Talk:MacGuffin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cloverfield

Ok, so the Cloverfield Monster is clearly the largest McGuffin in the history of cinema. It's merely a plot driver for a disaster movie, not the focus of a monster movie. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.34.234 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference, please? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, be reasonable, now. We don't need a reference for that, we're intelligent people (hopefully), we can observe things and make conclusions. If something logically seems to be a MacGuffin, that's good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 February 2008

Sez you. Around here, we like to get outside confirmation of "facts", even if they "logically seem" to be true. We're funny that way. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate the layout of the current article, with its strong opinion that a contributor knows more about what a Macguffin is than Lucas and Ebert, referenced verifiability is the only way to keep the article from becoming fancruft, like the list of cliffhanger endings. MMetro (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I figured I'd bring it here since there is no video game section yet.

The whole point of these two games is to find Macguffins. The player finds items which don't affect the game or plot in any way, but are permitted to advance to the next portion of the game when they have an arbetrary number of them. I'm not sure if it can be cited because it's such a fundamental mechanic in these games. Would there be a problem if this was added? Hewinsj (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are severe problems. First, you need a reference. Second, dealing with a large number of MacGuffins often means that you're not dealing with MacGuffins, but plot coupons. It's not like Bowser cares that you have them. MMetro (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that's a new term for me. Would it help at all to make the plot cupons article a sub-section of this article? It seems like it's just a pluralized term for the same thing. Hewinsj (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't help as plot coupons are already a separate article. Macguffin is a Hitchcock term, and it's almost specific to film theory. I had never heard of a MacGuffin until I took American Film. Elements may be co-opted for other media, but the consensus is that with citations readily available on the subject, the article should rely on verifiable info, rather than allow itself to degenerate into something less than encyclopedic (see List of cliffhanger endings).Remember, movie reviewer Roger Ebert mentioned our article in a review, so there's a bit of pride at stake. MMetro (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, just asking. I didn't mean to step on your toes, I just like to ask questions to see if there may (or in this case may not) be a better way of doing things.

I do notice that both subjects are listed under a common heading in the article for plot devices, which may be a better place a discussion of a generic plot advancing device, while the history and background of the individual terms can be expanded on in their own separate articles, as is already the case. Thanks for the discussion. Hewinsj (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Naw, you ain't stepping on MY toes. I'm just trying to save you from ILike2BeAnonymous, who will revert anything that is uncited. I can't find my Linda Seger Making a Good Script Great, so that I can at least HOPE to make some major revisions myself. If you find it at a library or bookstore, check it out. As for literary devices and videogames, my brother-in-law has a textbook in game design that might be a source for that. The important thing is, do your research so that your edits will be as strong and constructive as possible. Leaving great sources for others to continue research is how these articles become better. MMetro (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I would like to see this article merged with Plot device. The two concepts are so similar as to be indistinguishable. In fact from the definitions in the articles I can't see a difference at all. Any objections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. A MacGuffin is one example of a plot device, but not the only example. For instance, the Deux ex Machina is another, much different from a MacGuffin.Friendly Person (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly object. This is a specific plot device, specific to film, and if others could adhere to citing references, that would become readily apparent. MMetro (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say that a MacGuffin is a major example of a plot device - yes there are others, but it's a mjor one. In fact we have a section called that at plot device - meant that this article should be merged into that section. The plot device article is not too long and we could make one reasonable sized article out of it.

Incidentally, while the term MacGuffin is usually applied to film the concept and its equivalent terms is applied in all sorts of media. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Up Doc

From just reading the article, it seems immediately apparent to me that the movie What's Up Doc with Barbra Streisand and Ryan O'Niel has four MacGuffins - the four identical traveling cases with four different contents (secret papers, coed's college stuff, rich lady's jewelry, and musicologist's tambula rocks.) While there are complexities in the plot caused by the contents being different, everybody is chasing after these four items, and no one ever really gets to use any of them. We do get some details from time to time about some of the contents, for instance in the criminal's hideout we see the much-vaunted rocks plainly for a few seconds, and one of them appears to be nothing more than a piece of concrete. It almost seems like the stories of the contents are another whole story of which we only get a glimpse now and then. I'll add this after 3 months if there's no objection.Friendly Person (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I Like to be Anonymous will remove anything that is listed without citation, although what happened to the original statement saying that uncited references will be removed, I have no idea. I would look for more information on the movie to find some mention of MacGuffins-- if you are correct, there will be another source confirming this. It also seems that each bag would be MacGuffin of a separate subplot, or why is one person after all four bags? Please do your research before considering adding the info. MMetro (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with adding examples of things (and this applies to any popular concept) is that there are quite literally thousands of them. I think the thing to do here is not say "is this an example of a MacGuffin" but "is this the best possible example of a MacGuffin that we could give, better than all the others". Idealogically I'm not sure that the traveling cases count as four MacGuffins rather than one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples

As seems normal on Wikipedia, the "Examples" section is growing and growing as everyone adds their own favourite examples of this frequently-used plot device. Since there seems to be no limit on how big it might grow I propose one of two solutions.

