Jump to content

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson says he will stop using real guns on set


Recommended Posts

My-Post-640x640.jpg

 

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.

22-1313_1K__48969.1580214158.jpg?c=2

Replica Guns | ReplicaWeaponry.com

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could not update, could not get in real gun . Here is real vs replica gun.

1920px-MP_40_AYF_2.JPG

real gun

241111_1_.jpg

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)

 

 

 

M3-SMG.jpg

 

real gun

22-1313_1K__48969.1580214158.jpg?c=2?imb

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

  • Sustaining Member

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Sustaining Member

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 by Matthew W. Phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

CineLab

FJS International

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Film Gears

Serious Gear

Visual Products

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...