JSouthworth wrote:
Alec Baldwin's lawyers are arguing that Gutierrez-Reed accidentally loaded the gun with live rounds instead of dummy rounds. Is this likely? Even with a bad hangover it should be easy to tell the difference; dummy rounds have a ball bearing inside to identify them. Hence the need for this theory, unsupported by evidence, that live rounds were included in a box of dummies by the ammunition supplier. I don't buy it.

If Gutierrez-Reed didn't load the gun with live rounds accidentally, could she have done it intentionally? In theory you could have a conspiracy between Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed to commit murder and make it look like an accident. Or is it more likely that Gutierrez-Reed is simply a "fall guy"?

"One plus one equals eleven". This is a saying in the world of secret intelligence. It means that if you let one person in on something, you might as well tell eleven people because the word will usually get around.

Garbage. Ludicrous speculation, as usual, used as proof by an amateur conspiracy monger who's grasp of reality and logic  he repeatedly shows to be slipping away.

"One plus one equals eleven". Really, Smiley? Who is the second "1" and where are the "11"?
.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I think we can agree there is one proven fact: somebody put live rounds into that gun.

So there remain a few simple questions:

1. Who did it?
2. Why somebody did it?
3. When somebody did it?


1. Somebody wanted to make a very bad joke. Maybe approving a fatal accident. Maybe being so stupid that he/she did not realized that this joke obviously could have fatal consequences.

2. Somebody wanted to sabotage the movie. Maybe in rage, maybe in revenge, maybe he/she hates Alec Baldwin. Or Gutierrez Reed. Or for some completely different reason.

3. There was a series of grave irresponsibilities. Somebody loaded the gun with live rounds for whatever reason. -- And did not unloaded it afterwards. -- Somebody (Gutierrez Reed?) did not properly checked the gun being unloaded before it was stored in the safe. -- Somebody (Gutierrez Reed?) did not properly checked the gun when it was retrieved from the safe again to be handed over to Alec Baldwin. -- Alec Baldwin did not check that this gun was loaded with dummy rounds before he took it. Or had it been checked in his presence if he thought himself to be not competent enough to do it by himself.

From what we know, we can say that as the producer of Rust, Alec Baldwin might have had a financial motive for staging a serious accident because it's clear that things were going seriously wrong with the production, there were a lot of complaints about accommodation and other things and dealing with all these problems would have been very expensive, perhaps impossibly so. There are some people who thrive under such conditions, and who confound their critics by triumphing over adversity, but Baldwin may have decided that desperate measures were needed to save himself from financial disaster.

If the film project had collapsed of it's own accord, who would have picked up the bill for that? Baldwin of course, as head of the production company.

What are Gutierrez-Reed's motives in this? She probably realises that Baldwin's only way out is through her, and he has more money and friends, so to her it might seem sensible to go along with the accident theories rather than go head to head with Baldwin's lawyers in court. Other people would take a different view of things.

JSouthworth wrote:
From what we know, we can say that as the producer of Rust, Alec Baldwin might have had a financial motive for staging a serious accident because it's clear that things were going seriously wrong with the production, there were a lot of complaints about accommodation and other things and dealing with all these problems would have been very expensive, perhaps impossibly so. There are some people who thrive under such conditions, and who confound their critics by triumphing over adversity, but Baldwin may have decided that desperate measures were needed to save himself from financial disaster.

If the film project had collapsed of it's own accord, who would have picked up the bill for that? Baldwin of course, as head of the production company.

What are Gutierrez-Reed's motives in this? She probably realises that Baldwin's only way out is through her, and he has more money and friends, so to her it might seem sensible to go along with the accident theories rather than go head to head with Baldwin's lawyers in court. Other people would take a different view of things.

Would you stop with the stupid conspiracy theories?  Please!  You are spewing nonsense!  There is no financial gain to be made from this accident.

JSouthworth wrote:
From what we know, we can say that as the producer of Rust, Alec Baldwin might have had a financial motive for staging a serious accident because it's clear that things were going seriously wrong with the production, there were a lot of complaints ....If the film project had collapsed of its own accord, who would have picked up the bill for that? Baldwin of course, as head of the production company.

What are Gutierrez-Reed's motives in this? She probably realises that Baldwin's only way out is through her, and he has more money and friends, so to her it might seem sensible to go along with the accident theories rather than go head to head with Baldwin's lawyers in court. Other people would take a different view of things....

Speculations of a conspiracy-obssessed  mind untethered to reality.

Your theory: Baldwin, sensing the imminent collapse of his film costing him and his production company major money, engineered a murder disguised as an accident designed to shut down the  production and save his investment. Only one thing wrong with this theory. EVERYTHING. It's idiotic.

