Wouldn't be too surprising. It seems to me that the sound effects guys (Foley artists, I think, in filmspeak) use a pret
-
Bart_Decaux — 17 years ago(June 23, 2008 05:43 PM)
It does. You can nitpick almost anything.
Incidentally, I just bought the MAD magazine with their parody of it and I love it. They refer to the "High Noon" thing even then and I love the parody, but I still have great love for the film.
The thing that everyone seems to miss in Outland is just how good the film is overall. If you ignore the similarity between it and High Noon and just concentrate on the screenplay, dialogue, sets and general film-making apparatus, it's a blindingly well-made film. -
jmac-20 — 17 years ago(July 14, 2008 10:07 PM)
I've heard of lasers being improperly used in circumcision (and in this case I'm not talking about David Reimer, if anyone wants to get really specific) that have cut off the body part in question, rather than just the 'tip'. Sorry for the less than G rated example, but the tech probably exists to do far more when actually intentional.
Having said that, I like the idea of shotguns. Although I would bet the farm that the reason was budget for the special fx (as has been mentioned) - one might also consider the budget in that 'universe'. Law enforcement today in most parts of the world isn't the highest funded institution around. Better in some places than others, but you get my drift.
If, hypothetically, the rest of the people on IO weren't (or at least shouldn't have been) armed, then shotguns would be a very useful, acceptable option, for all of the aforementioned reasons (and they can be fired in a vacuum, and ironically might have a different spread pattern, though I wouldn't like to bank on whether it would be wider or narrower) and especially so because they wouldn't cost a fortune to arm, maintain and use.
Atmospherically (as in the dramatic type, not the scientific type) I think they add to it well. It's a combination of western, sci fi and police procedural (to a slightly lesser extent).
I'm not sure precisely what the armies of the world will be using in another 40 years, but I think it's highly unlikely that things like the ak-47 and m-16 - both of which were produced decades before this film - will be completely relegated to collectors/antiques. The colt 1911 is coming up on it's 100 yeqar anniversary, and it's still a big favourite with gun enthusiasts for it's rugged and reliable design. Sure it's been tweaked considerably over the years, but you get my drift.
John McKenzie -
syfymoviebuff — 17 years ago(November 03, 2008 05:07 PM)
Stop being paranoid.
Girl_Power
http://www.wecansolveit.org/ -
bigsexy8track — 17 years ago(November 22, 2008 10:35 AM)
I just stumbled across this film on HDNet and I thought I'd see what other people thought of it. I'm glad I did, because this is literally one of the best threads I've ever seen on IMDb. Very interesting and intelligent stuff. Good work, people.
I once dated a blind girl - you really had to hand it to her. -
pcventures — 17 years ago(November 24, 2008 01:43 PM)
How odd I was just thinking about this very topic recently.
I think that generally, shotuns are ideal - less chance of overpenetration than a pistol or rifle.
They're versatile - slug and beanbag type rounds are easily used in most modern shotguns, as well as traditional "batches" of round shot.
As to the idea of energy weapons - the biggest problem with them is energy density - how do you store enough energy for a comparable number of man-stopping or man-killing shots?
I'm not even talking about the ability to permanently blind or seriously burn someone's skin - wounds like that are considered cruel and technically are not "man-stopping."
I think that's a long way off - current rechargeable technology would be hard-pressed to store the juice for one shot with the power of a .45 ACP round, let alone the equivalent of six or more.
The only downside issue I could see with using shotguns or other firarms in space, would be if rounds miss - there would be small metal particulates circulating around a closed air-recycling system.
Look at a film like Aliens - which seems to take place at least 75 years ahead of Outland. Although Hicks and Vazquez had personal weaponry that were clearly from our era (OK, Gorman's pistol was an HK VP70, but that at least looked futuristic official Marine issue), the official infantry weapons and squad automatic weapons still used the basic principle a solid projectile driven by a chemical reaction, albeit in a caseless package. -
TheSouthernDandy — 17 years ago(November 28, 2008 03:06 PM)
Why change what works? We have technology that would allow me to replace all the doors in my house to sensor activated electronic doors, which, undeniably, are much more modern and technologically advanced than the mechanical latch mechanism that I'm using now. But that would be a lot of work just to change something that already works fine, incredibly expensive and what would happen if the power were to go out? Basically it would be just a massive violation of the K.I.S.S. principle. Likewise with a laser weapon, what could it do that a shotgun couldn't do just as well in that situation and what happens when the power goes out? I could load a shotgun, not use it for years and still be pretty confident it will work when I need it. Would people be dieing because they'd forgotten to charge up their laser weapons? Do they have to carry spare battery packs in case of protracted laser battles and remember to keep all of them charged? I think that you'd definitely want the simplest, most rugged, self contained and proven design in such a remote environment.
Also, it seems to me that he could have used a rifle or handgun, as long as he was using frangible bullets in it. -
stagebandman — 17 years ago(March 05, 2009 01:01 AM)
Think of it this way: did you go to work in your flying car today? How's that jet-pack working these days? We may communicate with advanced technology, but we still kill people the same way.
If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie! -
Siamois — 17 years ago(March 30, 2009 10:51 AM)
"I love this movie,i think it was one of connerys best.That said what is up with these movies set in the distant future,and there still using shotguns.they have achieved intergalactic space travel but they haven't developed any energy weapons both leathal and non leathal."
Ok, first of all, this movie is NOT set in the distant future, nor is there any intergalactic travel in it.
But in general, your question is still important. One of the important elements of science-fiction is the speculation in it. The writer/director/creator uses what he knows in the present and speculates on what the future could be.
