Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted November 4, 2021 Share Posted November 4, 2021 (edited) Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson says his production company will stop using real guns after deadly "Rust" shooting - CBS News "We're going to switch over to rubber guns, and we're going to take care of it in post," he added. "We're not going to worry about the dollars; we won't worry about what it costs." Will the post work cost about the same as an armorer and the gun rentals and all? Does the armorer have assistants and gun wranglers? I don't think rubber guns will work, but maybe hi-grade replicas. Replica Guns | ReplicaWeaponry.com Edited November 4, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted November 4, 2021 Author Share Posted November 4, 2021 Could not update, could not get in real gun . Here is real vs replica gun. real gun replica gun This is a non-firing copy of the original. This piece replicates the original in size, weight and appearance, and functions much like the original. However, this replica cannot be made to fire or part interchanged. Cannot Ship To: CT, IL (Chicago, Aurora), KS (Topeka), MD, MN, NJ, NY, PA, PR, RI, WI Cannot be shipped outside of the USA. By The Sword, Inc. - MP40 Non-Firing Replica German WWII Submachine Gun (bytheswordinc.com) real gun replica gun https://replicaweaponry.com/replica-guns/ They look pretty good to me. Are you guys in England / UK allowed to buy these for movie use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted November 5, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2021 The problem isn't the cost. Doing it in post is cheaper in the real world, which is why all the best work with digital firearms effects is actually done on YouTube. The problem is that even the best simulated firearms isn't often completely convincing. It looks cheap. Obviously, big productions find ways to make everything expensive, but that's politics and corporate power plays more than anything else. The other issue here is that this is a ludicrous knee jerk reaction. There are lots of things on film sets that kill way more people than guns. This got a lot of attention because it involved a famous name and a conventionally attractive woman. It's no disrespect to either of them to point out that the reaction is disproportionate. Has anyone here heard of Mark Milsome, for instance? Nobody famous was involved, and he was a middle aged man. Nobody's calling for an end to vehicle stunts. I don't thing it's very fair to end the livelihoods of the world's armourers, who overwhelmingly do a brilliant job, for no better reason than that Alec Baldwin is famous. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim D. Ghantous Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 Well said Phil. If you don't want to use real guns, or don't ever want to, maybe make your next project 100% CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted November 5, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2021 "Rubber guns" is a perfect analogy for how guns are handled and used in most Hollywood films. "In the city where nothing is real, even the guns are made of rubber! Fake boobs, fake teeth, fake guns, fake xplosions! Supa action!" Well, they make replicas out of metal too if you pay couple of dimes more. And one can always deactivate real guns so that they don't shoot anything but still look real. Additionally, a skilled gunsmith could make replicas which are exactly similar than real but are either only able to shoot blanks or are completely inert. But I am sure that rubber ones will look great too... compared to how fake the rest of the movie is. At least you can't break them if accidentally dropping them, they just bounce back to your hand :D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted November 5, 2021 Share Posted November 5, 2021 I was watching "Paris Police 1900" the other day, the gun shot used in one episode had the smoke and sparks flying out that the YouTube CGI effect guys in Phil's earlier message were trying to create. I assume it was a blank, since there seems to be a visceral realism in the production, but just interesting to see. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p09tqj2t/paris-police-1900 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted November 5, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2021 Oh I see, YOU CAN definitely get real enough looking rubber guns for movie use! Just a little bit of post work and that would do the job perfectly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted November 5, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2021 or did they mean rubber BAND guns? these would be a great alternative too! though one would still need an armorer for these because someone has to make sure that they are not loaded before use 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted November 5, 2021 Author Share Posted November 5, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said: The problem isn't the cost. Doing it in post is cheaper in the real world, which is why all the best work with digital firearms effects is actually done on YouTube. The problem is that even the best simulated firearms isn't often completely convincing. It looks cheap. Obviously, big productions find ways to make everything expensive, but that's politics and corporate power plays more than anything else. The other issue here is that this is a ludicrous knee jerk reaction. There are lots of things on film sets that kill way more people than guns. This got a lot of attention because it involved a famous name and a conventionally attractive woman. It's no disrespect to either of them to point out that the reaction is disproportionate. Has anyone here heard of Mark Milsome, for instance? Nobody famous was involved, and he was a middle aged man. Nobody's calling for an end to vehicle stunts. I don't thing it's very fair to end the livelihoods of the world's armourers, who overwhelmingly do a brilliant job, for no better reason than that Alec Baldwin is famous. No never herd of Mark. Why does YouTube do better than Hollywood? (Or is Georgia the 'go to' place now?) Well, I don't blame The Rock. He has a great life, he does not want to take chances. As far as the armorer with Baldwin. I didn't study her up that much. But from what I saw she looked like an accident waiting to happen. It seemed with her on the job it was not a question of if, it was only a question of when. Edited November 5, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted November 5, 2021 Author Share Posted November 5, 2021 7 hours ago, aapo lettinen said: "Rubber guns" is a perfect analogy for how guns are handled and used in most Hollywood films. "In the city where nothing is real, even the guns are made of rubber! Fake boobs, fake teeth, fake guns, fake xplosions! Supa action!" Well, they make replicas out of metal too if you pay couple of dimes more. And one can always deactivate real guns so that they don't shoot anything but still look real. Additionally, a skilled gunsmith could make replicas which are exactly similar than real but are either only able to shoot blanks or are completely inert. But I am sure that rubber ones will look great too... compared to how fake the rest of the movie is. At least you can't break them if accidentally dropping them, they just bounce back to your hand ? I wouldn't mind be the boob tester for realness. Is there such a job? If fake guns are used, fake guns should only be used. No real guns that have been doctored should be allowed on set if real guns are banned. Unless the real gun has been demilled permanently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Raaf Sundquist Posted November 5, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 5, 2021 Where there is friction, there is opportunity... https://www.indiewire.com/2021/11/rust-shooting-gun-bans-set-1234676635/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted November 24, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted November 24, 2021 (edited) As someone who has a personal collection of firearms (but hasn't worked with them on a set), I am a bit confused of the term "armorer" as someone who handles safety on set? In the firearms world, we tend to refer to an armorer as another term for "gunsmith" and the safety person would be a "DOJ Instructor". Are set armorers actually DOJ Certified Instructors? It seems to me that you would want both a safety instructor and a gunsmith (someone who can safely repair arms, clear jams, etc) on a set? But that is just one guys opinion. Please correct me if I am in error. Edited November 24, 2021 by Matthew W. Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now