Baldwin was NOT the head of the production company. He had NO money invested in the film. Baldwin was one of 6 producers, not THE producer. The film was NOT on the verge of shutting down, and shutting down a production because of a fatal accident and thereby somehow saving the investors' money is the delusion of an ignorant bystander. In fact, the Rust film, with the fatal accident, COMPLETED production in 2023. Baldwin must be so distraught his efforts to undermine his own production failed so misrerably.😂😂😂

For your edification, from the LA Times:

"As with other indie films, the producers listed for “Rust” are a hodgepodge of individuals, production entities and financiers. The responsibilities of producers and executive producers can vary widely in the film industry, ranging from the actual planning of production to the cobbling together of money to cover the budget.

Among the named producers on “Rust” is Smith, who co-owns Thomasville Pictures with Cheney. A Deadline story this month cited Smith as a producer of “Rust” “through Thomasville Pictures.” According to New Mexico business records filed this year, Rust Movie Productions LLC lists its address as the same one listed in Georgia by Thomasville Pictures.

Smith is also a partner in Streamline Global LLC, another of the backers listed for “Rust.” Las Vegas-based Streamline Global, founded in 2017 by Salveson, helps wealthy individuals get tax breaks by investing in movies that use government incentives, according to its website. Salveson and Cheney are both listed as executive producers...

CAA Media Finance sold domestic distribution rights for “Rust,” while financier Highland Film Group handled international sales . Santa Monica lender BondIt Media Capital provided financing. (CAA Media Finance, Highland Film Group and BondIt Media Capital were not involved in the film’s production.)

With the number of producers involved in “Rust,” it’s difficult to determine who’s ultimately responsible, said Travis Knox, an associate professor of producing at Chapman University."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … -rust-film

And the STUPIDEST theory of all is the armorer was intimidated by Baldwin into aiding and abetting a murder plot. And then what? Baldwin has HER killed before she turns on Baldwin?

Just ludicrous. And pathetic. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

JSouthworth wrote:
From what we know, we can say that as the producer of Rust, Alec Baldwin might have had a financial motive for staging a serious accident...

The facts are EASILY checked.  Including by JSouthworth should he have made any effort to do so.

(more information on what Focuspuller pointed out...)

Alec Baldwin received his Producer share AS PARTIAL PAYMENT for appearing in the film.  Baldwin did NOT invest money in the film, INSTEAD HE EARNED MONEY FOR BEING A "PRODUCER" AND "ACTOR" on the film.

To be specific:

"Alec Baldwin was set to earn $150,000 as lead actor and $100,000 as Producer"  (source: The Hollywood Reporter)

Why did he do it for that amount?  Apparently, along with all of the other Producers, "he would have made more in the back end had the film been successful".

The facts, once again, are completely opposite to JSouthworth's claims and, oh so easily, verifiable.  This is a pattern we've seen repeatedly, on this thread, for the last 2 1/4 years.

LightDreams wrote:
Alec Baldwin received his Producer share AS PARTIAL PAYMENT for appearing in the film.  Baldwin did NOT invest money in the film, INSTEAD HE EARNED MONEY FOR BEING A "PRODUCER" AND "ACTOR" on the film.

To be specific:

"Alec Baldwin was set to earn $150,000 as lead actor and $100,000 as Producer"  (source: The Hollywood Reporter)

That's $250k in total. But as the producer of Rust, Baldwin would have had a legal obligation under the terms of his contract to deliver the completed film, barring any unfortunate accidents that is.

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what- … oducer-do/

JSouthworth wrote:
That's $250k in total. But as the producer of Rust, Baldwin would have had a legal obligation under the terms of his contract to deliver the completed film, barring any unfortunate accidents that is.

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what- … oducer-do/

You failed to buttress your claim with a quote from the article you cited.  Do you hope that we will believe you?  Nor have you provided the proof that such an obligation exists in Baldwin's contract- without outs.   Even though you specifically say his contract has those terms, you cannot produce the terms and YOU HAVE NEVER READ HIS CONTRACT, have you?  Your latest offering is another building block in your absurd conspiracy theory that Baldwin acted with malice.  Therefore, you lay a foundation without substance as you try to prop up a theory already blown to bits by the available information.  Putting your head under a wall without support is a good way to get crushed- but you seem to relish being pulverized.  Your need for attention, even negative attention, is staggering. 

Reasonable people can only conclude that you are again lying to cover your previous lies, inconsistencies and poor logic.  If not- provide demonstratable proof- not just the bull you think.

If you think you are making yourself appear intelligent, thoughtful, and well informed- you are not demonstrating anything more than the puffery of a blowhard in this thread or any other.

LightDreams wrote:
The facts, once again, are completely opposite to JSouthworth's claims and, oh so easily, verifiable.  This is a pattern we've seen repeatedly, on this thread, for the last 2 1/4 years.