1. Impose a hard limit of some number of examples in each section and delete anything over that
2. Remove the section entirely.

Any preferences? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever made two columns did the right thing, but films really deserves to be split between two columns, followed by examples of the others. I like having the references available for others to develop the article. Perhaps a List of MacGuffins article would siphon off the cruft, much like it did for the cliffhanger entry. MMetro (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted the example I added last week, namely both the eponymous Car and the Continuum Transfunctioner from "Dude Where's my Car." The example was short, factual and well-cited and I'm actually pretty peeved that someone took it upon themselves to delete what I thought was a great and highly relevant example, especially when I question the validity of several of the pre-existing ones. If there's to be a cap on examples that's fine, and I don't want to get in an adding/deleting war with the editor in question, but is there anywhere I can appeal this deletion? USER: RitzWolf 13:35 29 September 2008

You can't cite a wiki. And you cited the wrong article for your other cite. MMetro (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones movies should be removed as examples of MacGuffins

The MacGuffin by definition is the object that at least starts off the plot but is of little consequence to the action of the movie in and of itself. It is the characters desire to get the to object first that provides the motivation. Why they want to get it or what it is is secondary to the character's methods of getting to it.

Therefore, since the object in all four INDIANA JONES movies (the Lost Ark, the Stones, the Holy Grail, the Crystal skull) play a crucial role in the finale of each movie, they are not MacGuffins.

It is the passiveness or inconsequentiality of the central object that makes it a MacGuffin. If it somehow interacts with the characters or becomes more significantly important to the plot it ceases to be a MacGuffin.

The Lost Ark in RAIDERS could be interpreted as an actual character as opposed to just the central object.

Drjimmyandmrjim (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your feelings and "interpretation" out of this, per WP:NOR. The last film provided the references that the article needed. End of story. MMetro (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You weren't harsh, Drjimmyandmrjim. I was. I'm sorry. I put your comments back, and kept myself looking like a jerk. Anyway, references seem to be the thing that keeps the article encyclopedic rather than contributed opinion, even though it still feels like it's getting out of hand. The Post-Hitchcock section seems to incorporate a wider definition, and does so in a manner that incorporates differences rather than appearing to argue about what is and isn't a MacGuffin. That is ultimately up to the reader to decide. I just wish they didn't feel that they had to come up with more examples.

BTW, it's about time to start a new archive. How does someone do that? MMetro (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kiss Me Deadly

Somehow, I thought Kiss Me Deadly would be the first and most obvious instance of the use of a MacGuffin in film. Certainly if later films like Pulp Fiction which seem to be explicitly referencing Kiss Me Deadly appear here, I would imagine to see it here too... or am I the only one who immediately thinks of that film when the word "MacGuffin" pops up? zadignose (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen it or forgot I did. Have a reference? MMetro (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

From the text of the article at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/arts/stories/2008/05/18/1_MACGUFFIN.ART_ART_05-18-08_E1_VHA6DIF.html:

"Viewers are sometimes teased with the purported awesome properties of a MacGuffin whose identity is never revealed. In the 1955 film of Mickey Spillane's Kiss Me Deadly, the center of attention is a valise containing some hot, glowing material that turns out to have destructive capabilities."

"The glowing contents were borrowed by Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Fiction, in which the hit men, played by Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, are sent by their boss to recover a similar case. Twice the case is opened, and characters stare in awe at the glowing contents, but the audience never sees it or is told what it is."

And here's an article that eventually turns into a political analogy, but it starts with a good definition and explanation of the history of the MacGuffin in cinema, and refers to both Pulp Fiction and Repo Man as homages to the glowing briefcase in Kiss Me Deadly http://subject-barred.blogspot.com/2006/01/return-of-macguffin-iran-and-nuclear.html:

"Just as Hitchcock's films influenced later filmmaking, the MacGuffin also diffused in name, and in concept, into popular culture. For instance, the briefcase in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a MacGuffin (and a homage to Kiss Me Deadly). The contents are never shown; that section of the plot is not about the briefcase so much as what happens because of it. A similar homage is the surreal, glowing car trunk in Alex Cox's Repo Man." zadignose (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it then, but I wouldn't use the cite to remove already cited information. What we have with Lucas is a post-Hitchcock disagreement of the definition, and we should leave to the reader to decide. MMetro (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood zadignose (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

comic books

I tried it add Y: The Last Man to the list of MacGuffins in comic books, but it kept showing up under the list of films. I'm sorry I'm not a terribly proficient wikipedia editor. Also, I can find a source for it, if that is absolutely required, but I think some of the editors on this article have goen a little citation crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.119.227 (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is that there MUST be a citation, or the article will turn into a cruft list. You're talking about adding a comic book example to a film term. Please be sure you know what you're talking about before you disparage other editors. MMetro (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dead Man's Chest

