this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
100 points (97.2% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2072 readers
25 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh look, someone else with 0 clue what they're talking about posting a wall of text when:

I have no business discussing this topic

Would have been much easier to write

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Correct. You have no business discussing this topic.

Being on a film set is not an excuse for reckless behavior. If anything, it makes his actions more egregious, not less.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Being on a film set is not an excuse for reckless behavior. If anything, it makes his actions more egregious, not less.

Stop being so willfully ignorant.

Shits done differently not unssfely

1 person getting shot vs the many who don't proves this is safe

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Reducing the safety factor from "everyone is responsible for using multiple safety factors to prevent injury" to "one designated individual is responsible for everything that happens" is not "different". It's dangerous.

You would not tolerate this in any other circumstances. A random gun owner hires a designated safety officer to protect everyone in the area, then recklessly handles a gun and shoots someone. You wouldn't tolerate this exact same behavior from some random redneck; why does Baldwin get a pass?