Which means that you are all at least 2 years past the point where you should have stopped engaging with him.  Frankly, it is not his behavior that is most incomprehensible. Though, to be frank if it were not for this ridiculous thread the minuscule traffic on this site would probably be cut in half, so there is that.

Pro tip: The best part about beating your head against the wall is the wonderful feeling you get when you stop.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Do you hope that we will believe you?

Why would I care what you believe? I don't know you, and I don't know whether you have a personal interest in the thread topic.

JSouthworth wrote:
Why would I care what you believe? I don't know you, and I don't know whether you have a personal interest in the thread topic.

-
If I don't believe you, do you think anyone else does?

You have CHOSEN to speak in a world wide public forum where the probability is that you would personally know few, if any of the people that participate.  Is predicating the honesty with which you speak as something based on your personal relationships with other people, coupled with your consistent disregard for facts and truth, a tactic admission that your ethics do not preclude you from engaging in falsehoods? 

To assert that your obligation to your fellow participants is relative to their personal interest in the thread, is about as transparent of a justification to lie as one could dribble out as a reason to disregard the truth.  In addition, haven't you conceded that you have no obligation to the truth based on a subjective standard that can be altered to your whims?  Doesn't your comment also indicate that your reading comprehension and judgement is debilitated by your lack of concern for the truth when a person with reasonable reading comprehension skills could easily determine which contributions show the level of investment a person has?  How then can a reader regard you to be invested when you refuse to adher to standards of truth and common decency?  Also, how can anyone else here be seriously invested with you set to muck up each thread?

What is it that you are seeking?  Is there some emptiness in your life you hope to fill by making posts where you pretend to be authoritative on subjects just to prove you are unenlightened?  Do you fulfill yourself by tearing others down with preposterous theories of malfeasance that are constantly cast aside and discreditied just to have you build another verbal catapult throwing the slime to tear at the flesh of others for your enervated self-satisfaction?  In this post you have admitted that your credibility is not of importance to you among the people YOU SEEK OUT to talk to- or, more appropriately- talk at.  Do you prefer that you are seen as a scoundrel that embraces lies and engages in unfounded character assassinations because you don't know the people you are taking to?  You are unaware that what you say in these pages can influence who will work with you in the future?

Why make yourself known to be preposterous and not credible as if it is a security blanket?  Truth and accuracy should be your goal if only to serve truth and accuracy.  No one can rightfully assail you for being truthful or accurate.  A person willing to subject themself to the disdain that is achieved in response to the constant pontification of lies and foolish conjecture, as if disdain is what is sought, would be akin to self-immolation.

It is and has been your choice to inform people or show them you are uninformed.  Why would you chose the later just because you don't know who you are talking to?

What you did do, ONCE AGAIN, is to ignore all of the points that dissected and dismissed your dismal and pathetic points and you focused on one useless thing- "Why would I care what you believe?"  How did that deflection work out for you?

JSouthworth wrote:
That's $250k in total. But as the producer of Rust, Baldwin would have had a legal obligation under the terms of his contract to deliver the completed film, barring any unfortunate accidents that is.

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what- … oducer-do/

Normally the producer of a film would be under contract to deliver the completed film by a certain date, and within the budget, especially when the project is being funded using other peoples' money. In practice films sometimes go over budget for various reasons.

JSouthworth wrote:
Normally the producer of a film would be under contract to deliver the completed film by a certain date, and within the budget, especially when the project is being funded using other peoples' money. In practice<sic> films sometimes go over budget for various reasons.

You previously provided a link.  Please quote that claim ^^^^ from the linked material.

Previously you said Baldwin had a legal obligation to do such and such.  Now you are saying what is normal, though we can't take your word for what is normal.  What is normal is not relevant.  What is obligated by law is relevant.  What is obligated by contract is relevant.  You are just throwing shit around unless you provide verifiable facts.

exartica wrote:
Which means that you are all at least 2 years past the point where you should have stopped engaging with him.  Frankly, it is not his behavior that is most incomprehensible. Though, to be frank if it were not for this ridiculous thread the minuscule traffic on this site would probably be cut in half, so there is that.

Pro tip: The best part about beating your head against the wall is the wonderful feeling you get when you stop.

Wild opinions can be ignored, yes.

Wild opinions supported by misinformation, disinformation and falsehoods, presented as facts, repeatedly,  if left unchallenged become accepted eventually, to the detriment to the community at large. In fact, it is a cancer permeating the entire society.

JSouthworth wrote:
But as the producer of Rust, Baldwin would have had a legal obligation under the terms of his contract to deliver the completed film, barring any unfortunate accidents that is.

Baldwin was not THE producer of "Rust." He was A producer, with five others. Any hypothetical plot to sabotage the film, as your mind imagines, would have to include them in a murder plot. Feasible? Only to you. Ludicrous to everybody else.

