• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 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.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 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.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 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.