To add to this: film sets are busy, complicated places. There is heavy equipment everywhere, hundreds of people working in various capacities, and the shooting set has as much attention on it as a shuttle launch.
With about 100+ people standing around working and a live action scene being shot with three different cameras running and lighting and equipment everywhere, a quick 5-second burst of fire could result in several nearly instantaneous injuries during a live filming. The actor would continue the scene, not knowing what occurred, and most of the crew would similarly be clueless as to what occurred until enough of a commotion was made that shut down filming.
That said, I have no idea why they're still using blanks at all in modern film during shooting. Couldn't they just put the muzzle flash in post?
To add to this: film sets are busy, complicated places. There is heavy equipment everywhere, hundreds of people working in various capacities, and the shooting set has as much attention on it as a shuttle launch.
With about 100+ people standing around working and a live action scene being shot with three different cameras running and lighting and equipment everywhere, a quick 5-second burst of fire could result in several nearly instantaneous injuries during a live filming. The actor would continue the scene, not knowing what occurred, and most of the crew would similarly be clueless as to what occurred until enough of a commotion was made that shut down filming.
That said, I have no idea why they're still using blanks at all in modern film during shooting. Couldn't they just put the muzzle flash in post?
The real question is why wasn't there a ballistics screen between the weapon and the crew?
Any competent set would never have a weapon fired that close to crew without the screen in place.
Because the old school filmmakers (and new ones wanting to emulate them) like to use blanks as they feel more authentic.