Meaning?: Brick Joke

Well, my idea was to redefine both tropes so that Brick Joke matches its usage and Chekhov's Gag gets a clear distinction that makes it better match the naming convention set by Chekhov's Skill and Chekhov's Lecture.

Because frankly, the misused version of Brick Joke is just a way better trope than the current official definition. I'd rather keep the name and preserve the usage it's getting now than change it and end up with something nearly indistinct from a plain old Chekhov's Gun.

So yeah.

• Chekhov's Gag: The joke comes when the gun is placed on the mantelpiece in the first act.
• Brick Joke: The joke comes when the gun is fired in the third act.

edited 5th Dec '10 11:12:36 AM by troacctid

The difference between Chekhov's Gun, Chekhov's Boomerang, and Brick Joke has always been a lot more easily portrayed in examples than words. Likely because they are, while distinct in my opinion, extremely similar in concept regardless.

• Chekhov's Gun: Joe is shown hiding a gun early on in the plot. Later, when the heroes are trapped and he's the only one still armed, he pulls it out and shoots the Big Bad.
• Chekhov's Boomerang: Joe is shown hiding a gun early on in the plot. Later, when the heroes are trapped and he's the only one still armed, he pulls it out and tries to shoot the Big Bad. He seemingly wastes the whole clip, but hangs onto the gun anyway. Much later, when the Big Bad returns and has Joe cornered, Joe reveals the gun actually has One Bullet Left, and uses it to shoot him.
• Brick Joke: Joe is shown hiding a gun early on in the plot. Later, when the heroes are trapped and he's the only one still armed, he pulls it out and tries to shoot the Big Bad. The Big Bad runs, saving everyone, but still manages to get away, and Joe tosses the now empty gun aside, his attempt to kill the bad guy seemingly for naught. Cue rest of the movie. Much, much later, when the heroes go to attack the Big Bad's stronghold, it's revealed that one of Joe's stray bullets back in the first confrontation hit him, and he's actually dying.

edited 5th Dec '10 4:15:23 PM by KnownUnknown

when i first read that last explanation, Known Unknown, i thought the difference was mainly the time— Brick Joke taking more time to come back than Chekhov's Boomerang, which i thought was a very vague distinction. then i read it again, and i think i'm starting to see a suitable distinction. well, kind of. i'm still dissecting it.

if i'm getting this right, the difference can lay in two variables: the importance of the payoff, or the way it pays off. so, basically:

• Chekhov's Gun: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, it pays off in an important way.
• Chekhov's Boomerang: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, the set up is revealed to be important, but it doesn't pay off. it's set up again, and then it finally pays off.
• Brick Joke: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, the set up is revealed to be important, but it seems like it doesn't pay off. it's not set up again, but even later on it's revealed that it did pay off after all.

OR:

• Chekhov's Gun: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, it pays off in an important way.
• Chekhov's Boomerang: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, it pays off in an important way, and it seems they're done with that. but even later on, it pays off again in the exact same way, because the set up was still there.
• Brick Joke: a situation is set up in a way that seems unimportant. later on, it pays off in an important way, and it seems they're done with that. but even later on, it pays off again but in a different way, because the first pay-off changed the circumstances of the set up.

and Chekhov's Gag would be the same as Chekhov's Gun, but with jokes. does that sound right at all?

i'm partial to the second differentiation myself (noticing whether the event reoccurs in the exact same way or in a totally different way). as far as the name goes, i do think it's confusing. would the original brick joke still count as a Brick Joke if it's a joke? i'm not sure it fits in Chekhov's Gag since the brick does reoccur.

I like troacctid's distinction. A Chekhov's Gag is when a joke is made that appears to be a throw-away gag, but becomes important later; a Brick Joke is something happens that appears to be a non sequitor at the time, but the punch line shows up later.

Looks like those new to this site will continue to be confused then.

Chekhov's Boomerang is just a Chekhov's Gun that gets fired more than once. Pretty simple.

I like my definition better.

Brick Joke's name is fine I think the problem is it's name is confusing when it can also be applied to things that aren't joke.

• Brick Joke: An unimportant element that later shows back up for humour or irony.
• 'Chekhov's Gag: A joke that is made, forgotten and shows back up for another joke.
• Chekhov's Gun: An element that doesn't seem to have significance but foreshadows and appears later but is plot significant when it reappears.
• Chekhov's Boomerang: A Chekhov's Gun that is plot significant again.
• Call-Back: An event is referenced that didn't even happen in the story's timeline (wasn't even narrated prior to being referenced).

Looking at Brick Joke's examples some can be confusing because they belong in one of the above Chekhov's X instead of Brick Joke. Maybe a split off from Brick Joke for a Brick Joke not even meant to be ironically or remotely funny should be made.

edited 6th Dec '10 12:10:58 PM by AymNaija

Wow, -2 for rename?

I hope this means "we can just redefine it and save a lot of trouble" and NOT "it's perfectly fine just the way it is," because I think it's pretty clear it's NOT.

^^ The major distinction between Brick Joke and Chekhov's Gag is that Brick Joke isn't primarily about irony or humor.

Can we add "Redefine" to the crowner?

There is no consensus to rename or not. I say that is barking up the wrong tree. Back to the drawing board (but not really, redefine/other action is already being discussed), a simple rename seems off the table.

We will make a page action crowner assuming this does end in the negative, where the various redefinitions can be proposed

Bump

So it's not getting rename, but something still needs to be done. It being sent to TRS so many times has to stop eventually.

I still like my idea best.

Make a new crowner then?

Blank Page Action crowner made.

Could someone who fully issues please expand the crowner to state in detail which definition to change to, to match usage?

(We don't want to agree to match usage only to find we don't agree on what the usage is and have to run another crowner.)

Is it this one? Brick Joke: An unimportant element that later shows back up for humour or irony.

edited 13th Jan '11 6:04:12 PM by Camacan

Oops, Face Palm. Uh, well, I'll just Bait & Switch it to my plan from this post, since that's what I was thinking when I wrote it? I guess?

Okay, how the hell did I miss this thread? Am I reading this right? As it stands now, Brick Joke isn't about humor? All those times I thought people were misusing Brick Joke, they weren't? The original Brick Joke is one of my favorite jokes, and I trot it out whenever I'm in a group telling jokes.

Bump.

I agree with BlackWolfe. It's utterly ludicrous that the trope Brick Joke is not about humor.

Oh, yay, lets completely redefine three distinct tropes with actual substance over a minor naming issue. Whee!

Wasn't there an old crowner for this, or a discussion or something where we decided not to do that.

The fact there's a new discussion now means the problem wasn't solved last time around.

More accurately, it means that someone or someones believe that the problem wasn't resolved adequately the first time around, and wishes for discussion to continue until they get a result they prefer.

edited 26th Jan '11 12:58:58 AM by KnownUnknown

Nothing was even attempted to resolve ever. There's been 4 TRS threads in about a year by 4 different people going "WTF is this trope and how is this different from Chekovs Gag" Each time the threads die out. So how about trying to do something before we reach double digits in the number of TRS threads this single article can have

edited 26th Jan '11 1:02:42 AM by Ghilz