And why would 6 producers, as you absurdly suggest,  want to terminate, with a staged murder no less,  an allegedly failing production for which they had NO COMPLETION BOND and would be responsible to repay the financial backers out of their own pockets?

"What the “Rust” producers did not secure is a completion bond — an often-expensive package that serves as a type of umbrella policy should anything horrific happen and the production can’t be completed. Such a policy costs about 2 percent of a film’s budget."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/busi … ucers.html

Sidenote:

Frivolous designations of the "producer" credit have been an issue for The Producers Guild:

"Working producers have long bridled at the fact that when it comes to screen credits, they often share hard-earned titles with others who leverage clout — sometimes it's a movie's star or the star's manager or a passive investor who provides cash."

"https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/pga-moves-certify-films-producing-credits-60145/

exartica wrote:
Which means that you are all at least 2 years past the point where you should have stopped engaging with him.  Frankly, it is not his behavior that is most incomprehensible. Though, to be frank if it were not for this ridiculous thread the minuscule traffic on this site would probably be cut in half, so there is that.

Pro tip: The best part about beating your head against the wall is the wonderful feeling you get when you stop.

There's no question that just ignoring publicly promoted conspiracy lies, turned out to be a disaster for society generally.

I.E. Just think about some of election campaigns, COVID and vaccine deniers / 1.2 million dead Americans, the extremely serious attempts to dismantle American Democracy, attacks on the very foundations of the legal system, the demonization of science and learning, conspiracy lies designed to promote serious discrimination or "dehumanization" of others, widespread removal of previous individual rights, removal of books from libraries or even racism topics that can't be mentioned in school history lessons, and on it goes...

And the INCREDIBLE cost on society that resulted when way too many people just chose to "ignore it all".

So yes, I've probably become TOO sensitive to the incredible costs of just ignoring conspiracy lies that are promoted publicly.

Having said that, you have a valid point.  THIS particular topic and his constant conspiracy claims are just too absurd and (in terms of society) far too "trivial" to bother with.

With all of the massively important, and seriously consequential, lies that are currently being spread online in today's "upside down" world, I should choose my battles more carefully.  Point taken.

LightDreams wrote:
There's no question that just ignoring publicly promoted lies, turned out to be a disaster for society generally.  I.E. Just think about some of the American and UK elections, COVID and vaccine deniers and the INCREDIBLE cost on society that resulted when too many people just "ignored it".

So yes, I've probably become TOO sensitive to the incredible costs of just ignoring conspiracy lies that are promoted publicly.

Having said that, you have a valid point.  THIS particular topic and his constant conspiracy claims are just too absurd and (in terms of society) far too "trivial" too bother with.

With all of the massively important, and seriously consequential, lies that are currently being spread online in today's "upside down" world, I should choose my battles more carefully.  Point taken.

It was an accidental shooting and I believe it is important to respond at least to a certain extent to conspiracy theories and deniers of facts and the findings of investigations.  The bullshit has to be put down!  At the very least, we are considering all possibilities, but are any of us witnesses to the accident? Are any of us privy to the investigation, or grand jury memebers? Those that jump in with arm chair opinions without any real knowledge or facts are not helping this thread.  I thank you for sticking up for what we know about this accidental shooting.  Let's keep our own sets safe!

exartica wrote:
Pro tip: The best part about beating your head against the wall is the wonderful feeling you get when you stop.

-
I am sure that it was a wonderful feeling for Mr. Pelosi when police took the hammer from the madman that was assaulting him.  Would it have not been a greater wonder for Mr. Pelosi to have never endured the attack because other people intervened and the nut case was not triggered to the point of action?  The entire country is having its foundations weakened with the attacks on people because of race, ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation.  Good is evil and evil is good.   Honest is crooked and crooked is honest.  Mostly because good people are being silenced by fear of the evil flames being fanned by one man, and now, a strong base of his supporters that want unequal to be equal and oppression to be freedom.

In this case you are asking many people to silence themselves when the mods could easily silence just one.  But, once that one has spoken, the misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric is out there for many more to see.  Retorts are demanded by good conscience.

JSouthworth wrote:
Article here with the details of the producers of Rust:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … -rust-film

More here:

https://www.vulture.com/article/rust-al … -cast.html

It isn't completely clear who owns the limited liability production company, Rust Movie Productions but Alec Baldwin is the best known name among the producers listed. Even so I'd never heard of him before the fatal shooting incident.

Of the other producers, Matt DelPiano (would that be a legal name?) is Baldwin's manager and a former agent for CAA Media Finance, the company that sold the domestic distribution rights for Rust. So these people are all pretty cosy with each other I think.

