News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by croes on Sunday September 05, 2021 @05:53AM (#28422878)
This principle kills surprises because a soon you see the rifle you know what will happen. A little bit of misleading is not a bad thing.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by bambax on Sunday September 05, 2021 @06:31AM (#28423098)
Surprise is overrated. Suspense is superior. The best explanation of the difference is given by Hitchcock in an interview with Truffaut.

We see two characters talking for 45 seconds. Then a bomb goes off, that was under the table. The audience didn't know there was a bomb: big surprise; but the dialogue between the characters is completely irrelevant and eclipsed by the explosion.

Now imagine the same scene, but before, we see a terrorist placing the bomb under the table. Now the scene is totally different, and every word that comes out of one of the characters' mouth is fascinating. Does either one of them know about the bomb? Will they find out in time? Will they survive? Etc.

Suspense > surprise.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by croes on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:13AM (#28423358)
You see a man putting a bag under a table. Two man arrive, sitting at the table, you wait for the bomb to explode because the bag must have a meaning. The meeting ends, the men stand up, one is killed by headshot.

And your scene depends on the characters. Is one the main character? Highly unlikely he get killed.

It's even worse if it's a TV series. Main character is strapped to a bomb? No problem. Guest star is strapped to a bomb? Might get killed. Unknown supporting role strapped to a bomb? Sure death. I think that was part of GoT's success. Surprise deaths. And nudity of course.

If everything has a meaning even the chosen actor is important. Known actor in a minor role? Surely gets important.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by lotsofpulp on Sunday September 05, 2021 @09:30AM (#28424210)
>I think that was part of GoT's success.

At the beginning of the show. A few seasons in, lots of people developed plot armor.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by co2benzoate on Sunday September 05, 2021 @10:03AM (#28424420)
By that point the show was popular enough for them not to need a compelling story or nudity; fans would watch either way.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by adamcharnock on Sunday September 05, 2021 @08:19AM (#28423763)
That is interesting, I hadn’t thought of that before.

I think a recent series which bucked this trend was For All Mankind. Rather than building suspense, bad stuff just happened with no warning. And it wasn’t a jump scare, it just happened. The entertainment for me then came from the characters reactions and how the plot then unfolded.

I actually class it as one of the best shows I’ve seen. I feel it managed to be very wholesome while also having some major emotional highs and lows. In particular, it didn’t build drama just for the sake of keeping the audience engaged.

I could talk about that show for ages.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by Grimm665 on Sunday September 05, 2021 @10:51AM (#28424753)
Inglorious Basterds does this very well, its opening scene is very close to what you describe, as well as a number of other scenes in the film.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by Doxin on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @05:47AM (#28442845)
A great example of this is a scene in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Before the scene starts the narrator explains, in detail, what exactly will happen in the scene, and what the end result will be. None of this makes the scene itself any less thrilling.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by alexpetralia on Monday September 06, 2021 @09:22AM (#28433391)
What's interesting about this example in particular is when the theory building occurs: before or after.

Nobody is surprised, then subsequently asks no questions. The questions simply come after.

And so I imagine the sequence of when you want the viewer to ask their questions can be used as a literary device (famously, in media res).

Re:Chekhov's Gun by quietbritishjim on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:02AM (#28423287)
I don't but that one is better than the other: you surely need both for a good story.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by krsdcbl on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:59AM (#28423639)
yet in OPs example, the "surprise" consists of a threat not being enactioned, therefore it is an instrument of suspense
Re:Chekhov's Gun by ben_w on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:37AM (#28423507)
I attended a talk from Digger webcomic author and artist Ursula Vernon, and she seemed to have a different approach. If I remember right, she said that instead of planning the whole thing in advance and placing specific Chekhov’s Guns as needed, she put in a lot of small detailed world building everywhere, allowing her to choose from whatever seemed appropriate at the time.

Chekhov‘s Guns are important for short stories (which is what Chekhov was famous for), but short stories are not the only type of fiction and they don’t fit everywhere.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by goto11 on Sunday September 05, 2021 @02:46PM (#28426656)
Chekhov wrote short stories and plays. It is harder to apply the same principle to serialized narratives like tv-shows and comics, since you don't know how everything pans out and you cant go back and edit.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by pvg on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:01AM (#28423279)
On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on. He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit

'knowing what will happen' is not in itself a limit on good literature. You know what's going to happen in every Shakespeare play long before you've seen or read it.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by mcphage on Sunday September 05, 2021 @08:16AM (#28423745)
"Chronicle of a Death Foretold", by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, for people unfamiliar. It’s a very good short book.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by zaat on Sunday September 05, 2021 @08:02AM (#28423659)
Salman Rushdie is an example of a master writer who will eat this cake and still have it. He often states preety early in the book something like "this was Y, X's wife, who will later kill him in his sleep, in his room, with a bread knife", and when the time of killing comes he will still manage to surprise you.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by Igelau on Sunday September 05, 2021 @09:26AM (#28424193)
This reminded me of a particularly grisly character introduction in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. It's played to the opposite effect where it's not going to be a surprise at all. It's hardly even suspenseful, but hangs another helping of dread over the story.

> Toadvine glanced at the man's forehead but the man's hat was pushed down almost to his eyes. The man smiled and forked the hat back slightly with his thumb. The print of the hatband lay on his forehead like a scar but there was no mark other. Only on the inside of his lower arm was there tattooed a number which Toadvine would see in a Chihuahua bathhouse and again when he would cut down the man's torso where it hung skewered by its heels from a treelimb in the wastes of Pimeria Alta in the fall of that year.

It's not really the gun on the wall, the bread knife, or the tattoo. It's the narrator revealing a kind of untrustworthy omniscience by spoiling future details of the story.

Re:Chekhov's Gun by watt on Sunday September 05, 2021 @06:07AM (#28422954)
A cough means blood in the napkin. Blood means cancer. If a character coughs, they die.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by quietbritishjim on Sunday September 05, 2021 @06:55AM (#28423246)
This is thoroughly ridiculed in A Series of Unfortunate Events (the Netflix TV series and presumably also the books that they're based on). (Mild spoiler alert) The bank manager has a noticeable cough the whole way through. If anything it gets worse and other characters comment on it, and it seems for sure that it will be a plot point. Of course, it ultimately comes to nothing.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by 1986 on Sunday September 05, 2021 @11:49AM (#28425206)
Mitchell & Webb did this even quicker with "A Man who has a Cough and it's just a Cough and he's Fine": > A woman, called Kylie, repeatedly exits a train, as a man greets her, who has a cough. The cough gets worse, until one time Kylie leaves the train to find no-one there. She believes he has died of TB, but he walks up behind her, stating "No, it was just a cough."
Re:Chekhov's Gun by goto11 on Sunday September 05, 2021 @12:20PM (#28425447)
No, it just tells you that somebody will fire the rifle at some point. This increases tension but does not really tell you much about what is going to happen except it is going to get dangerous and violent.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by amelius on Sunday September 05, 2021 @08:17AM (#28423747)
Also, this makes stories different from real-life. The famous quote "a reader lives a thousand lives" is thus not true.
Re:Chekhov's Gun by krsdcbl on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:56AM (#28423620)
I'd argue that if the gun is shown to lead the audience on, but it not beeing fired is a twist to the plot or a relevant conclusion, then in the sense of the metaphor it still "has gone off"