
Chekhov's Gun - void_nill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun
======
kbenson
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](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun)

~~~
brandmeyer
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 sense. Why script and act your way to communicate a
character's emotional state when she can just tell you!

\- Multiple-universes time travel. Why stick with an existing world and its
background when you can just replace it!

\- Technobabble. Solves any problem! Causes any problem!

\- The Q. Omnipotence _itself_! To be fair, Voyager did manage to tell some
better stories with this one.

~~~
ravenstine
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."

~~~
maest
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 court room where the murder of a yam is debated, a western/space battlefield where players duke it out for a grand prize, an entire city made of pillows and blankets, a zombie infested Halloween party etc.

The upside is anything goes, the downside is the perceived lack of
consequences (especially in the extreme case of Rick and Morty).

~~~
brandmeyer
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.

------
pierremenard
Useful, 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...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1948/05/15/symbols-and-signs)) which
is beautiful purely because of subtext and texture.

~~~
narag
It seems more relevant for movies and tv, where the camera often points to
_the gun_ very noticeably. I enjoy showing off as a prophet simply paying
attention to that.

------
hpoe
So one of the best books I ever read about storytelling is Orson Scot Card's
Characters & Viewpoints. He points out that there are 4 types of stories.

\- Milieu: Stories about a setting.

\- Character: Stories about a person.

\- Event: Stories about an event.

\- Idea: Stories that explore an idea.

Each one has a different point and appeals to a different set of people. What
he stresses is focus on what type of story you are trying to tell and stick
with that, revolve around that. I think that Chekhov's Gun falls under the
similar idea.

One of my favorite authors Brandon Sanderson has a books series that is a
character story; however he often talks about seemingly insignificant world
building details that don't seem relevant to the story, but he always manages
to tie them back to how it effects the characters or what impact it has on
their personality. Thus even though some people would consider random
religious observances in the story Checkhov's gun they instead add to the
story because they flesh out the characters and help make them more real.

------
ckemere
When I teach my students how to write academic papers, I always refer them to
this statement. Basically, don't raise questions you're not going to resolve
(unless in the discussion) and alternatively, raise questions that you will
resolve. There may be an equivalent principle for prose, but I'm not aware of
it.

I read a paper recently where every figure made me ask a question that the
next figure resolved. "Neurons specifically represent barriers! What happens
if a door opens up and there is now a path? What happens if the barrier starts
lowering into the ground until you can walk over it? What happens if it floats
up into the air and you can walk under it?" It was truly beautiful.

~~~
ChuckMcM
And when I read such a paper it is truly a delight!

------
msoucy
I saw this a while ago, and knew it would come back to haunt me.

------
aazaa
This has ruined many movies for me.

But here's a thread that talks about movies/TV shows in which the gun was
never fired:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/64x53j/whats_the...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/64x53j/whats_the_most_disappointing_unfired_chekhovs_gun/)

Funny quote:

> Lost was a Chekhov's Gatling gun

------
dzink
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 continued the show for much longer than we
got.

~~~
dehrmann
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.

~~~
kochikame
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.

~~~
soylentcola
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.

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

------
Chathamization
I'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.

~~~
stupidcar
What's more, when prose is too tight, any extraneous detail immediately stands
out, and you automatically start wondering why the author mentioned it.

~~~
ColanR
More like, you immediately start guessing how the author will use it in the
story.

------
qwerty456127
What if something is there just for sake of creating proper atmosphere?

------
ent101
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...

~~~
soylentcola
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.

------
legohead
I like the concept but in many cases it ends up being annoying/distracting.
I'll see something innocuous in a movie or video game, and immediately think
"welp, that's going to be an issue later."

------
julianeon
Related: if a new hire comes to your company and it's rumored that heads will
roll, consider refreshing your contacts at other companies and replying back
to 'are you interested' emails.

