imagine dying and the last thing you hear is Alec Baldwin yelling about someone who hasn't been in office for almost a year and then yelling at some intern for letting him shoot you [Reply]
Originally Posted by Raiderhader:
They might have used a Walker in True Grit but, Duke/Rooster clearly states, “By God, girl that’s a Colt’s Dragoon!”
Originally Posted by :
Deputy U.S. Marshal Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn (John Wayne) keeps a Colt Single Action Army or "Peacemaker" with a 4 3/4" barrel, known as the "Civilian" or "Quick Draw" model, and fitted with mellow aged ivory-style grips as his sidearm of choice throughout the film. "Lucky" Ned Pepper (Robert Duvall) also keeps a Quick Draw Peacemaker which he uses when facing Rooster during the film's climax. While watching Rooster load his Peacemaker, Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) asks him why he keeps one chamber empty, to which he replies, "So I won't shoot my foot off." Carrying a single-action revolver with the hammer resting on an empty chamber is in fact a good safety method, because if the hammer were resting on a loaded chamber and something strikes the hammer, the gun could discharge and possibly cause some kind of injury. Rooster wields his Peacemaker with his Winchester Model 1892 rifle in akimbo at the climax of the film.
At one point in the film, Rooster tells Mattie about how when he was in the Civil War, he did the same dual wielding guns method while on horseback. He claims he fired two "Navy sixes" with the reins in his teeth. The two "Navy sixes" he mentioned using were either a pair of Colt Model 1851 Navy Revolvers - .36 caliber (or one of it's many Southern copies, such as the Griswold & Gunnison Revolver since Rooster fought for the Confederates), a pair of Colt Model 1861 Navy Revolvers - .36 caliber, or one of each. It is possible they were a pair of .36 caliber "Navy" versions of the Remington Model 1858 New Army or a pair of .36 caliber Navy versions of the Starr Model 1858 Double-Action Revolvers, but this is unlikely as the Starr revolver was unpopular and the Colt Navy and Army revolvers and the Army version of the Remington 1858 were more commonly used than the .36 caliber variants of the Remington Model 1858 in the Civil War.
John Wayne actually used three identical Colt Single Action Army revolvers in this film. Two of them were rented to him by the company called Stembridge. They were genuine Colt Single Action Army revolvers and one of them was either chambered for .44-40 Winchester Center Fire or .45 Long Colt, while the second one was definitly chambered for .45 Long Colt. The third one was Waynes own personal gun. Although he owned many Colt Single Action Army revolvers, this gun, serial number 309795, was the only one of his personal Colt Single Action Army revolvers he used in his films. This gun did most of the shooting in his films. Even though it was always billed as a .45 Colt, it was chambered for .44-40 WCF in reality. The interesting part is, this gun (serial no. 309795) didn't leave the factory as a regular Colt Single Action Army. It was originally a Colt Single Action Army "Bisley Model" with a 5.5 inch "Artillery" barrel, and was chambered in .45 Long Colt. It was later rebuilt to resemble an average Colt Single Action Army with a "Civilian"/"Quickdraw" Model barrel and was converted to fire .44-40 WCF cartridges. All three of these guns were fitted with ivory-style grips (manufactured by Maurice D. Scarlac out of a material he developed called Catalin). Wayne like them so much that he took these grips home and personally "tea-stained" them to give them that desirable "mellow aged ivory" look. Two sets of these grips were made for Wayne (the second set being a spare just in case if the first set broke). These grips all had three finger grooves in the left-hand side of the grips for Wayne middle, ring, and "little" fingers of Wayne's right hand for as they wrapped around the revolvers grip frame. The grooves can be clearly seen in the climactic gunfight between Rooster and "Lucky" Ned Pepper and his gang when Rooster has the gun tucked in his waist band.
Originally Posted by :
Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) inherits her father's civil war handgun when he dies, which is a Colt Walker 1847. Mattie uses it when she encounters Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey) and is knocked down by the recoil of the gun and manages to shoot him in the gut with it. He then manages to charge her and take the gun due to several misfires (which were Rooster's fault, as he had loaded it incorrectly while drunk, and also overloaded the chambers with powder which caused the tremendous recoil). The gun manages to fire once more in the hands of Mattie and grazes Chaney's head though the recoil knocks her into a snake pit. When Mattie first shows the gun to Rooster, he calls it a Colt's Dragoon but it is clearly too large and lacks a loading lever latch that the Dragoon models had. Also the Walker has no percussion nipples showing that it is firing cartridges.