As well as producing the film, Baldwin co-wrote the story with Joel Souza so Rust is clearly his project as much as anyone else's. And with ownership there usually comes responsibility. Baldwin probably has at least as large a financial commitment as anyone else.

"Even so I'd never heard of him before the fatal shooting incident."

So...?

"So these people are all pretty cosy with each other I think."

Evidence of what, exactly? They are producing. a movie together. That fact is incriminating to you?

"Article here with the details of the producers of Rust:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a … -rust-film

You obviously did not notice that I already referred to that article, which does not prove your ridiculous theory in any way.

OF COURSE Baldwin has a certain legal responsibility as a named producer. OF COURSE Baldwin has an INTEREST in the film he is acting in and has a certain responsibility in some aspects of the project, but not day-to-day decision-making. OF COURSE he stands to gain financially from a positive audience reaction. To make the INSANE and IGNORANT leap that that interest led Baldwin to involve his fellow producers and the production armorer in a PLOT TO MURDER THE CINEMATOGRAPHER only serves to prove that despite your complete cluelessness about a given subject, you nevertheless have the unmitigated arrogance and toxic narcissism to INSIST your absurd house of cards actually has a basis in fact or even probability.

Some here may think that literally blood libeling Alec Baldwin for idiotic reasons should be ignored. I do not. Not in this case. Not in these times. False facts leading to false conspiracies have wreaked havoc in our society at large.Maybe permanently. Bias confirmation replaces logic. 

It is how "Baldwin is a murderer" becomes "Jan 6 was a tourist visit."

Focuspuller wrote:
OF COURSE Baldwin has a certain legal responsibility as a named producer. OF COURSE Baldwin has an INTEREST in the film he is acting in and has a certain responsibility in some aspects of the project, but not day-to-day decision-making.

Wrong. The producer has overall responsibility for the making of the film on a day by day basis and will often be on the set with the director with a view to ensuring that the filming stays on schedule and within budget. Some producers have been known to physically tear pages out of a script to bring a film back on schedule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Damon

On the day of the fatal shooting, most or all of the Rust producers were on the set according to the previously quoted articles.

JSouthworth wrote:
Wrong. The producer has overall responsibility for the making of the film on a day by day basis and will often be on the set with the director with a view to ensuring that the filming stays on schedule and within budget. Some producers have been known to physically tear pages out of a script to bring a film back on schedule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Damon

Wrong, am I?

I have worked on 80 feature films from beginning to end, observing first hand and close-up the various versions of the term "producer". I actually became friends with a few..

You? 😂

YOU have been schooled on the various flavors of producer, AND YET:

Obsessed with hoovering the internet for data bits and one-offs, despite fundamental ignorance, through arrogance, narcissism and a miswired cognitive process, you construct a bias-confirming, flimsy house of cards that you continue to insist accurately reflects reality. Do you ACTUALLY believe your one single example of one type of producer describes all "producers", the varieties of which have been offered in previous posts, if you even bothered to read them. 

Incredibly, even the one citation randomly picked from "crowd sourced" information provider, Wikipedia, is tainted:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (October 2012)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2017)
Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (October 2012)
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (June 2023)"

This is the evidence chosen to hang an entire argument upon? You are a treat.

Conspiracies implicating Alec Baldwin in a murder plot with his co-producers and the armorer are implausible unfeasible, and absurd, as any rational person would readily agree.

LightDreams wrote:
Just to be clear, Focuspuller, he's telling you that you know nothing about movie sets.   Unlike him, of course!

Clearly, I didn't give him enough credit as I honestly didn't think he was capable of humour.  My bad.  But I did enjoy the morning laugh!

Desperately grasping a tenuous hold on the real world, he may be lost to us forever, preferring his fantasy world and never returning to entertain us. Believe there was a Twilight Zone episode about this very scenario. Oh no....what's that signpost up ahead?

Focuspuller wrote:
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (October 2012)
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2017)
Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (October 2012)
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (June 2023)"

You can take it up with Wikipedia if you want, I don't have the time for that.

JSouthworth wrote:
You can take it up with Wikipedia if you want, I don't have the time for that.

Yet you had plenty of time to waste arguing with nonsense conspiracy theories.  Wikipedia is not the most trustworthy website to base your opinions on since content is user provided.  Thank you for keeping this thread going, but you've certainly wasted a lot of time proving nothing. I doubt that your constant posting has changed anyone's opinion on this case.

