In good writing, details serve multiple purposes. Just showing a gun because it will be used later will seem ham-fisted to an audience. A good writer will introduce the gun as a character moment and as setup.
Re:Chekhov's Gun
by wutwutwutwut on Sunday September 05, 2021 @11:26AM
(#28425023)
Maybe the rifle/gun is just a bad example today? I watch movies all the time where there are guns or rifles which does not gow off. And I sure don't feel like some promise was broken.
Chekhov used this example of a rifle on the wall in 1889, years before the invention of the movie camera.
It shouldn't be taken as advice on movie production design.
I think it’s something which is more obvious in a literary context where not talking about the gun means there is no obvious reference to it, but in a movie it may still exist, they just do not draw attention to it.
Re:Chekhov's Gun
by shepherdjerred on Sunday September 05, 2021 @11:57AM
(#28425261)
Gun isn’t literal here. Gun is a metaphor for details; if the details don’t serve the plot (if the gun doesn’t go off) then the details should be removed (don’t show the gun)
E.g. that the character is the kind of person who owns guns.
It does not go off or get used, but the viewer will use that as input to make a judgement about the character.