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Baldwin has devolved into such a vile cocksucker over the years that it's really hard to have even the slightest bit of sympathy for anything bad that happens to him.
So the reports coming out now are that the gun had live rounds in it because some members of the crew took the guns out plinking in between takes and didn't empty the chambers before they brought them back on set.
Alec wanted to taste some pistachio-green hair pie and was willing to pay a rate that was nearly 1/2 industry standard. its the only thing that makes sense.
Alec has been calling in a lot of favors to get members of the press to paint Hannah Gutierrez Reed (24) as the responsible party. every single news story blames Hannah. those news stories don't even try to be objective. you can tell the press is setting up Hannah to take the fall because the stories that blame her started on 10/22/21. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So the reports coming out now are that the gun had live rounds in it because some members of the crew took the guns out plinking in between takes and didn't empty the chambers before they brought them back on set.
While I dislike Alec Baldwin, and he should never have pointed a gun on set at anyone, this appears not to be his fault.
The armorer is highly inexperienced. The AD was previously fired for a different gun incident on a set. According to all the reports I've read, Alec was assured the gun was NOT loaded, or loaded with blanks, and was good to go.
That said, he should have checked it himself just to be on the safe side.
Apparently his aiming of the gun at the camera and pulling the trigger was part of a scene they were filming.
All around a horrible, horrible tragedy.
If Alec is a decent man he'll shut his mouth about talking about his feelings and try to set up college funds for the woman's kids, pay for the funeral and all travel expenses, and set a fund for the finances of the family for the immediate future.
I hope he does the right thing here. And the armorer and AD should never work in film again.
Why do movies use actual operating firearms? I don't get that at all. You could make reproductions really easily, and they might even cost less than the real thing. Add the gun sounds later. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So the reports coming out now are that the gun had live rounds in it because some members of the crew took the guns out plinking in between takes and didn't empty the chambers before they brought them back on set.
If this is true, he's the least negligent person involved. Sounds like it was just a perfect storm of irresponsibility and dumbassery that resulted in this woman's death. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Why do movies use actual operating firearms? I don't get that at all. You could make reproductions really easily, and they might even cost less than the real thing. Add the gun sounds later.
Often it is more expensive to make dummy guns than purchase real ones. While making the movie Lord of War, for example, all the AKs in the scene where Nicolas Cage's character is touring a warehouse are 100% real. It would have been prohibitively expensive to make props, but real AKs were cheap and everywhere.
If you have competent people supervising the weapons it's not a problem. Everybody is making a big deal about this now, but it's exceedingly rare; only one other incident (Lee) going back decades. This was like being struck by lightning while falling off a cliff. It's really not fair to judge all the armorers in the industry over the horribly negligent actions of this crew. [Reply]
Dude that handed Baldwin the gun got fired from his last film for, what’s that you say? A firearm mistakenly discharging and causing injury? Wow. You’d think that would be a career ender. Or at least a moment for real reflection about job duties. NOPE. let’s take the gun plinking.
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Often it is more expensive to make dummy guns than purchase real ones. While making the movie Lord of War, for example, all the AKs in the scene where Nicolas Cage's character is touring a warehouse are 100% real. It would have been prohibitively expensive to make props, but real AKs were cheap and everywhere.
If you have competent people supervising the weapons it's not a problem. Everybody is making a big deal about this now, but it's exceedingly rare; only one other incident (Lee) going back decades. This was like being struck by lightning while falling off a cliff. It's really not fair to judge all the armorers in the industry over the horribly negligent actions of this crew.
It sounds to me like this was a combination of incompetence and budget cuts. As I understand it, some (most?) films use guns that are ONLY able to fire blanks, which takes out some of the risk from people being idiots. Obviously this one bypassed that and amplified the risk with someone who had no idea what they were doing. [Reply]