JSouthworth wrote:
Here's a useful article with some interesting facts and figures:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainme … s-revealed

The film had a budget of $7,279,305. Baldwin was getting $150.000 for acting and another $100,000 for producing, another $150,000 was going to Matt DelPiano, director Souza was getting paid $221,872, assistant director Dave Halls $52,830, cinematographer Hutchins was due to receive $48,945. Another producer, Gabrielle Pickle was getting $96,198, another producer Anjul Nigam was getting $100,000. Producers  Allen Cheney and Ryan Donnell Smith via their Thomasville Pictures were taking a $150,000 fee, and Nathan Klingher and Ryan Winterstern’s Short Porch Pictures were taking another $150,000. Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed by contrast was only due to get $7,913.

Why would you need to have five producers on the set of a low budget western? The whole setup appears to have been put together in such a way as to enable a select group of people around Alec Baldwin to get paid a lot of money for doing very little. And so it's easily possible to identify a potential motive for sabotage if the production of the film was in imminent danger of going over budget and cutting into certain peoples' earnings, as Gutierrez-Reed's attorneys have pointed out.

And the Klown Car continues to careen with no one at the wheel.

"Why would you need to have five producers on the set of a low budget western? The whole setup appears to have been put together in such a way as to enable a select group of people around Alec Baldwin to get paid a lot of money for doing very little...Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed by contrast was only due to get $7,913."

Welcome to Hollywood. First time here? Would you like a map to movie stars' homes?

"And so it's easily possible to identify a potential motive for sabotage if the production of the film was in imminent danger of going over budget and cutting into certain peoples' earnings,"

Sure, because when a production goes over budget, someone is bound to be murdered. Happens all the time.

Now chew on this:

ALEC BALDWIN'S 'RUST' TO RESUME FILMING, HALYNA HUTCHINS' HUSBAND PRODUCING

""We have reached a settlement, subject to court approval, for our wrongful death case against the producers of Rust, including Alec Baldwin and Rust Movie Productions, LLC. As part of that settlement, our case will be dismissed," said Matthew Hutchins, husband of the late Halyna Hutchins, in a statement sent to Newsweek.

"The filming of Rust, which I will now executive produce, will resume with all the original principal players on board in January 2023. I have no interest in engaging in recriminations or attribution of blame (to the producers or Mr. Baldwin). All of us believe Halyna's death was a terrible accident. I am grateful that the producers and the entertainment community have come together to pay tribute to Halyna's final work," he said.

OH NO! Halyna Hutchins' husband  IS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE COVERUP OF HIS WIFE'S MURDER!

JT99 wrote:
A lot of tragedy could be averted simply observing the first rule of gun safety: ALWAYS assume it is loaded. No matter what someone else told you, no matter how many times you or someone else checked it.

Movie sets are managed a bit differently, but I do get what you are saying.

JT99 wrote:
A lot of tragedy could be averted simply observing the first rule of gun safety: ALWAYS assume it is loaded. No matter what someone else told you, no matter how many times you or someone else checked it.

Isn't that what they did?  They had protocol in place where a qualified individual would maintain the gun and secure it, load it, and pass it onto another individual who would announce it was a cold gun to assure it was safe to use on the set, and the actors would trust what the professionals had done. 

But you are right.  I agree,  Never point a gun at something you do not want to shoot so every movie and TV show made herein and forevermore, the bad guy and the good guy should only point their guns straight up in the air- no that won't work either- they should be standing directly in front of a bullet trap, pointing the gun in the bullet trap, hiding it from the view of the camera, director, and audience.  Because, who needs realism, right?

Movie sets should never again employ realistic looking guns.  They should use water pistols and super-soakers and shout out, "Bang, bang, bang, you're dead!"  We will understand it is necessary for safety's sake. 

Replica guns can be made with super heating devices so a cold vapor. like fog, is produced with each trigger pull to replicate gunsmoke.  (Wait! is that like a million dollar idea?)

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Isn't that what they did?  They had protocol in place where a qualified individual would maintain the gun and secure it, load it, and pass it onto another individual who would announce it was a cold gun to assure it was safe to use on the set, and the actors would trust what the professionals had done. 

But you are right.  I agree,  Never point a gun at something you do not want to shoot so every movie and TV show made herein and forever more, the bad guy and the good guy should only point their guns straight up in the air- no that won't work either- they should be standing directly in front of a bullet trap, pointing the gun in the bullet trap, hiding it from the view of the camera, director, and audience.  Because, who needs realism, right?

Movie sets should never again employ realistic looking guns.  They should use water pistols and super-soakers and shout out, "Bang, bang, bang, you're dead!"  We will understand it is necessary for safety's sake. 

Replica guns can be made with super heating devices so a cold vapor. like fog, is produced with each trigger pull to replicate gunsmoke.  (Wait! is that like a million dollar idea?)

As I said simply that movie sets are different from our lowly photography sets.   lol  ..

