on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
when followed properly everybody is safe.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality, and your argument that some may make live ammo for them would be extremely illogical if that was illegal.
If you want to use live ammo, what would be the argument for not using a real weapon?
If it’s some homemade shit, it would probably be pretty easy to spot anyway.
I stand by my original claim, which would 100% have prevented the incident. Even without training. You cannot reasonably argue that it’s safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert, that he has written a book about. People make mistakes.
Ohhh, I was interpreting the meaning in reverse! I was flabbergasted on why anyone would think an operational firearm is safer than an inoperative prop.
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality
They do if no one is willing to make them better. You can’t force a manufacturer to do that, especially when you’re talking about a very small number of sales.
I suppose you are aware that those sales would probably go global. Which they are not currently, because there is a lack of proper regulation and standardization.
They probably don’t have to be as good as real weapons, but obviously with regulation, they’d have to be good enough to be safe to use.
Prop firearms are not really consumable items. They are just rented over and over again by production companies from rental companies. And when they break, the rental companies would first repair them before buying new ones. They could be decades old and have been repaired over and over.
I assume the shitty reliability of prop guns has more to do with their age and how much they are used rather than low manufacturing quality.
“The media industry” is everything from a big-budget science fiction film, which uses no conventional-looking weapons at all, to a local newscast, which also doesn’t.
The number of productions worldwide needing realistic-looking prop weapons is very unlikely going to make any manufacturer justify redesigning their arms or recalibrating their manufacturing equipment, if recalibration is all that is necessary and new equipment wouldn’t also be required.
I’m not sure why you think that means the market for realistic prop guns is worth the cost of redesign and recalibration and possibly the purchase of new equipment.
Only a few companies make those movies, so they only need a limited stock of those weapons, especially since they can be reused. Most movies don’t require them.
Also, I can find absolutely nothing to corroborate your claim that movies were America’s biggest export in the 1980s. They aren’t even in the top 10 now, so I doubt it.
Maybe it wasn’t movies by itself, but also other entertainment? But for sure neither oil gas or Automobile were very significant exports back then. Also your list look to be goods only and contain zero services. Entertainment is a service, and will NEVER make that list.
From your link:
The trade deficit continues to grow in the U.S. due to the heavy reliance on foreign manufacturing.
But it would also be usable for theater, and TV shows.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Yes, really. Among other things the guidelines prohibit any real live ammunition on the set. There should be an armorer on-set whose sole responsibility is checking guns in/out and ensuring they are unloaded, or properly loaded with blanks only when absolutely necessary. Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them. Each person who handles a gun, right down to the actors, should also inspect it, and treat it as loaded even when it isn’t.
You cannot reasonably argue that it’s safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert
I never said they did. It’s the responsibility of the producer(s) to ensure all regulations are followed. So they should have made sure the armorer did. It’s the job of the armorer to know the OSHA and other regulations involving firearms on-set, and adhering to them. The armorer should be instructing both the relevant cast & crew on established safety procedures. That should include how to safely check if a gun appears to be loaded, and if not 10000% sure, to check back with the armorer. Not with a random crew person but the person directly responsible for their safe use.
Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them.
So an actor using a prop gun is required to know and follow safety measures for real guns?
Because that’s really the consequence of what you write, because a prop gun could accidentally be real too.
That makes a ton of sense. I used to support set safety, including theatrical firearms, and reading your comment was like deja vu. You know your stuff. That’s awesome!
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality, and your argument that some may make live ammo for them would be extremely illogical if that was illegal.
If you want to use live ammo, what would be the argument for not using a real weapon?
If it’s some homemade shit, it would probably be pretty easy to spot anyway.
I stand by my original claim, which would 100% have prevented the incident. Even without training. You cannot reasonably argue that it’s safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert, that he has written a book about. People make mistakes.
I’m curious, why do you consider substituting a non-operational (filled barrel) firearm for an operational firearm extremely bad advice?
Obviously because an operational firearm is way more dangerous.
Ohhh, I was interpreting the meaning in reverse! I was flabbergasted on why anyone would think an operational firearm is safer than an inoperative prop.
They do if no one is willing to make them better. You can’t force a manufacturer to do that, especially when you’re talking about a very small number of sales.
I suppose you are aware that those sales would probably go global. Which they are not currently, because there is a lack of proper regulation and standardization.
They probably don’t have to be as good as real weapons, but obviously with regulation, they’d have to be good enough to be safe to use.
Exactly how big do you think the global market for such props is?
Considering media industry is one of the biggest industries in the world, I’d think the market is more than sufficient to sustain multiple vendors.
Prop firearms are not really consumable items. They are just rented over and over again by production companies from rental companies. And when they break, the rental companies would first repair them before buying new ones. They could be decades old and have been repaired over and over.
I assume the shitty reliability of prop guns has more to do with their age and how much they are used rather than low manufacturing quality.
I’d suspect that too, it’s not that hard to make a prop gun, in part because it doesn’t have to have accuracy.
“The media industry” is everything from a big-budget science fiction film, which uses no conventional-looking weapons at all, to a local newscast, which also doesn’t.
The number of productions worldwide needing realistic-looking prop weapons is very unlikely going to make any manufacturer justify redesigning their arms or recalibrating their manufacturing equipment, if recalibration is all that is necessary and new equipment wouldn’t also be required.
In the 80’s movies were the biggest export of USA. IDK how big exactly it is today, but globally it’s very big.
I’m not sure why you think that means the market for realistic prop guns is worth the cost of redesign and recalibration and possibly the purchase of new equipment.
Only a few companies make those movies, so they only need a limited stock of those weapons, especially since they can be reused. Most movies don’t require them.
Also, I can find absolutely nothing to corroborate your claim that movies were America’s biggest export in the 1980s. They aren’t even in the top 10 now, so I doubt it.
https://www.evansdist.com/americas-top-10-exports/
Maybe it wasn’t movies by itself, but also other entertainment? But for sure neither oil gas or Automobile were very significant exports back then. Also your list look to be goods only and contain zero services. Entertainment is a service, and will NEVER make that list.
From your link:
But it would also be usable for theater, and TV shows.
Yes, really. Among other things the guidelines prohibit any real live ammunition on the set. There should be an armorer on-set whose sole responsibility is checking guns in/out and ensuring they are unloaded, or properly loaded with blanks only when absolutely necessary. Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them. Each person who handles a gun, right down to the actors, should also inspect it, and treat it as loaded even when it isn’t.
I never said they did. It’s the responsibility of the producer(s) to ensure all regulations are followed. So they should have made sure the armorer did. It’s the job of the armorer to know the OSHA and other regulations involving firearms on-set, and adhering to them. The armorer should be instructing both the relevant cast & crew on established safety procedures. That should include how to safely check if a gun appears to be loaded, and if not 10000% sure, to check back with the armorer. Not with a random crew person but the person directly responsible for their safe use.
So an actor using a prop gun is required to know and follow safety measures for real guns?
Because that’s really the consequence of what you write, because a prop gun could accidentally be real too.
That is not security, that’s idiocy.
I’ve gotta ask: how long have you worked in safety?
20+ years as a technical director at a theater where among many other things I’ve had to deal with the safety aspects of:
Through a number of these I’ve also consulted with film & theater safety experts, fire departments, building/electrical inspectors, etc.
That makes a ton of sense. I used to support set safety, including theatrical firearms, and reading your comment was like deja vu. You know your stuff. That’s awesome!