Did some lighting hoist design/green screen work for a mate who was working at the Docklands studio's and the College of the Arts and watched a few movies being made and its a fairly rigorous process to get a gun on set.The Armourer is the one who will cop it as all the firearm safety stuff falls on their shoulders. I believe the Armourer involved in the Baldwin film has gone into hiding and with good reason....seems she might have had a few dubious events previously. Even on the student films I watched being made they had the best professionals, its not an area where you take short cuts, all the Armourers I saw were senior gentleman with many years experience not sure this was the case on this film set.
Her father is apparently one of the best in the business and she learn't from him....but she had expressed doubts about her own ability with blanks.
"Actor Alec Baldwin was practicing removing a revolver from its holster and aiming toward the camera during rehearsal for the movie “Rust” when director Joel Souza heard “what sounded like a whip and then a loud pop,” according to a search warrant obtained by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday night that also provided grim new details about the final minutes of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins’ life."
On the face of it it's a terrible accident and the negligence seems to be (or is being blamed ) on the part of the armory crew and the AD who handed Baldwin the gun and pronounced it 'cold' Conspiracy theories are starting to take off...Was the gun fiddled with on purpose to make Baldwin look bad given his anti-gun stance? The thing I don't get is why the gun was pointed at someone who was not part of the 'acting group'...and the trigger pulled.
Good luck to the authorities trying to make sense of all that.
@ LP re Deadwood...It's been a while so I'm not sure whether you caught up with the film. If you liked the series you'll probably enjoy the film. It kind of ties up a few things. When the series was cancelled it left everything a bit up in the air.
The teams are now settled with all 18 teams across both the mens and the womens.
re player movement, its been a bit of an exodus of late, but considering the amount of teams coming in....and the fact we've snaffled a few from elsewhere (O'Dea, Dal Pos..) its not quite as bad as it seems.
Yep, it's settled now, but was still being worked through when I dropped off.
I'd like to think I can get back on board with it, but when you do lose interest there's no guarantee it will return. But that's just a personal thing. You can't manufacture enthusiasm.
Anyway, hopefully they have a good season...that's the best way to get folks interested.
Still, don't expect the girls to kick and handball like men, just judge their progress relative to how they started!
I kind of lost interest in the women's comp and didn't watch much for a while. I guess the player movement (who's playing for Carlton this year?)and the still unsettled nature of the competition (number of sides still being worked out) had a bit to do with that drop off. It's hard to invest in a side when there's that switching of players and as new teams enter the competition there's a need for that movement to occur to bolster the new sides. Having said that... I just caught a few games towards the end of the last season and thought that there had been a definite improvement in the standard. It was probably more obvious not having watched for some time.
Most of the voters were sacked at the end of the season so who did the votes; Sayers and Diesel?
I think most supporters would agree that Walsh and Weitering were our two best players and would have McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow or Saad in their top five, taking into account games played of course. In fact, all of those players were in the top six in our Jim Park Award. Kennedy and Newman make the top ten in the Jim Park Award, displacing Plowman and Betts.
If the voting was manipulated, why would the beneficiaries be Plowman and Betts? What would be the point?
It's hard to argue against Walsh, Weitering, McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow and Saad leading the voting; their performances were overt , easily recognised and they played most games. It becomes harder for the average punter to recognise players who are following instructions and unobtrusively carrying out selfless acts.
The voting would have to be done on a week to week basis by the coaches and the results filed away. You wouldn't remember much about Round 1 at the end of August. Any fiddling would have to take place post season and not involve the coaches at all.
Kennedy and Newman polled well in our Jim Park Kennedy played only 13 games Newman played 14 games
The way the CSC (Jim Park) award is structured it depends a lot on numbers voting each week and a the ability for there to be a wide variance in vote allocation. A big number one week for a player who impressed in a week where a lot of folks voted would be possible. A tighter voting system would apply in the CFC Best and Fairest and number of games played would be a more significant factor.
Betts finished 9th and was delisted. Pretty obvious what happened there.
What happened? Did you expect him to go on...I didn't. He played 19 games. Many of those he was hardly sighted. But he obviously performed a role that the coaches were happy with...whether that was as a decoy, or his forward pressure. He did what was asked of him to the extent he earned votes.
So it begs the question... Which players out of the top 10 should have been there....and before answering, just check how many games they played? If you don't play there's a fair chance you won't attract too many votes.
Jack Silvagni played only 15 games The rest of the top 10 played at least 19
Had Jack played those extra four games there's a fair chance he would have jumped up a spot or two.
I'm a believer in "None of the above" Next thing they'll be telling us is that "Captain Kirk never went to Space"
If every one of our best 22(3) played every game you might get a slightly different result down the order, Plowman might have dropped a bit, but clearly the coaching group were generally happy with how he performed. Of course most of them have now gone and with different expectations might come different criteria for a top 10 finish.
But... Walsh, Weitering and McKay were our best in order. No problems with the result.
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
It's a coach's award and is hugely influenced by the role they're asked to play, and also by the number of games they play...but you probably wouldn't get a lot of argument about the top 3...only perhaps the margins.
Probably one of the keys to performing well in these type of awards is not only how the coaches see things and their expectations (which don't always match the supporters), but actually getting on the field...and we had our share of injury troubles this year. All of the top ten, bar Silvagni, played at least 19 games.
We have some pretty smart folk on here. We have fairly robust discussions. We're pointed to a lot of research on a variety of subjects. The Covid one is no different.
That's not a 'suck-up' it's what I truly believe. I'm a bit of a mug when it comes to 'in depth' information on this topic. I got vaccinated because the 'nice' ladies on the telly told me to...and I'm crap scared of getting covid. So these comments may be full of holes and feel free to point them out.
As MBB pointed out NSW passed the 90% first jab yesterday. As I mentioned in an earlier post my daughter had an initial booking for her first jab in November but was able to get it moved forward. NSW would still be doing many first jabs.... so by December that figure would probably be up around the 92-93% Having had the first jab, you would assume that nearly all those people would have their second and by the end of the year that will be 92-93% double vaccinated.
This rate of vaccination will almost certainly follow the same trend in Victoria, and even the more hesitant states will also eventually follow. It probably takes an outbreak to kick start things.
So given at least a 90% uptake that leaves around 8-10% of folks that might not get vaccinated. They fall into two groups
The anti- vaxxers... These folks are zealous. They are as committed to their views as any pro-vaxxer. You will not change their minds. They wont get vaccinated.
Then there is the reluctant vaxxer... These people are genuinely torn. They're worried about things like side effects, they believe the vaccines have been a bit rushed, they're cautious, and the uncertainty is fuelled by conflicting information they see on the internet. They may be of an age where they believe it's a 50-50 choice -'mild' covid or vaccine...but these people can be convinced. The question is what's the best way to convince them. spf and Macca made mention of the language before. Notice that the Premiers and Health officers don't use harsh language. It's not a blaming and shaming message. It's almost a pleading to get vaccinated. "Do it for your family and friends." They're also adding benefits like additional freedoms, but it's all done with a positive tone.
So let's assume we eventually move a few of these people. Suddenly that vaccinated percentage is pushing even higher.
Now the virus is being labelled as the disease of the unvaccinated. So it stands to reason that those not vaccinated, like the rest of us, will eventually get Covid. ...and with the virus the unvaccinated (those that don't die) will get a degree of natural immunity from having had it. Then we're all protected (to some extent). The only real uncertainty is the burden long term health issues will place on the Health systems.
...and perhaps (perish the thought) a mutation that is vaccine resistant, and then we're back to square one.