Wouldn't be too surprising. It seems to me that the sound effects guys (Foley artists, I think, in filmspeak) use a pret
-
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. -
DonaldKnouse — 13 years ago(August 19, 2012 09:45 PM)
The shotguns are used to take down perps at close range inside a sealed environment. Light weapons or even handguns would just ricochet around until they hit SOMETHING.
I think the reason they had the smokers was to show that the a lot of the people there were lowlifes. -
jmgindiana — 13 years ago(October 09, 2012 07:02 PM)
But would a shotgun be the weapon of choice for an assassin? I don't think so. I'd say they lack enough precision for that kind of "job". Without resorting to "ray guns" they could have used any other kind of projectile weapon with low penetration rate but better aim than a shotgun.
-
roger-395 — 13 years ago(December 11, 2012 06:46 PM)
I didn't get the impression that this picture took place in the far distant future. My guess is that in my life time (another 25 years) we will be mining Near Earth Asteroids and we may land on Mars. This might be 100 years into the future. Ships don't travel fast, no where close to light speed. Why shotguns? For the same reasons modern police like them. Short range, wide spread of shot, cheap to buy, cheap ammo.
-
bighalsy — 13 years ago(February 03, 2013 12:50 PM)
Space mining? Not in our lifetime unless there are massive advances in robotics because it sure won't be done by humans. We can't go into space because of Galactic cosmic radiation. The moon's about as far as we go, we can't even get to Mars because of it regardless of the BS PR you may here. Oh sure, you'd make it there but it would be a death sentence. And that says nothing of the other rigors of space travel and the inherent dangers.
However, phasers will be a reality sooner than later.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/look-out-spock-pentagon-works-on-real-life-phasers/ -
sommert-507-32566 — 12 years ago(April 11, 2013 01:42 PM)
There are lots of reason. Cheaper than a laser weapon. Less likely to break down since it's a simple mechanical device. Options in type of ammunition: shot, slug, or rubber. Ideal for close range work (which is what you would use in a smaller confined area like the station (though they do find that big open area in the greenhouse) And most importantly of all, shotguns work prefect when it comes to stopping people. That's not to say you couldn't use a futuristic laser as well as they would have their own pros, but it's not a ridiculous idea to use them.
-
ebonyknight — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 01:22 AM)
I know this is old, but there is one (possible) obvious answer. Lasers and high power rifles, tend to penetrate. Even handguns. Not a good thing in a box, where the pressure differential would mean blowout or suffocation.
Shotguns wouldn't have much chance to penetrate a hull or a reinforced window. I think it was pretty forward thinking to use only shotguns. Non-lethal weapons? Defeats the purpose (for the hitmen, anyway).
This movie was supposed to be a western in space, so non-lethal wouldn't be consistent with the intended theme of "high noon". Also, the mindset was different in the late 70's early 80's. The tazer was still only a concept as a "mainstream" weapon (Although there was the predecessor to the tazor that we know today) and non-lethal weapons limited to rubber bullets.
A good movie that still stands the test of time, despite the outdated computer graphics. Should have a higher score. -
Kuato_and_George — 12 years ago(August 19, 2013 09:31 AM)
Just because it's the future doesn't mean they'd have energy weapons. This movie was obviously going for a more realistic approach and considering guns have been around for 100s of years and still use bullets, I'd say their choice was pretty accurate.
For my latest movie reviews and news:
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/ -
shankmaker — 11 years ago(April 27, 2014 01:49 AM)
I didn't have time to read all 100 responses to this threadbut an obvious question:
Shotguns, i.e., gunpowder requires oxygen to trigger an exothermic reaction. Would a shotgun even work in space? I think Mythbuster's did show that a gun will successfully fire in a vacuum. -
ragsbar — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 10:45 AM)
Someone smarter than me may correct my response, but I believe the three components for the exothermic reaction, heat, an oxygenator and fuel are all chemically contained in the cartridge casing.
That is why a gun can be fired underwater. -
Colonel-Lingus — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 02:17 PM)
I think the movie was pretty visionary. We'll be landing men on Mars long before portable hand held directed energy weapons become a working reality.
Socialism : The Future Is Clear, Its The Past That Is Always in Motion