• Bgugi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only exception to point a gun at somebody is to protect life. If you can’t film a shot without pointing a real gun at someone, that shot doesn’t need to be made.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      So the claim m is pointing the gun at the camera. Also the operator was asked to move so the gun wouldn’t be pointing at them. Sounds reasonable to that point, then it gets murkier

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Well you better let hollywood know they cant use guns anymore in movies or TV shows. Very real guns are used non stop in the entertainment industry, and they all point at somebody.

      Thr truth of the matter here is that real weapons look real, so they will always be used. Hollywood has impressive safeguards. This movie has a real fuck up armorer who not only didn’t enforce them, but who directly undermined them. She was convicted of manslaughter for it.

      Baldwin pulled the trigger, but based on testimony he was asking people to move aside and was trying to be safe with the weapon, even though he thought the armorer had already made it safe. That points to an honest attempt to treat the weapon correctly, even if it all went bad.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        One thing: they try not to actually point the guns at people. If the shot is framed so that you can only see one person, there’s probably no person out of frame. If it’s a long shot with two people, they’re probably aiming a bit to the side so that it still looks right on camera. In a big war scene, they’re aiming between and over the people.