What I wonder is that Hannah Gutierrez Reed can still be the one to do time for manslaughter?  As the “Rust” armorer, it was her job to handle the guns.  I believe she was in way over her head with a lack of experience and the atmosphere of the set being so loose.  Memory of how things actually occured seems to differ slighty from person to person. I wonder if this was a rehearsal, then why not check the gun and remove the bullets regardless of they are blanks because even a blank can go off. They were not going to film the scene, just practice it.  I would empty the gun.  It's hard to say what could have been done to prevent the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins.  It was an accident.

JT99 wrote:
A lot of tragedy could be averted simply observing the first rule of gun safety: ALWAYS assume it is loaded. No matter what someone else told you, no matter how many times you or someone else checked it.

Not really practical on film sets,  which have a 100-year record of extremely rare gun fatalities with the industry rules employed.

https://www.looper.com/640645/every-tra … -prop-guns
/https://www.thetrace.org/2023/12/data-gun-violence-deaths-americae

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
[They had protocol in place where a qualified individual would maintain the gun and secure it, load it, and pass it onto another individual who would announce it was a cold gun to assure it was safe to use on the set, and the actors would trust what the professionals had done.

Except that the intercession of the 1st AD is a bit of a problem. The 1st AD IMO, improperly handled the weapon and declared it "cold" without knowing that's true. The armorer who had loaded the weapon and maintained possession until handing it directly to the actor is the safer practice. Why the AD got a plea deal from the prosecution is a mystery to me.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I wonder if this was a rehearsal, then why not check the gun and remove the bullets regardless of they are blanks because even a blank can go off. They were not going to film the scene, just practice it.  I would empty the gun.  It's hard to say what could have been done to prevent the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins.  It was an accident.

Well, the shot was apparently an insert, or close-up, of the gun. Very tight. I'm assuming the revolver's rounds could be seen from the front. For a rehearsal to be useful, all elements that will be in the shot should be present so no surprises on the day.

Focuspuller wrote:
Except that the intercession of the 1st AD is a bit of a problem. The 1st AD IMO, improperly handled the weapon and declared it "cold" without knowing that's true. The armorer who had loaded the weapon and maintained possession until handing it directly to the actor is the safer practice. Why the AD got a plea deal from the prosecution is a mystery to me.

I agrree the AD didn't do his job anymore than the armorer did her job, but the protocol was in place and should have resulted in a safe set.  It is impractical to use the same safety criteria on a film set, that a hunter, target shooter, a cop cleaning his gun at his kitchen table or what an armed home owner should be using.  Ask the guy going to jail for killing a 20 year old woman when he came out of his house, fired a warning shot, pointed a gun at people in a vehicle and tripped on a protruding nail. Bet he wishes he had used better gun safety techniques?  (I give him the benefit of the doubt he tripped, but it doesn't matter because he did everything wrong.)

If we want movies like True Grit, in which actors are portrayed firing their weapons at other actors, the rules about never pointing a gun at something you don't want to shoot, and having amateurs responsible for the safety of weapons instead of professionals, then movies will have to look very different.

At the beginning of this train wreck thread, I made a post that would concur with the one I responded to above.  I have since learned in this type of scenario, those rules would be ridiculous.

JSouthworth wrote:
Here's a useful article with some interesting facts and figures:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainme … s-revealed

The film had a budget of $7,279,305. Baldwin was getting $150.000 for acting and another $100,000 for producing, another $150,000 was going to Matt DelPiano, director Souza was getting paid $221,872, assistant director Dave Halls $52,830, cinematographer Hutchins was due to receive $48,945. Another producer, Gabrielle Pickle was getting $96,198, another producer Anjul Nigam was getting $100,000. Producers  Allen Cheney and Ryan Donnell Smith via their Thomasville Pictures were taking a $150,000 fee, and Nathan Klingher and Ryan Winterstern’s Short Porch Pictures were taking another $150,000. Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed by contrast was only due to get $7,913.

Why would you need to have five producers on the set of a low budget western? The whole setup appears to have been put together in such a way as to enable a select group of people around Alec Baldwin to get paid a lot of money for doing very little. And so it's easily possible to identify a potential motive for sabotage if the production of the film was in imminent danger of going over budget and cutting into certain peoples' earnings, as Gutierrez-Reed's attorneys have pointed out.

If we suppose for a moment that the fatal shooting was in fact the result of intentional sabotage- that is to say that someone intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds to that purpose- and that the motive was financial, the intention being to bring the production of the film to a jarring halt before it cost any more money, or lost any more money, then the obvious suspects would be those people with the most to lose if the production went over budget, notably Baldwin, director Joel Souza and the other producers.

Souza as we know has exonerated Baldwin in public statements about the shooting, which personally I think is a little strange, most people would want to know who WAS responsible for something like that before going on record saying who wasn't. And we still don't know who loaded the gun with live rounds. The idea that it could have been done accidentally lacks credibility because the dummy rounds have ball bearings in them to make the difference obvious, hence the need to invent the story about live rounds being included in a box of dummies, for which there is no real evidence.

