A metaphor for a dramatic principle concerning over-simplicity and sensationalism. It suggests that if one shows an in-flight helicopter on screen in the first act of a blockbuster motion picture, it should be blown up in a later act for no other purpose other than the visual effect eye-candy thereof; otherwise, the helicopter should not be shown in the first place. While the principle was never explicitly articulated by American cinematographer Michael Bay, it is well documented in various forms in most of his directed full-feature films. Namely, Bay's helicopter is the exact opposite of Chekhov's gun.
It is important to note that, much like the opposite literary device of Chekhov's gun, Bay's helicopter does not limit itself to an actual helicopter. We might find the principle exercised in conspicuously placed sunglasses, 360* action shots, Megan Fox, and large offshore prisons in the San Francisco Bay area.
See also: Weiner's window
It is important to note that, much like the opposite literary device of Chekhov's gun, Bay's helicopter does not limit itself to an actual helicopter. We might find the principle exercised in conspicuously placed sunglasses, 360* action shots, Megan Fox, and large offshore prisons in the San Francisco Bay area.
See also: Weiner's window
Movie Critic 1: "The appearance of numerous rotary flying devices in Bad Boys II serve no dramatic purpose, other than giving me an action hardon."
Movie Critic 2: "Indeed, I can say the exact same thing about the character of Mikaela in Transformers 2."
Movie Critic 1: "It seems to me that we've experienced Bay's helicopter. That is, one must not put a scene in a movie if no one is thinking of blowing shit up in it later."
Movie Critic 2: "Indeed, I can say the exact same thing about the character of Mikaela in Transformers 2."
Movie Critic 1: "It seems to me that we've experienced Bay's helicopter. That is, one must not put a scene in a movie if no one is thinking of blowing shit up in it later."
by djwellies November 6, 2012