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.
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.
In other words, you disagree with Chekhov, in the quote after which Chekhov’s gun is named:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.