An article here reveals that Rust Movie Productions had $6 million worth of accident insurance, with a copy of the certificate:

https://www.businessinsider.com/rust-in … 20Insider.

JSouthworth wrote:
If we suppose for a moment that the fatal shooting ....

Why would we do such an irrational thing as that?  Starting a premise by accepting a false narrative as the base for rational discussion is irrational.

Something for you to consider:
"Conspiratorial thinking meets epistemic, existential, and social needs. It provides clarity in uncertain times and connection with an in-group of like-minded people. Both conspiratorial thinking and paranoid delusions involve an unjust, persistent, and sometimes bizarre conviction.'
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851516/

JSouthworth wrote:
If we suppose for a moment that the fatal shooting was in fact the result of intentional sabotage- that is to say that someone intentionally loaded the gun with live rounds to that purpose- and that the motive was financial, the intention being to bring the production of the film to a jarring halt before it cost any more money, or lost any more money, then the obvious suspects would be those people with the most to lose if the production went over budget, notably Baldwin, director Joel Souza and the other producers.

Souza as we know has exonerated Baldwin in public statements about the shooting, which personally I think is a little strange, most people would want to know who WAS responsible for something like that before going on record saying who wasn't. And we still don't know who loaded the gun with live rounds. The idea that it could have been done accidentally lacks credibility because the dummy rounds have ball bearings in them to make the difference obvious, hence the need to invent the story about live rounds being included in a box of dummies, for which there is no real evidence.

An article here reveals that Rust Movie Productions had $6 million worth of accident insurance, with a copy of the certificate:

https://www.businessinsider.com/rust-in … 20Insider.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

You have selfishly appropriated a tragic, REAL situation in which an innocent woman in her prime, LOST HER LIFE, as an opportunity for you to engage in your favorite entertainment; spinning absurd conspiracy FANTASIES and dabbling in random trivia. SHAME ON YOU!

"If we suppose for a moment that the fatal shooting was in fact the result of intentional sabotage-"

As Hunter GWPB already noted, let's not "suppose" an idiocy. We might as well "suppose" the earth is flat...

Rather, let's start with a more provable proposition: "You don't know what the fuck you are talking about."

You continue to argue, ignorantly, that the producers had a financial interest in a tragic accident shutting down production because "liability insurance". This is nonsense.

Liability insurance? Do you even know what liability insurance is? Did you even read the insurance document you used as "proof". NO, you don't...and didn't.

If you HAD read your own citation, you would have seen that the policy in question indemnifies the production against LIABILITY for various ACCIDENTS and situations which would cause a financial debit against the production, the exercising of which would not result in a net gain for the producers who would still be required to finish the film or see their funding loan become due, and AS THEY HAD NO COMPLETION BOND, they would be in a deep hole, like your absurd logic.

Let's see if you can follow:

You are producing a $7 million film. You have secured financing with loans to cover production. You have liability insurance but no completion bond. There is a serious accident on set and the production must pay a claimant $4 million. The insurance company pays the $4 million. You still owe your backers $7 million and a finished film, if possible. If you can't, because a PRINCIPAL, like the star, for example  is dead. YOU ARE SCREWED.

Get it?

"Souza as we know has exonerated Baldwin in public statements about the shooting, which personally I think is a little strange, most people would want to know who WAS responsible for something like that before going on record saying who wasn't."

Really? I'm surprised ANYTHING is "a little strange to you." Considering the wild conspiracies you have swirling in your skull, the idea that a VICTIM who was there would have a better idea than YOU, who was NOT there, about who around him might have a motive to shoot him, is alien to you? And more to the point, as an ignorant bystander, what you "personally think" is of no interest. Maybe someone who has no idea what they are talking about should just shut up before going on record. OOPS. Too late.

" And we still don't know who loaded the gun with live rounds. The idea that it could have been done accidentally lacks credibility". Absolutely preposterous proposition. YOU cite CREDIBILITY? OMFG, such arrogant ignorance.😂

"..hence the need to invent the story about live rounds being included in a box of dummies, for which there is no real evidence."

You ACTUALLY want to talk about EVIDENCE and inventing stories, when you have presented NOT ONE SHRED to credibly support ANY of your logic-deficient opinions and dimwitted theory of the case.

You continually ignore refutations of your propositions and theories, repeating the same debunked scenarios which are not feasible, likely, or even possible. Yet you persist, maniacally.

For decency's sake, please stop.

Focuspuller wrote:
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

No, you. Because you're promoting a very partisan view of a fatal shooting incident, possibly in the expectation that this will help your own career.

You say that you know some film producers, do these include any of the people in Rust Movie Productions?