What if something is there just for sake of creating proper atmosphere?
Chekhov's Gun
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for all statements regarding TVTropes. It isn't "just a click", trust.
Sure isn't just a click. Once you get in, you can never get out of a rabbit hole of hyperlinks. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuin...
> These steps will help:
> - Stay away from tabbed browsing.
really good suggestion!
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#33The problem, with both Chekhov’s gun and the All is lost moment is once you see them, you can’t unsee them.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#34It's really fun to call out Chekhov Guns while watching movies with a group. You appear clairvoyant.
Or in my case, I just annoy my SO.
ME: "Oh, you know that (x) is gonna (y) before this episode is over...they just have to! It's Chekhov's (x)!"
HER: :groan: :rolleyes:
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#35Well, if you want a much more in-depth discussion (at least if you follow the links...) with examples than Wikipedia, you could do a lot worse than checking tvtropes.org.[1] P.S. Sorry in advance for the loss in productivity to anyone that clicks though and doesn't know what they're in for... 1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
tvtropes covers so much ground, that I don't know where to start on this one, but maybe you can help me out. There is a category of story device that goes so far as to become more of a storytelling crutch. Or a wheelchair. Some examples from Star Trek that come to mind (since I'm re-watching TNG right about now): - Holodeck: Totally new environments on a whim! Just in case FTL travel wasn't enough! - Troi's empathy s…
There's definitely a middle ground with tropes, but I think it's also era dependent (and likely cyclical). Some tropes have periods in time when they come into heavy use because people are enjoying them (or there's a new twist to be done with new technological, cultural or social changes), and then become overused a too "tropey" because everyone starts recognizing them. I suspect there may have been a different level of acceptability to some of those tropes (or those tropes in that genre) at the time that series first aired, possibly because of a dearth of good science fiction on TV.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#36Useful, but not universal. Efficiency is not the point of storytelling. Some details might not appear to have led anywhere in the story, but could have been there for texture, subtext or symbolism.
Chekhov's minimal, efficient, realist style is unique to him and complements his tone and content, but it's not a necessary condition for good writing. Consider Nabokov's short story Symbols and Signs (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1948/05/15/symbols-and-si...) which is beautiful purely because of subtext and texture.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#37Well, if you want a much more in-depth discussion (at least if you follow the links...) with examples than Wikipedia, you could do a lot worse than checking tvtropes.org.[1] P.S. Sorry in advance for the loss in productivity to anyone that clicks though and doesn't know what they're in for... 1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
tvtropes covers so much ground, that I don't know where to start on this one, but maybe you can help me out. There is a category of story device that goes so far as to become more of a storytelling crutch. Or a wheelchair. Some examples from Star Trek that come to mind (since I'm re-watching TNG right about now): - Holodeck: Totally new environments on a whim! Just in case FTL travel wasn't enough! - Troi's empathy s…
While those are plot conveniences, it's still possible to create a good story using those tropes. In fact, some would argue that some of those tropes are what make Star Trek great. Good episodes have come from including the holodeck, Troi(yes, I would say that "Face of the Enemy" was pretty good), time travel and multiple-universes, technobabble, and Q.
Chekov's Gun can rarely, if ever, improve a story. While a lot of people seem to fall for Chekov's Gun, I don't think that those who are aware of it usually consider it to be a mark of a good story. At worst, it's obvious that the writer is bullshitting its audience. Chekov's Gun is just one of the many reasons why Abrams/Kurtzman Star Trek is basically on fire right now.
> - Multiple-universes time travel. Why stick with an existing world and its background when you can just replace it!
I don't think people are bothered by time travel plots because of the infinite possibilities to change the setting. They dislike time travel because it's usually too easy to travel through time, and shows or movies rarely adhere to any consistent time travel mechanics. Time travel stories are good at conveying high stakes, but they almost always lack any real consequences. When someone brings up time travel as a solution, nobody ever says "You know, the last time we traveled through time, we all nearly got killed and almost destroyed the universe."
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#38I've never been a fan of Chekhov's gun. Interactions and details that aren't directly connected to the main plot do a good job at giving the world texture and making it feel alive. Fiction that does away with too many unrelated details (and I'd argue a lot of fiction does this) often feels artificial and empty to me.
There's a line, and it's different for different people. For example, for me Neal Stephenson plays right along that line pretty heavily, but does it well. He fills his stories with so many digressions and tangents about what the ramifications of the things he's envisioned are, that you're never quire sure whether he's rambling, of if this tangent it going to be one of the few that's integral to understanding the weird resolution he has planned at the end, and not just a fun bit of world building.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#39I find this is one thing I use in reverse to get a sense of whether something is likely to be fictional. Real experiences are chock full of irrelevant details and false leads that go nowhere. Fiction usually ties things up neatly.
Re: Chekhov's Gun
#40Game of Thrones owed part of its success to not following this principle. I think when most works of fiction and Hollywood leave no detail unused, they lose unpredictability. Over time the audience will talk about shows that stand out from the crowd and Game of Thrones left enough details out to keep its outcome unpredictable to the very end. Had they not run into the budget and time constraints, they could have continued the show for much longer than we got.