Outland presents a somewhat grim near future, reminiscent of the cyberpunk genre of sci-fi, and mixes it with a dramatic plot straight out of a good old western. It gets a lot of "science" wrong and the speculation on some things (like computers) is way off. But the gun actually do not look so out of place when compared with the level of technology that seems available.
Naturally, the more science-fiction ages, the more certain elements are off. Some elements might be too advanced (optimisitic), others are too pessimistic. The series Spcae: 1999, for instance. It presents computers that are WAY too unwieldly with archaic interfaces compared to what was actually available in 1999. It has personal coms that look not too far from what is available in 1999 and it has laser guns and manned lunar bases which are much too advanced for 1999. -
Bart_Decaux — 16 years ago(September 17, 2009 12:28 AM)
Of course, predicting the future is incredibly hard. For instance, most older sci-fi stories never predicted the advent of cellphones (even in Outland, how much easier would it have been if O'Neil and Lazarus had been in touch via some kind of personal comms equipment?)
That's why it's always been my belief that a good sci-fi story is quite vague about the actual workings of the tech involved, and more concerned with the story itself and particularly about the morality or implications of having such technical abilities. For instance, The Sound Of Thunder is still a brilliant sci-fi story even though it's getting on a bit because it isn't really about the mechanisms of time-travel, more about its possible implications. These are the stories that seem to age better.
That said, I can still appreciate films like Outland and other stories that don't get everything spot-on. I mean, Outland is still a cracking film with great character studies and it's still one of my all-time favourites. -
scotbpens — 16 years ago(December 05, 2009 11:22 PM)
. . . what is up with these movies set in the distant future,and there still using shotguns.they have achieved intergalactic space travel but they haven't developed any energy weapons . . .
Intergalactic? Not in
Outland
, or
Ghosts of Mars
either. Do you even know what a galaxy is?
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be? -
Pionek — 16 years ago(December 11, 2009 04:21 PM)
You can't beat kinetic-energy weaponslook what happens when a FLECK OF PAINT ploughs into a spacecraft (e.g. the Shuttle's window damage). That said, you also can't beat the energy-density of conventional (nitrocellulose) gun propellants. Things like metal matrix composites (lighter, more durable barrels), amorphous metal projectiles and electronic/primerless ignition are things, down the line, that would make firearms work even better. The OPTICS, BTW, were interesting (see the scene in the greenhouse).
One serious goof was the depressurisation/people popping thing. This apparently does NOT happen. You would die from hypoxia and embolisms, but your skin is pretty good at keeping your stuff insideso-called 'skinsuits' were popular in the '50s-'60s and are being investigated again. The suits don't look 'inflated', either. Also, this was overused as a device in the film. However, in other aspects, this was a pretty decent film. -
gfarrell80 — 9 years ago(February 11, 2017 09:36 AM)
You can't beat kinetic-energy weaponslook what happens when a FLECK OF PAINT ploughs into a spacecraft (e.g. the Shuttle's window damage). That said, you also can't beat the energy-density of conventional (nitrocellulose) gun propellants. Things like metal matrix composites (lighter, more durable barrels), amorphous metal projectiles and electronic/primerless ignition are things, down the line, that would make firearms work even better. The OPTICS, BTW, were interesting (see the scene in the greenhouse).
Exactly. More thoughts
The energy in a bullet is transferred to the target almost instantly on the impact. That allows the bullet to do massive damage very easily. An energy-based weapon would need to maintain its point on a target for some period of time in order to transfer the radiant energy. If your target is moving erratically good luck.
Beams tend to widen and dissipate with range, so your beam instead of being an awesome cool laser cutting tool turns into more of a hot lamp or a weak light as the distance increases. A bullet however moving in vacuum when it hits will still hit as hard as when it left the muzzle.
I suppose we'd have to clarify if we're shooting a beam of electromagnetic radiation (light, X-rays, microwaves, UV, IR, etc) out of our energy weapon, or a beam of particles moving near the speed of light (electrons, protons, neutrons). In either case the weapon would be a major engineering challenge to get enough power focused and directed and transferred quickly enough to cause harm. And making it easily portable by hand. Basically you need to make a city-sized power plant small enough to carry in the hand, and then there's creating and focusing the beam and managing the heat
So guns are going to be around to stay for a long, long time. Unless somebody can somehow make micro-sized nuclear or fusion reactors and get over the other major design problems. -
chris_slipknot2004 — 16 years ago(December 19, 2009 07:41 AM)
energy weapons and even bullet guns can penatrate high density materials eg. the hull of the space station/moon base causing decompresion shotgun rounds are less likly to do this so if you have to have guns in space shotguns are the most sensable option
-
monkeymechx — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 04:06 PM)
As another poster stated, tasers would be infinitely more useful.
The problem with a shotgun is that it's prone to hitting more than what you targeted. Not very smart in enclosed spaces with lots of people and valuable technology stuck in every corner.
We all saw how useful the shotgun was in the chase sequence; our hero ended up having to go hand-to-hand with the criminal before he could even get a chance to use the thing. -
bear022013-588-696101 — 14 years ago(December 10, 2011 11:17 AM)
Due to that sicko James Earl Ray and his gang killing a great orator potential leader and probably great president Dr King..we must see a black man in every movie,every ad,every tv show,every radio spot etc.etc.
I have stopped watching everything unless there is an Irishman in it. -
toocool00_au — 14 years ago(March 20, 2012 10:27 AM)
If all my years of watching SCI-FI movies etc have taught me one thing it is this.
Protectile weapons are great, they work, you aim, shoot target is wounded or killed.
Laser weapons etc, are horrible. The only upside is they dont require realoading in most cases but this is offset by the fact they miss 90% of the time. Unless your a hero.