Total posts:  2 3 4 5 6
I regularly see people use it as "A Chekhov's Gunman, introduced in blink-and-you-miss-it manner, episodes ahead of their actual involvement". Even page description says that trope is misused. However it is exactly what name suggests. It says nothing about adaptation, it says about cameo of an early bird. I think such counter-intuitive name should be changed.
Dragon WriterPrevious TRS discussion (same problem, no resolution)
World's Toughest MilkmanIf misuse can be shown, I'd support renaming (and possibly making the current name a redirect to Chekhov's Gunman, if that really is how it's being misused, as the earlier discussion suggested). However, we really need to establish that there is a problem, and quantify it, before doing anything drastic. The previous discussion seems to have skipped that step. Volunteers for a wick check?
"Existential Despair" is an oxymoron.
"However it is exactly what name suggests. It says nothing about adaptation, it says about cameo of an early bird. I think such counter-intuitive name should be changed." What is this paragraph trying to say? It contradicts both itself and the article.
Misuse examples: I just found it on Phineas and Ferb "The Fireside Girls" part. I also recently removed one from Gravity Falls - related page, but I forgot which one. It's also somewhere on Avatar: The Last Airbender page in relation to Azula appearance in the opening.
Mustelidae = awesomeNot a serious issue.
Windmill, windmill for the land / Is everybody in?
I just clicked on a few random wicks and checked them, and I think they were all wrong. A more thorough check might be needed, but i see an issue.
Dragon WriterPrevious thread saw some agreement that there is misuse, but the problem is we need numbers. Pick a range and manually review what you find. (Sorted by context - i.e. correct/unknown/misuse - is preferable since it makes the ratio easy to see)
Shouldn't this be simple? Just automatically mark any work without any adaptations as wrong, and simply look at the ones that do?
Dragon WriterIf I may fetch the "the" range of the alphabet - which is a total of 105 links:
Concern of misuse
Specifically misuse for Chekhov's Gun / man
Not my best check, but that was a lot more pages than I was expecting and I decided to pack it in early (documenting a wick check takes far too damned long as it is).
edited 18th Jul '12 10:06:21 AM by Stratadrake
I will note that all eight or so America's Next Top Model examples must be wrong. :)
Mustelidae = awesomeBump. Is this stale?
Windmill, windmill for the land / Is everybody in?
Oh, this is still here. Rename?
nobody knowsTo be honest, I kind of think Early-Bird Cameo makes a better name for 'character makes appearances well before they are properly introduced or made important' than Chekhov's Gunman does, which seems like it may contribute to the problem. Chekhov's Gunman isn't even a proper parallel to Chekhov's Gun - if it were, it would be something more like 'a minor side character is introduced and, much later, turns out to play a role in resolving the main plot', whereas Early-Bird Cameo is more along the lines of 'a character makes appearances well before they are properly introduced'.
Dragon Writer^ The distinction being that an Early-Bird Cameo still does not (necessarily) become important to the main plot in the way that Chekhov's Gunman does.
even older skoolTo clarify the slightly vague trope description, let's consider the following examples: Jabba's appearance in the 1997 remastered edition of Episode IV: counts (because in the original releases Jabba is mentioned but not seen until later) Obi Wan Kenobi in Episodes I, II and III: counts (along with Yoda, the droids, and everything else that counts as a "character" and appears in both the original and prequel trilogies, because ) The [[Manga/Bleach Bleach]] example in which Shinji Hirako appears on a cover art page long before being introduced as a character: doesn't count (because it's just a cover art page and not an "appearance", and anyway it's talking about the original form of the work and not any sort of adaptation) The Naboo celebration scene added to the 2004 edition of Star Wars Episode VI: This one is really complicated and hinges on whether or not that the word "chronolically" in the trope description applies solely to the setting's internal chronology. By this interpretation, Naboo and Gungans and such elements were "first introduced" in the prequels, set years earlier, so it doesn't count. But since the Episode VI itself was released before the Gungans' introduction, their appearance in Episode VI is "chronologically earlier" in terms of real-world time. Furthermore, how does this trope apply to reboots? When the Professor appears in X-Men: First Class, that seems like it should count as an example, because it's "chronologically earlier" than his "initial" appearance in both the original format and the films' chronology (which is presumably what's being used, to the extent that anything is considered canonical in that mess). But when Bane appears in The Dark Knight Rises, it probably shouldn't count as an example, because Bane hadn't yet appeared at all in the Dark Knight chronology, which is presumably more important than the comics' internal chronology, and in any case the two are discontiguous so even if the Dark Knight were explicitly set in a given year and Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1 were set in a later year (somehow) it probably wouldn't count because the two of them "aren't the same Bane" or something. And let's not forget to mention the ultimate extension of this confusion: Old Spock, whose appearance manages to simultaneously occur several years before his introduction (in the "source" work) and some years after his first scene in this work despite having canonically experienced the events depicted in both some hundred years prior.
I don't think the issue is so much the definition as it's keep getting misued used as Chekhov's Gunman.
nobody knowsExactly - or half, at least, I guess. A Chekhov's Gunman has a direct role in resolving the plot. The Early-Bird Cameo need not. The other half is that a cameo is, by definition, an almost blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment, a type of Meaningful Background Event, while a Chekhov's Gunman arguably has to be given at least some kind of special attention by the narrative, like its namesake Chekhov's Gun. For examples:
edited 2nd Nov '12 8:05:51 AM by Noaqiyeum
...while a Chekhov's Gunman arguably has to be given at least some kind of special attention by the narrative, like its namesake Chekhov's Gun.That detail tends to be easily missed. Just because something is visible to the audience doesn't necessarily qualify it as a Chekhov's Gun - in many cases the detail is noticed in-universe then dismissed because it's not important at the time.
nobody knowsActually, being brought to the audience's attention is the important part - if you take special time to make sure your audience knows there's a gun on the mantlepiece in Act One, you should fire it in Act Three or at least do something with it eventually. It's just that 'being visible to the audience if they're paying attention' is not at all the same as 'being brought to their attention'. The first is a cameo and the second is foreshadowing.
Dragon WriterThe irony is that the Trope Namer for a Chekhov's Gun concerns any element included in production (e.g. putting a loaded gun on the set), whether it's noted in-universe or not. That automatically lends a Chekhov's Gun to a "hey, look, you can see this here!" sort of mentality....
nobody knowsI think that's why I lean against making a distinction based on in- and out-of-universe, in favour of a distinction based on 'cameo' versus 'focus'.
I think we need to rename the page to something like Early Bird Adaptation Cameo or Appeared Earlier In The Adaptation, and put all Type 2 examples into Production Foreshadowing.
edited 6th Jan '13 4:23:59 PM by universalperson
Type Labels Are Not Examples is a really annoying problem. I guess Early Bird Adaptation Cameo could work...
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.