Lurker > CyborgSage00x0

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Veedrock- posted...

He defended himself against 3 people. Yes or no, do circumstances matter?

I don't think you want to play the circumstances game, considering it's clear he went there with the sole hope of shooting someone, a key part of the trial the judge sadly blocked out and was strangely ignored. Circumstance is why this case was so heated to begin with. There wouldn't even be a conversation if this was an open and shut self-defense case.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Conner4REAL posted...

Maybe the world will get lucky and hell get hit by a truck or something.

Considering Zimmerman is still walking around after getting off for basically the same thing, I wouldn't count on it.

But as Mead said in the beginning of this topic, there is now a dangerous precedent in this country for gunmen to go looking for trouble, and creating said trouble/finding an environment that will allow them to shoot with a thin veneer of justification. This is even worse than Zimmerman, since Rittenhouse went REALLY out of his way to put himself in a position to play vigilante/"victim."

It's basically the equivalent of poking your little brother repeatedly, and when he finally punches you, getting little brother in trouble, because the punch is the only thing mommy and daddy witnessed. That has been more or less legally been given the OK, which is a dangerous precedent for a country armed with Right-wing gun nutters and wannabe heroes, spurred on by a authoritarian party wing and national media.

Then again, it's just another brick removed from an American empire that has been eroding for a while now.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

I have never understood this "event". Even in the rarer times in my life in November where a female wasn't readily available to me (and yes, I'm flexing), denying myself any sort of pleasure in this short ass life seems really, really dumb.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

FatalAccident posted...

Sage I thought you worked in a hospital? Or is all this coming from friends you know who work in film

Nah, in the film biz.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i have no idea if this is real or not but holy shit if it is

First I've heard of it, but the picture used is old, from somewhere else, so already kinda questionable.

That said, I wouldn't think you'd need much by way of experience or qualifications to know not to bring live ammo onto a set. As much as I hate to armchair armourer (... armchairourer?), that seems like extremely basic common sense.

Correct, live rounds should never be on a film set. There's just no reason for it, when blanks and other methods can convey gunshots easily. We had lots of guns on my recent shoot, but they were all fake, and BB guns in many cases, so we didn't even employ an armorer (amorers are only used really when the film in question uses antique guns, or is extremely gun heavy/war movies).

In this case, apparently the armorer in question appeared on a podcast a month ago, where she admitted she didn't feel quite ready for the show yet, as it was only her second time doing it. THAT said, she's also the daughter of a legendary armorer/quick-draw champion Thell Reed, who helped train her, so I find it very unlikely she would make such a rookie mistake as having live ammo on the set. I'm more willing to put my money on the Props Master.

Again, tho, when guns are on set, fake, real, toys, etc., there's supposed to be a whole process. Safety memos about guns are emailed out, the safety meeting in the morning should discuss guns. Even then, you're not supposed to just trust the Prop Master/armorer on their words when it comes to guns. They should demonstrate to the 1st AD, if not the entire crew, that the gun is fake/unloaded. Loading of blanks should even be witnessed by other Crew members. And you are also told to NEVER point a gun, even a known fake one, at someone on set - you aim off the person (well over their should or off to their side), and cheat the camera. Which is why Baldwin could be culpable still, since it sounds like he didn't do this. And finally, the person using the gun should inspect it themselves.

Basically, there's supposed to be numerous layers to gun safety on set that should make what happened impossible. This is beyond even just one person. And as with the Sarah Jones case, multiple people should be in jail for this likely, including the Producers and 1st AD. The most damning fact is that the camera Crew resigned the night before, in part naming numerous gun misfires on set, and poor gun safety observed. This was less an "accident" and more of an on-going issue.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

adjl posted...

No corners were cut in examining the prop manager's qualifications before hiring her

There were, I am sad to report. The person was from the union overflow list, and seems to have lacked any real experience or qualifications (person is like 20 I think, not that age is a deal breaker, but...).

The fact that it was a live round is absolutely nuts. There should NEVER be live rounds on a film set.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Revelation34 posted...

I wonder how close they are to airing it.