Yes, I know much of the Talk page here is taken up with people protesting that the bit of kit or gadgetry mentioned in their own particular favourite film shouldn't be considered a McGuffin (on the apparent assumption that 'McGuffin' is a derogatory term) - but I have to take issue with the statement that the chest in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is a McGuffin. The chest contains (or at times is merely thought to contain) the heart of Davy Jones, the chief villain of the second movie, and represents the means by which he can be controlled. It therefore represents a way out of trouble for Jack in the second film, and the reason Jones and the Flying Dutchman are operating under the command of the East India Company in the third. It also - without wanting to inflict too many spoilers - has a significant role to play in determining the fate of one of the main characters at the end of the third film.

More than all that, the function of the heart (and therefore the chest it's kept in) is explored and explained in detail during the two sequel movies, so we not only know it's important but we know why. Of course I accept that the actual explanation for how it does what it does is left to the imagination. A McGuffin, as I understand it, is something that we're told is important and we accept is important for the sake of the story without needing to know why it is. Therefore I suggest that the "Dead Man's Chest" isn't a McGuffin but a plot element. - 78.86.81.52 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's properly cited, and ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the McGuffin has been properly explained or not. It is what it is. MMetro (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, not because it is incorrect but because we already have far too many examples in the section. Can I suggest that we set a top limit of how many examples we have there - five or ten might be good limits. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What we will probably need to do is make the list a separate article. Whether or not citation would continue to be required would be up for consensus, but people will continue to add examples (regardless of merit), and continue to debate the examples, so there needs to be some way of running things. I noticed the IP removed some of the commentary explaining the rules, so I will revert to an earlier example containing the POTC ref. That way we have as much information as possible to make a proper decision. It's also time for another talk archive. MMetro (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The perfect example of McGuffin...

...for which I have no reference at all, sadly. The TV Set in Beavis and Butthead do America is a great example of a proper McGuffin: they start their trip searching for the TV set that's stolen at the beginning of the movie, then come up with the idea of gaining some cash to buy a new one, spend two hours of footage between spies, criminals and the FBI and - after being decorated by the President of the US (but, of course, given no money) - they finally find their old TV set in their neighborhood.

Don't know how it works, see if you can slop it in according to the guidelines, otherwise...

P.s.: My English sucks and it's late night here, I'm far too tired to check the above shebang for errors, sorry. Goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.33.51 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And wouldn't the 2.21 gw charge in Back To The Future be another good example?

Well, I guess so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.33.51 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chevy Malibu in Repo Man

Under the Examples section under films it has "The mysterious, dangerous contents in the trunk of the 1964 Chevrolet Malibu in Repo Man" listed as the MacGuffin in the film. I would argue that the Malibu itself is the MacGuffin, as most of the characters actually had no idea that the trunk had anything of interest in it at all. AltrEgo2001 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference says it's the contents. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

High Anxiety

The Mel Brooks movie "High Anxiety", which parodies many Hitchcock films, makes a reference to MacGuffin.

When Richard H. Thorndyke (Mel Brooks) arrives in San Francisco Hyatt Regency hotel to attend the American Psychiatric Convention, he finds his room is on the 17th floor, despite having secured a reservation for a room on the 2nd floor. He's afraid of heights, and when he asks what happened to his original room, the desk clerk informs him that a Mr. MacGuffin called and requested the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.231.221 (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comported to the definition of MacGuffin

The Princeton's wordnet defines the term "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot". A MacGuffin certainly isn't always "not explained", though it sometimes it clearly escapes any definition (such as the extreme case of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction (film)).

Moreover, comporting with that definition, countless examples exist (some in the article) of the specifics of a MacGuffin being explained in excruciating detail, such as the battle plans for the Death Star in Star Wars, for which we not only saw an extended explanatory film within the middle of the film, but those details were the center of the entire climactic ending 15 minutes or so of the movie. In fact, in that instance, the MacGuffin's details were actually explained in more specificity than the motivation of any character in the movie. The Ark of the Covenant in the first Raiders of the Lost Ark is another example, where it was described, with its vague nature only temporary to keep the viewer's attention until the big reveal at the end, when its supernatural power turned out to be very real and took the central role of slaying (in gory detail) the entire Nazi force, saving the characters at the end of the movie.

