I know we have some studio insiders here. I find it hard to believe that a real gun was being used (real bullets or blanks). Isn't there some kind of "prop replica" that could not fire or even hold a bullet if it wanted to? With all the realistic props that every movie has....there are no FAKE GUNS?
I am not an insider, but I remember a thread about this when the first news broke (which has since been shut down if I am not mistaken). Opinions among the people who would know seems to vary greatly. No question this particular gun was not handled properly.
I am also not an expert, but I believe there are totally fake rubber guns that can be used when they are not needed to fire and real guns for when they are.
I’m not going to comment on the incident or why certain decisions were made, but to answer your question: There are fake/prop/replica guns. Depending on what level of authenticity you are going for, especially with a period piece, real guns can be used with dummy ammo (heck, many modern films use CGI for gunshots these days). And, of course, budget for the film factors in. In any case, whether the guns on set are prop/replica/real, NO LIVE AMMO, should EVER be on set. EVER.
As far as I'm concerned on this incident...there was a massive chain of FAIL all the way from beginning to that gun going off, from a lot of people.
Real guns are used in movies all the time, always have been. The human element introduces the error factor.
This is the heart of it. It was known that the bulk dummy rounds they purchased to make the film had live rounds mixed in. Why that continued to be the case after the discovery is mind-blowing from an outsider perspective. How many people knew this and did nothing to sort them? Or replace the lot?
Would a layperson be able to tell the difference between blanks and live ammo by sight? Are blanks obviously not real bullets? (Either way, it is crazy that there were live bullets on a movie set - I'm just curious.)
I used to play with blank guns (starter pistols) that had blocks in the barrel to reinforce that it was indeed an inert pistol. There were replicas of some variety in the pistols (spy type or regular revolver) but surely Hollywood could afford a blank gun that looks exactly like the weapon they are portraying. In the 1920s and 30s they used real machine gun fire on some of the gangster pictures. Someone like Jimmy Cagney had to be careful peeking around a corner and then pulling his head back as the shots ring out.
It certainly makes me question all those mysterious mauling incidents on the set of Jurassic World Dominion.
I've been on sets with real guns, fake ammo. I've never been aware that a prop guy and the actor each check the ammo.....but I bet they both do it now... and maybe even a third party checks...now anyway.
Considering the barrel blockage would be visible in the shot as would the revolver’s cylinder, that’s not exactly going to cut it.
There are of course fake non-functioning firearms, but none that can fire a blank, which a film featuring firearms would need. A little flag that pops out with the word 'Bang!' isn't exactly realistic! What shocked me about this incident was that they allowed live rounds (not blanks) on the set. I can't see a reason for that.
You’re comparing blanks and bullets, which is not at issue in the Rust situation. You should be comparing bullets and “dummy bullets.”
Yes. Blanks do not have a projectile (the bullet) sticking out of the brass. Instead they have crimped brass, in order to hold in the gunpowder. Blanks are also marked with a color that wouldn't see on a real, live round.