# Chekhov's Gun in your favourite movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 2, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736 "2014-01-02T21:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lost4life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@lost4life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lost4life)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/41 "2014-01-03T15:55:33Z")
Does **Archer** count? In the Training Day episode, Archer gives Cyril a Russian gun called a Chekhov, and a pen filled with poison that has a dangerously loose cap. Later, Cyril accidentally kills a call girl with the pen (not the gun as one would expect): Archer: Oh, my god! You killed a hooker! Cyril: Call girl! Archer: No, Cyril. When they’re dead, they’re just hookers. God, I said the cap on the poison pen slips off for no reason, didn’t I? Cyril: But i just assumed that if anything bad happened… Archer: No, do not say the Chekhov gun, Cyril. That, sir, is a facile argument. Woodhouse: **And also woefully esoteric.** God I love Archer. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/42 "2014-01-03T15:59:31Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Bond is the example I came in to mention to. The films almost always have a scene with Q where Bond’s gadgets are introduced, and the audience knows that each gadget will come into play later in the film. Q never introduces an extraneous gadget. I’ve read that in most Bond movies they film Q introducing a lot more gadgets to 007 then you see in the theatre. After filming is done and it’s in editing, some sequences where 007 uses a particular gadget are cut, so they edit out the Q scenes also. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/43 "2014-01-03T17:30:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If I get it right, the complaint here is about the lack of “throwaway” detail. If the script or story has any detail, then that detail has to be a functional, even pivotal, plot element. > > And I agree with the complaint. Throwaway detail adds richness. If a guy walks down the street eating ice cream…maybe that’s just something that happened that day, and the ice cream doesn’t have to show up later to put out a fire or freeze someone’s electronics or distract the guard-dog or whatever. > > Writing that is so tightly focussed that it can’t accomodate throwaway detail is denying the viewer/reader real-world verisimilitude. In the real world, lots of things go by with no direct “plot” consequences. > > Why not, once in a while, have a police or fire siren go down the street outside the apartment building…and NOT lead to a police raid or a building fire? Why not show a married couple having a spat that DOESN’T lead to an important plot revelation? > > I very much dislike writing that is so taut, it has no room for throwaway. In other words, you disagree with Chekhov, in the quote after which Chekhov’s gun is named: [QUOTE=Anton Chekhov] Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there. [/QUOTE] I guess they’re just two different philosophies to constructing fiction. “Chekhov’s approach” does seem to be standard in computer adventure games: if there is an object that can be picked up and added to your inventory, it **will** be used for something. Often, for only one specific thing. Once you’ve cut something with that knife you found, it disappears, and if you ever need to cut something else you’ll have to find a different knife. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with this approach, but I can’t think of any games that take the opposite approach, where you never know what will be useful and what won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/44 "2014-01-03T17:34:27Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > IMHO, Checkiov’s Gun and foreshadowing are of course related. CG is a method sometimes used to foreshadow; it’s just one way of doing it, usually without the audience knowing that’s what you’re doing. It also normally refers to an object, skill, character, or something specific versus a whole scene. > > Easter Eggs are hidden, difficult to find, and sometimes have nothing to do with the story/game. > > That’s just my BS though. I agree. Easter Eggs are extraneous and throwaway, which makes them the exact opposite of Chekhov’s Gun. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/45 "2014-01-03T18:06:17Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If I get it right, the complaint here is about the lack of “throwaway” detail. If the script or story has any detail, then that detail has to be a functional, even pivotal, plot element. I don’t know if anyone is complaining. I love Chekhovs, it’s a good way to create a sense of continuity through a work. But in an odd way the more I notice them the more manipulated I feel after the final reveal. Like a gold star for paying attention. > [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > How about Breaking Bad, where the arms dealer in the semi trailer gives the Twins a sample bullet, which later falls out of one of their pockets and is used by Hank for a dramatic head shot. The ricin would be King Chekhov of that series. I wonder if they intended it to not be used until the finale, or they just kept putting it off because they couldn’t think of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/46 "2014-01-03T23:08:17Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > In other words, you disagree with Chekhov, in the quote after which Chekhov’s gun is named: > > > [@](#): > > > > Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there. > > I guess they’re just two different philosophies to constructing fiction. . . . Well, yeah, I disagree with it, at least somewhat. Some throwaway, some richness, is, in my opinion, not only acceptable, but good. It provides depth and verisimilitude. Also, as noted above, when writers adhere too closely to this rule, you get painfully predictable story-lines and events. > [@](#): > > Roger Ebert claimed that “Whenever a movie character is a gymnast, sooner or later, she will encounter a bar”. This, in my opinion, is following Chekov’s advice too far, too slavishly. It short-cuts the creative aspect of writing and makes it too mechanistic. Instead of a story that mimics reality, it turns it into an old-fashioned “Infocom” adventure game. “You see a birdcage.” “Pick it up.” Of course you pick it up! You know you’re going to see a bird sometime soon and will need the cage! Movies shouldn’t be as one-dimensional as 1970’s adventure games! ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/47 "2014-01-04T00:33:26Z")
> [@Dr\_Doom](#): > > I think this would be a great example of the Easter Egg, wouldn’t it? I wouldn’t think so. If Frank Cross (in Scrooged) or Gwen DeMarco (Galaxy Quest) were seen with a bag of Stay Puft Marshmallows, that would be an easter egg. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/48 "2014-01-04T00:35:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > “Chekhov’s approach” does seem to be standard in computer adventure games: if there is an object that can be picked up and added to your inventory, it **will** be used for something. Often, for only one specific thing. Once you’ve cut something with that knife you found, it disappears, and if you ever need to cut something else you’ll have to find a different knife. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with this approach, but I can’t think of any games that take the opposite approach, where you never know what will be useful and what won’t. Elder Scrolls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a use for calipers. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/49 "2014-01-05T11:50:32Z")
The television show “Sea Hunt” used this in just about every episode. At the beginning of the show Mike Nelson (Lloyd Bridges) would be learning or using something that you _ **knew** _ would turn up later in the show. Example: One episode began with Mike testing an underwater revolver. Then Mike goes on another assignment, eventually being pursued by some underwater villains. And then _ **suddenly** _, Mike remembers about the underwater revolver that he was previously testing (but still on his tool belt), and he’s able to defend himself and keep the world safe for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736/50 "2014-01-05T13:58:45Z")
I was going to use Frederick Forsythe as an example but I guess he doesn’t follow Checkov’s philosophy at all. Instead of trimming down the plot to just the essentials he loads the books with details and you don’t know what is going to be the big important piece. At the reveal I would find myself flipping back 300 pages to see he really did mention a doctor’s appointment in chapter 1. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chekhovs-gun-in-your-favourite-movies/677736.md?page=2)