The point being that the definition is broad. While all MacGuffins spark motivation from usually conflicting characters throughout a film, they can go from entirely unexplained passive objects to extensively detailed elements that later themselves act as a main action force in a film.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the wordnet definition might actually be a little TOO broad. "A plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot" could literally apply to anything in a film. Almost everything in every movie would be a MacGuffin. Surely there must be some plot elements that catch the viewers' attention or drive the plot that aren't MacGuffins?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines MacGuffin as "an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance." I feel that's closer to the generally accepted meaning of the word. The phrase "usually lacking intrinsic importance" does tilt it a little more towards the Hitchcock meaning, but I think "usually lacking intrinsic importance" still leaves room for the Lucas interpretation as well.

216.115.60.247 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

R2-D2?

I agree the definition is too broad. As I see it the most central element in the plot of New Hope is not really R2-D2, but the technical drawings R2-D2 happens to be holding. However, the nature of those drawings is what is important in the end, so they are not lacking intrinsic importance. If we want a character lacking intrinsic importance, we should look at Leia, who after giving the technical drawings to R2-D2 and asking it to deliver help in the beginning, doesn't do anything important besides being an object, as far as I recall. If it's not a requirement that a MacGuffin has to lack intrinsic importance it seems like almost anything, that isn't merely a part of the scenery, is a MacGuffin. If a MacGuffin needs to have a lasting presence and effect, that excludes some things, but for example all major characters would still be MacGuffins as they keep the plot moving forward. – Lakefall (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Resolved

 – No reliable sources provided for including this as an example.

Just mentioning that the treasure could be considered a McGuffin. It drives the characters, but has no lasting value in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihthasu (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify. A M[a][c]Guffin is something the details of which are unknown, but which is highly valued in one or more senses by the protagonist (and usually by other characters). Because the exact nature of this character-motivating "whatever" is not itself integral to the plot and often unclear to the audience, it can be replaced by virtually anything else with the same plot-centric properties. A treasure of gold to be sifted from a mountain river is not an unknown "widget", but something of value clearly already understood by the audience. Its value is intrinsic and not plot-dependent. By contrast, a red statuette might be the key to finding Atlantis but otherwise only be an ugly thing made of worthless clay, or a briefcase might contain the plans to a doomsday device, but otherwise just be a box with papers in it, while gold is gold and always has value in human societies. The treasure of the Sierra Madre cannot be readily replaced in the narrative; the story in this case would make no sense if the gold ore to be mined were suddenly replaced with a briefcase of papers or a red statuette - the entire plot would fall apart. By contrast, the magic stones acting as MacGuffins in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom, along with the minor plot point behind them (their magic powers allow native villages to thrive), could be replaced with just about anything, yet have virtually no effect on the plot, e.g. a sapphire necklace imbued with evil powers that allowed Pankot palace to enslave the region, or whatever. Even nothing at all - the stones in that film were a secondary MacGuffin, the missing children being the main one. And they are in fact a McGuffin, as they could have been livestock, or all the money of the villages, or the whole year's food supply, or the womenfolk, or whatever - "something important" that Indy had to go save from Pankot to return to the villagers who begged his help. There is no corresponding MacGuffin in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reorganizing the referenced list

Stale

 – No action on this proposal in over 3 years; remains stable with list of examples.

It seems that having the list tempts folks into thinking they can just add cruft, except the referenced examples give us our best chance at improving the article. Scholastic discussions on MacGuffins are few and far between. I've heard enough in film classes, but it's lucky enough when a screenwriting text even mentions them.

I propose incorporating the list into the article text in stages. Hopefully the paragraphs will discourage adding more things willy-nilly.

It's easiest to start with non-film examples. Film examples should be broken down into several sections, chronologically. It cannot be stressed enough that new information needs to have references to be included. Yes, there may be better examples, but adding them without references could violate Wikipedia's No Original Research policy.

I think that the article text may look awkward during this transition, perhaps initiating edit wars. That's been the source of my reluctance to change the consensus. But if we have a consensus NOT to delete the references that we already have, we will have a better article when we are finished.

As of this writing we have 13 properly referenced films, and 2 examples each in TV and literature. This ref, <http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare/archives/2008/06/the_tribal_mind_73.html>, seems a bit misplaced, since it's being used to justify Lemony Snickets (added in the comments), but the ref itself appears very useful.

MMetro (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Resolved

 – A reliable source was provided, so the anon-deleted material has been restored.

An anon IP removed this:

According to film historian Kalton C. Lahue in his book Bound and Gagged (a history of silent film serials), the actress Pearl White used the term "weenie" to identify whatever physical object (a roll of film, a rare coin, expensive diamonds) impelled the villains and virtuous characters to pursue each other through the convoluted plots of The Perils of Pauline and the other silent serials in which White starred.

but if the source is valid, the info might be worth reintegrating. However, because the actual term is sourced to Hitchcock, he should be mentioned first, with this mention being an edited aside. MMetro (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)