• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1062 months ago

    On a movie set where everything is fake and you have an on-set armorer whose job it is to make sure everything is, indeed, safe, it’s a little bit different.

    There’s no expectation that a gun on a movie set would be real and firing real bullets.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      652 months ago

      I keep trying to explain that to people too. The whole point of having an on-set armorer is so the actor can stay in their headspace and not have to worry about checking to see if a gun is loaded with live ammo when their character is supposed to assume it is.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 months ago

        True, but also, safety is everyone’s responsibility. Safety is always the first priority.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          You either keep yourself in the headspace where your character is shooting a loaded gun and you give a good performance, or you do firearm safety checks. It can’t be both. Maybe you’ve never done any acting, but it really can’t be both.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -12 months ago

            I’ve done acting, and I’m familiar with safe handling of firearms. You can absolutely do both.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              fedilink
              22 months ago

              Again, not if you want a good performance. And I am guessing your acting did not involve shooting a realistic weapon on a realistic set in a major motion picture.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 months ago

                I’m not aware of any studies on the matter. If you are speaking from your own experience, it’s not any more definitive than mine.