No clue, they aren't done filming until late January. I would imagine they have the first few episodes done, but maybe they are holding until all are ready.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

@CyborgSage00x0
i was in Albuquerque last week and they covered a few houses in a neighborhood in fake snow. You know anything about that?

That was Better Call Saul

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Entity13 posted...

The props master would have to take that responsibility, but the burden may or may not be felt by the person (Alec in this case) holding the prop.

Kinda this.

The show has/had an armorer, which is not uncommon on a show with a lot of guns, especially antique ones, so they could be to blame as well. My thought it is had to be live ammo, since there's no way a blank, even improperly loaded, should be able to shoot through someone, and strike someone behind them, which is what happened. Something went horrible wrong either way, this wasn't a "freak" accident or an acceptable risk type of thing, that much I can tell you. But this was also a low budget show, filled with unqualified people at these positions it sounds like. The camera crew actually resigned the night before, siting many reasons, among other things, improper weapon safety on set. This was an on-going issue the Producer *KNEW* about.

That said, blame could be placed on Baldwin as well. The actor themselves is supposed to review and check a gun on set with the Prop Master/armorer, you don't just trust them at face value. And even then, you NEVER aim a gun at someone on set, prop gun or otherwise. In fact, you almost always cheat the angle and camera to make it look like a gun is pointed at someone in a movie, when it's really angled well over their shoulder or something. So for Baldwin to have shot the DP during rehearsal means he was breaking safety protocols there as well. AND as writer/producer, he can certainly be held responsible for this as well.

Heads need to roll over this. This should never, ever have happened.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

"Fun" fact, my show is filming down the road from where this happened. I have some friends and colleagues on Rust, but they stopped responding to me when the police arrived.

Really sad day, but there were warnings. The camera team had just left a day or 2 prior, walked off set, in part because of the bad gun safety on set.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/iatse-strike-vote-result-1235079382/

The members of the International Association of Theatrical Stage Employees have voted to approve a strike authorization, giving the union president the power to shut down film and TV production across the country.

The vote passed with 98.7 percent support, and 90 percent turnout a resounding outcome that the union hopes will strengthen its bargaining position.

Talks have stalled between the union and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios. The unions have been negotiating since May on a new contract, and are seeking to address long-standing concerns, including long hours on set, streaming wage scales and residuals, and the stability of the pension and health funds.

The members have spoken loud and clear, Matthew D. Loeb, the international president, said in a statement. This vote is about the quality of life as well as the health and safety of those who work in the film and television industry. Our people have basic human needs like time for meal breaks, adequate sleep, and a weekend. For those at the bottom of the pay scale, they deserve nothing less than a living wage.

To be clear, this give the Union the power to formally call a vote to strike...an actual strike has *not* occurred yet. This is to force the Studios/Producers back to the negotiation table.

We are witnessing one of the biggest labor disputes in US history unfolding.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Yes, I'm making a topic instead of DM'ing like a grandpa. What gives? Do I need to make?

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

adjl posted...

Realistically, no matter who was selected, the Smash board was going to explode over it and criticize everything they could possibly come up with. Pretty much anything JRPG-related is going to be called "weeb trash" by butthurt fanboys that didn't get what they wanted.

I was pulling for Viewtiful Joe, Geno, or Llyod Irving myself, but it's silly to think Sora doesn't make sense, here.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Zeus posted...

Those are the good guys!

Zeus posted...

Those are the bad guys!

In this case, Group A is asking Group B to stop making them work in long, unsafe hours, and to drastically increase the penalties when the aforementioned are violated. Group B is saying no, and how about we also remove the penalties altogether, and how about we cut the 3% salary COLA per annum in half, despite 3% being the standard in *all* US industries.

I'll leave you to decide who the heroes and villains are, here.

So once I find a relatable main character in this story and watch a montage of their day, I'm rooting against the executives

I mean, you can use me, since I, you know, post here, and work in this very industry.

I'm not going to make it seem like the Studios and Producers are all routinely cackling villains that see nothing but the bottom line. I've been on a few shows this year where it was just the opposite, they were quite nice, thoughtful, and stuck to 10 hour shooting days (something the industry workers have long been pushing for).

