, here’s the gun you asked for!

Haptical Sales Slut
Mar 15, 2010

Age 18 to 49
Teamsters sabotaged the set on their way out this is the future liberals want!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Animal-Mother
Feb 14, 2012

RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

If you're gonna look like Hemingway, you should shoot like Hemingway.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply