I've noticed that most action movies seem to shy away from heroes using long guns. Bad guys, easily killed good guys use long guns but the protagonist tends to use nothing but a pistol in situations where it's not tactically sound. Is there a reason behind this? Do pistols even belong as a primary weapon choice?
Most of these plots don't really make sense if the MC is lugging around a long gun all the time. Handguns are very easy to carry on person. You don't have to plan and write around an MC with a rifle on their back as they trek through a city, because even dumb audience will be confused on why no one is freaking out over MC with a rifle on his back running around. Same goes for needing the character to do all the action shit needed in the film, harder to do with a long gun in hand, easier with just a handgun.It's the same with swords and polearms.
Similar appeal to the sword as a prestige sidearm, allows freedom of motion for gestures and other actions.
Pistols allow the character to be armed but not impeded. Obviously james bond would probably have a carbine in a briefcase or backpack for when the shooting starts, but having to carry that prop around casinos and enemy bases and while being thrown off of buildings would be goofy, so he carries a PPK.
John Wick goes back and forth with this. He does use longarms and there are a few situations where it makes sense he uses a pistol; running out of ammo for his main or going into situations where he can't bring anything else. The part where he hid rifles and shotguns along his escape path in John Wick 2 was neat. On the other hand there was a ridiculous part in John Wick 3 where pistols were deemed the best choice to repel heavily armored attackers in a defensive scenario with no concern for noise or concealed weaponry.
>>65178576>On the other hand there was a ridiculous part in John Wick 3John Wick is designed TO BE ridiculous
>>65178561The getaway made a shotgun work as a main gun. Its not impossible for a hero to have a long gun but most directors are hacks.
>>65178549>Is there a reason behind this?Hollywood conditions you to feel "wrong" if you do things that aren't retarded. That way either you do retarded things because they make you feel cool, or you do practical things but feel like a bitch about it and do poorly due to impaired morale. Either way you're kept impotent.
A handgun is held further away from the face so you can get a good shot of the actor and the weapon simultaneously during action scenes. It's harder to do with a long gun that's being held properly.
>>65179302This. Even when the character is rifle themed they will fire from the hip or a low ready.
>>65179302>>65179326This is the reason. No one wants to see your super hot buff 10 million dollar actor with his face glued to an M4 stock for half the video. That's also why so many guns use flashy attachments to make them appear bigger on camera. I was actually just watching this video (timestamped) where the british guy talks about how handguns are modified to make them more visually distinct on screen. Like Clint Eastwood using an even longer barreled revolver in some scenes of Dirty Harry to offset camera foreshortening.https://youtu.be/_mW67wGPH28?t=423
>>65178549It's the same reason why main characters in fantasy and historic settings use swords so often. Heroes are officers, knights, and irregulars. Military weapons are only used by mooks.
>>65178549So they can holster it and not have a big prop that take attention away from other parts of the scene.It also makes the protagonist look like an underdog against villains who are using long guns.