THAT said, the amount of times I've heard Producers/Execs go "Oh no, anyways..." when told one of their Crew members fell asleep at the wheel due to long hours and locations are far away is far too often, including the very show I'm on now. "The peasants want more?" is a paraphrase of things I've heard said literally with my own ears. Luckily, the studio I'm on with now has started to react/crackdown once they got wind of conditions on the ground, but the very same people that blow-off concerns over long, unsafe working conditions are those NOT exposed to aforementioned working conditions.

This is one of those times where it very much is a David v. Goliath story, and the David's are tired of this shit.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Context: I.A.T.S.E (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) is the massive film union that represents basically everyone in film that isn't DGA, PGA, WGA, etc. They have 3-year deals with the A.M.P.T.P. (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers), which is the Producers/Studios. No headway has been made at all between the 2 sides, with the A.M.P.T.P. trying to massively backslide on workers' rights, compensation, etc. Basically, it's the working man vs the Hollywood studios and Producer Execs.

IATSE is voting this week to authorize a strike vote, which would allow the Union to call for a formal strike. The strike vote is expected to overwhelming pass. IATSE has never gone on strike before, and represents ~65,000, meaning this could be one of the largest strikes in US histroy.

Full disclosure: I am an IATSE member.

https://deadline.com/2021/09/iatse-strike-authorization-vote-film-tv-workers-1234841037/

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/iatse-strike-authorization-vote-1235069694/

IATSE moved one step closer to a strike against the film and TV industry companies Monday, telling its members that it will now ask them for strike authorization.
Today, the AMPTP informed the IATSE that they do not intend to respond to our comprehensive package proposal presented to them over a week ago, the union leaders said in a message to members. This failure to continue negotiating can only be interpreted one way. They simply will not address the core issues we have repeatedly advocated for from the beginning. As a result, we will now proceed with a nationwide strike authorization vote to demonstrate our commitment to achieving the change that is long overdue in this industry.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers said in a statement that it put forth a deal-closing comprehensive proposal that meaningfully addresses the IATSEs key bargaining issues, and that in choosing to leave the bargaining table to seek a strike authorization vote, the IATSE leadership walked away from a generous comprehensive package.
See the AMPTPs full statement below.
A strike-authorization vote does not necessarily mean that there will be a strike only that the members give their leaders the authorization to call for a walkout if they are unable to reach an eleventh-hour agreement.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This isn't a single incident, this is a pattern of behavior. We're pretty much the abusive boyfriend of the modern world.

Tbf, Vietnam turned out alright in the long run. But to be fair again, not the best comparison, since we never every fully controlled Vietnam, South or otherwise, and thus didn't really have an infrastructure plan to compare it to. Leaving was ultimately what was best for the place.


---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

there is fundamentally zero difference between trumps America and bidens America aside from optics and bidens love for bombing countries in the Middle East

*points and laughs*

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Mead posted...

provide evidence of this claim

It's not wrong, though, and I don't dislike Harris. Biden straight-up said his VP would be a woman no matter what, which basically gives up game that she's just a demographic appeaser from the get-go. Not that this is BAD, per se - the VP pick has been used as a balancing act for years and years now. Palin was a blatant attempt to cater to Right-wing female voters/fly-over state voters, but backfired horribly due to how amazingly stupid she was.

If anything, Biden was just more honest.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Far-Queue posted...

Diagree with your assessment that it's a lost cause. It's not something that can be built overnight, but a stable government with a capable, self-sufficient military could be attained, and that would have gone a long way toward combating terrorism.

The only way that could *plausibly* work if we were there maybe 60+ years. Sons, fathers, grand-fathers that have grown knowing nothing else but US backed/occupied rule, enough for a permanent culture. *Maybe*.

And even then, so what? Endless trillions and thousands of US lives spent on this, and without annexation, no resources or anything of value to show for it. Combat terrorism? The terrorism that the US fears came from Saudi Arabia (our "ally"), not Afghanistan. And there's dozens upon dozens of terrorist hot spots and safe harbors across the globe (throw a dart at Africa, for example). "Taming" Afghanistan would be a drop in the bucket.