------
copperx
This annoys me greatly in commercial movies because often it makes the plot
predictable. Most of the things that you see are consequential to the plot, so
there are no surprises.

~~~
ColanR
This is exactly the comment I was about to make. It becomes a relatively
simple mental exercise to guess the possible effects of each item in the scene
on the plot.

I think many of the better movies out there are known for adding details that
do not play into the plot, but which are there more for art's sake. It's
something that is usually appreciated where it occurs, and it definitely
improves the quality of the movie.

------
jeffdavis
Interesting point about a style, but it sounds like the kind of rule that's
meant to be broken.

The specific point about a gun seems even worse. It's cliche to show a gun
early on that leads to some tragedy later, and bothers me when I see that done
in a TV show/movie. It ties too much into an inanimate object when they could
be developing a character. And in a lot of settings, guns are all around and
have little to do with the actual story.

------
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.

------
dang
See also from 2013:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6541508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6541508)

------
_peeley
Learning about this trope has, to some effect, ruined some movies for me. The
most recent example I can think of is (spoilers?) Once Upon a Time In
Hollywood.

As soon as I saw DiCaprio's character putting a flamethrower away into his
shed, I just knew that there would be some ridiculous climax featuring the
flamethrower being used in some way, which kind of ruined the surprise and
spectacle of the scene.

------
Strilanc
I wonder if there's an analogy between a schizophrenic looking at reality and
a savy movie goer looking at a movie. There's certainly something a bit
deranged to "movie logic".

This random object can't be for _nothing_ , it will be the linchpin later! Why
would that street sign keep showing up if it wasn't incredibly important?
Maybe the killer lives on that street!

~~~
elihu
I think that's actually something that movies and video games have in common.
If you find a random key in real life, it's very unlikely to be useful. If you
find a key in game while exploring a dungeon, you can be pretty sure there's a
locked door you'll want it for somewhere later on.

(I remember an old blog post Eskil Steenberg I read years ago about game
design and procedural generation that talked about this; specifically, about
the difference in the feel of the game between making sure there's only one
solution to every problem, or allowing for some degree of flexibility so that
the player is sometimes able to achieve their goals in unexpected ways.)

------
duxup
I wonder how this plays out in mystery stories where there is what seems to be
intentional misdirection where you are lead to believe someone might be the
killer, but they're not.

Granted some things like "nobody liked him" could be still relevant to the
overall story, but particularly in film or TV I find those bits of
misdirection common, but also kind of annoying.

~~~
russdill
The trope has a way of becoming overly predictable. Whenever I'm watching a
mystery and there is an inconsequential detail that seems to serve no purpose,
I immediately know to focus on that.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, I'm starting to have this with all movies and TV shows. I mentally keep
track of "inconsequential details", and get worried when some of them don't
seem to be mentioned again for a while.

------
k00b
It's really fun to call out Chekhov Guns while watching movies with a group.
You appear clairvoyant.

~~~
soylentcola
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:

~~~
k00b
Lol so true

------
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.

------
api
I 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.

------
salamanderman
In the Harry Potter series, Rowling makes a conspicuous mention of the diadem
in book 5 and it never pays off in the book. It seemed so strange to me. When
it returned in the 7th book I literally yelped with joy.

------
Brendinooo
Nice to have a term for this. Thanks.

I used to think that it would be nice to have characters and plots that didn't
really matter in a story, until I saw it happen a few times and I didn't like
it at all.

Guess he was on to something.

------
moon2
Chekhov's Gun is a determining trope on "Frankenstein's Monster's Monster,
Frankenstein". Quite literally, actually. There's a real gun at the beginning
of the movie.

------
iso947
The problem, with both Chekhov’s gun and the All is lost moment is once you
see them, you can’t unsee them.

------
rosywoozlechan
I like when little things have subplots of their own in movies, like the tale
of the boot in Fury Road.

------
lihaciudaniel
Once you read this article, it will ruin every book, movie and TV show you
watch.

~~~
ColanR
It's become too frequently used. You don't even need to read the article to
have noticed it in play in way too many movies and shows.

------
ErikAugust
Well, except for the intentional red herring, right?

------
iso947
He used a phaser

~~~
Koshkin
Wrong thread.

~~~
duxup
I like to think it is more wrong website.

