Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chekhov's Gun

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#61

Post by dehrmann »

dzink wrote: post #40

Game 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 cont…

It's success was more around its character development and the setting. It set up a lot of things that looked like they'd be used later, but while there were seasons left, people actually gobbled it up. Then the author/writers realized they wouldn't be able to tie up all the loose ends they left, and definitely not in two seasons, so it was unsatisfying. It also meant they were tying up loose ends and not spending time on the character development that made the show.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#62

Post by aaron695 »

Cheap lazy writing would be another way to look at it.

Does any one actually think this is good? Do any good writers defend it?

I'd put it up there with canned laughter. A cheap hack. I'd prefer a world it wasn't needed because writers were good at their art.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#63

Post by pasabagi »

ravenstine wrote: post #37
brandmeyer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>Chekov's Gun can rarely, if ever, improve a story

I guess I'd see Chekov's gun as a subspecies of a more broad range of tactics you can use to introduce themes and events so they don't completely come out of left field when the reader arrives at them. If you don't do this, you risk particular events appearing surreal - for instance, if a character shoots another with a gun, did they seem like the kind of person to own a gun? If so, you're basically doing a light form of Chekov's gun anyway, and if not, you either have to put up with the fact its presence is weird and jarring, or put a stutter right in the shooting scene, slow down, and explain why the gun is here. Seems very practical to me - when you require a gun, it takes about ten seconds to go back in the narrative and place one innocently in some corner.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#64

Post by kochikame »

dehrmann wrote: post #61
dzink wrote: post #40

Game 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 cont…

It's success was more around its character development and the setting. It set up a lot of things that looked like they'd be used later, but while there were seasons left, people actually gobbled it up. Then the author/writers realized they wouldn't be able to tie up all the loose ends they left, and definitely not in two seasons, so it was unsatisfying. It also meant they were tying up loose ends and not spending ti…

Same with Lost back in the day.

They littered the first few seasons with all these potentially mind-blowing things and events... and then just never did anything with them. At all.

It’s like they knew about Chekhov’s gun and deliberately decided to blow it off in the biggest way possible.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#65

Post by DanBC »

brandmeyer wrote: post #30
kbenson wrote: post #3

Well, 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…

> Technobabble. Solves any problem! Causes any problem!

There's a really nice interview with some of the writers about "Tech the tech". Charlie Stross has it on his blog: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_ha...

> At his recent keynote speech at the New York Television Festival, former Star Trek writer and creator of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica Ron Moore revealed the secret formula to writing for Trek.

> He described how the writers would just insert "tech" into the scripts whenever they needed to resolve a story or plot line, then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.

> "It became the solution to so many plot lines and so many stories," Moore said. "It was so mechanical that we had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we'd just write 'tech' in the script. You know, Picard would say 'Commander La Forge, tech the tech to the warp drive.' I'm serious. If you look at those scripts, you'll see that."

> Moore then went on to describe how a typical script might read before the science consultants did their thing:

> La Forge: "Captain, the tech is overteching."

> Picard: "Well, route the auxiliary tech to the tech, Mr. La Forge."

> La Forge: "No, Captain. Captain, I've tried to tech the tech, and it won't work."

> Picard: "Well, then we're doomed."

> "And then Data pops up and says, 'Captain, there is a theory that if you tech the other tech ... '" Moore said. "It's a rhythm and it's a structure, and the words are meaningless. It's not about anything except just sort of going through this dance of how they tech their way out of it."

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#66

Post by brandmeyer »

maest wrote: post #50
ravenstine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

A lot of good series have this "open sandbox" format where the context of the show is just a vessel for whatever story the writer wants to tell. Examples: * Star Trek Holodeck * The various worlds in Sliders * The infinite worlds in Rick and Morty means there are no limits to what can be written in. * In Community, in a lot of episodes Greendale magically transforms in whatever setting is needed for the story: a cour…

That's it exactly. Its the difference between using stories to build the world, and using the world as a framework for hanging your stories on it.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#67

Post by soylentcola »

kochikame wrote: post #64
dehrmann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's success was more around its character development and the setting. It set up a lot of things that looked like they'd be used later, but while there were seasons left, people actually gobbled it up. Then the author/writers realized they wouldn't be able to tie up all the loose ends they left, and definitely not in two seasons, so it was unsatisfying. It also meant they were tying up loose ends and not spending ti…

Same with Lost back in the day. They littered the first few seasons with all these potentially mind-blowing things and events... and then just never did anything with them. At all. It’s like they knew about Chekhov’s gun and deliberately decided to blow it off in the biggest way possible.

Yeah, I still love that show and will recommend it to people who haven't seen it yet (or at least to fans of genre fiction like that) but it was frustrating for sure.

Speaking of Lost, I re-watched it with my SO last year because she had never seen it. It's weird how so much of the format has become the standard for network TV drama/adventure/mystery/scifi shows. There were multiple points where she just didn't see the big deal and I had to point out how there just weren't many shows that did things like this back then.

I checked TVTropes but it's not on the list of "Seinfeld is unfunny" examples. Same concept though.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#68

Post by soylentcola »

ent101 wrote: post #21

One of the reasons the final season of GOT was so bad is because there were a lot of Chekhov's guns that never went off...

They also left out several that still may or may not go off in the novels. The "Horn of Joramun" comes to mind but I guess that could still do its thing if the books ever get to that point. The show just had it happen another way.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#69

Post by dehrmann »

soylentcola wrote: post #67
kochikame wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with Lost back in the day. They littered the first few seasons with all these potentially mind-blowing things and events... and then just never did anything with them. At all. It’s like they knew about Chekhov’s gun and deliberately decided to blow it off in the biggest way possible.

Yeah, I still love that show and will recommend it to people who haven't seen it yet (or at least to fans of genre fiction like that) but it was frustrating for sure. Speaking of Lost, I re-watched it with my SO last year because she had never seen it. It's weird how so much of the format has become the standard for network TV drama/adventure/mystery/scifi shows. There were multiple points where she just didn't see t…

I recommend the first season of "Lost," but warn people that it goes downhill to the point that it's painful.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#70

Post by thedanbob »

This was one of the reasons I didn’t like the book A Canticle for Leibowitz. (Minor spoilers) There’s one character that keeps reappearing throughout the hundreds of years spanned by the story, and you get the impression that this guy is going to be really important at the end. And then no payoff whatsoever. I’m sure that was deliberate as it fits in well with the overall theme of the book, but it was still infuriating.
Post reply on HN