Right-wing terrorists and general mass shooters/gun violence commit several 9/11's worth of body count every year right at home in the US, AND is openly supported by 1 of the 2 major political parties. Clearly, combatting terrorism isn't really atop of the US's priority list.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I pretty much refused to watch the show at the time because of how terrible it looked. It wasn't really until years later when people talked up how good it was and how it was canonical to the original show that I started looking into it. And my reaction was mostly "Man, I wish this show hadn't looked so terrible, because I probably would have enjoyed it."

It definitely was in that un-sweet spot of early CGI that simply wasn't good, or lacked the money to make it good. The thing is, I remember all the characters looking fine, it's more that the movement and stuff was very stilted, blocky, and tank-like. Everything moves a bit too unnaturally, and the background/world seems like a matte painting of sorts.

It's been years since I've seen it though, even though I own the DVDs.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Far-Queue posted...

It's unfair to criticize the Afghan army for failing to stand up to the Taliban without placing a sizable chunk of the blame on how the US turned their backs on them and provided the Taliban with the perfect opportunity to take over.

Except the only thing that changed was boots on the ground. It's not like we pulled out all reports, intelligence, or even financial backing. Sure, actual lack of troops and air cover is going to weaken their forces, but they aren't dealing with an equal sized or equipped forces, here. It's supposed to be a battle tested Army vs a force with exponentially few resources. In now way should the Taliban stood a chance, here. And instead of fighting to the end, in most cases, the Army/government just surrendered. There's no other way to slice it, it's a pathetic statement against Afghanistan and her people.

Far-Queue posted...

The US would've been better served, in light of how heavily invested we are in Afghanistan, to set up a base of operations similar to Korea or Germany and keep a supporting force there in perpetuity. The way this is going down right now makes the whole thing seem like a gigantic waste, and is a massive insult to those who fought and died for this mission.

Yeah, no. That's an endless sinkhole of money and lives, for virtually no benefit. In Korea and Germany, these were 1st world/budding 1st world nations that took American money, culture, and virtues to fuel themselves into powerhouses in their own right. We having military forces is mostly a benefit to us (well, it helps S. Korea a lot) in our "network of bases" mindset.

Conversely, Afghanistan is perpetually stuck in the 1920's at best, and has zero interest and capabilities in transforming itself using gifts from the US. Keeping a presence there is entirely a benefit for them, but virtually none for us. Sucks that W. Bush spent countless blood and treasure on the place, but it's way and more of an insult to keep throwing said resources on a lost cause. Annex it, because anything else was ALWAYS going to be a waste.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

Zeus posted...

In general, it was a slow-moving trainwreck everybody saw coming but the Biden administration insisted on looking the other way.

Which, of course, is the completely wrong take. The correct take is, if 20 years and trillions of dollars, and backing of the strongest military in the world resulted in the country getting overrun in less a month, then the US should have just either full-on annexed the place, or gotten out a lot, lot sooner (or never have been). The country and its army is just too pathetic to rule on their own, and it was always going to collapse unless the US never left. Good riddance.

As PO said, the likelihood of them being a bother to the West is extremely low, and they can be the region's problem now. The surrounding ME countries were more than happy to let the West go at it alone, while using Afghanistan as their own chessboard, so they can enjoy the aftermath now.

* The announced time table and general "plan" (or lack thereof) was initiated by Trump last year, btw. So even on that, it's only partly his fault. We've been drawing down troops for a year now.

Hell, we've been pairing down troop number for years now, and every time, the Taliban gets a footing back, almost in proportion to the amount of force the US pulls back. Which resulted in a lot of sending more troops back in, making a non-stop yo-yo affect. Again, fully annexing the place would be the only way to prevent this.

The only disgust should be left at the Afghan Army and government. It was thought it would take much, much longer for this to happen. An entire generation has been raised knowing US weaponry, tactics, and safety, and they surrendered to dues in the countryside with no shots, in most cases. It's a 3rd-world dumping ground that is never going to change.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.

I actually liked 90's Beast Wars more than most of 80's Transformers, and I'm aware that makes me a minority, here. Also, I still have a bunch of the 90's/early 00's Beast Wars toys, especially the metal ones, like Rattrap, Dinobot, etc.

---

PotD's resident Film Expert.