Talk:MacGuffin/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about MacGuffin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Death Star plans in Star Wars not a MacGuffin
ResolvedI think the Death Star plans in Star Wars are not a MacGuffin, because it is actually quite essential for the plot that they are what they are. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, and there's no reliable source for it being a MacGuffin anwyay. Lucas himself says that R2 is the MacGuffin, but appears to misunderstand the meaning of the term. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed a link
ResolvedI removed a link to a website called TV Tropes that I didn't think was necessary, because it didn't say anything more then this page already does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.124 (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Favored spelling?
ResolvedNot sure this is a voting matter, but my digging around on the Web certainly indicates that "McGuffin" should be the favored primary spelling, and I'm doubtful that "Maguffin" should even be considered as an acceptable alternative form. Ergo, I vote for making "McGuffin" the primary and redirecting from the alternatives. Shanen (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what kind of search you did exactly (I get more ghits for +hitchcock +macguffin than for +hitchcock +mcguffin in Google Web, News Archive, and Books searches), but what matters is what the reliable sources use. The Taylor, Spoto and McGilligan biographies of Hitchcock, Sloan's Alfred Hitchcock: a filmography and bibliography, the Truffaut interview, Sidney Gottlieb's collection of Hitchcock interviews, etc. use MacGuffin as (perhaps most significantly) does Hitchcock himself in the writings reprinted in Gottlieb's Hitchcock on Hitchcock. I would recommend keeping the article at MacGuffin and not moving it. Maguffin does turn up in some sources on Google Books but is much less common by far. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
GI Joe
ResolvedIn Season two episode ten of the Sunbow run of GI Joe: A Real American Hero, "Once Upon a Joe" a key element of the episode is The MacGuffin Device, when activated it springs to life the characters of Shipwreck's story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.183.238 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Opening sentence
ResolvedThe whole premise of this article, except its opening sentence, seems to suggest that a MacGuffin is a physical object: a specific something that the characters chase around after. But if so the opening sentence needs to say that. If it is correct then the current opening sentence is seriously misplaced, or at least not in its proper context, since by this definition not all plot elements are MacGuffins, even if they do catch the viewer's attention. (I know nothing about the subject myself so someone here who's read the sources needs to fix this.) AndyJones (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ronin...
Resolved... is another film example. —141.153.216.20 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Recent deletion of spice
ResolvedThe reason for deleting the spice in Dune was because it wasn't an abstract item.
Here is the opening of this article:
A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction". The defining aspect of a MacGuffin is that the major players in the story are (at least initially) willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is. In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. (Examples might include money, victory/glory, survival, a source of power, a potential threat, etc....or something entirely unexplained.)
There is nothing that says a MacGuffin is an abstract plot device. I have undone the spice deletion. Wakablogger2 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- See the section above about The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The spice in Dune is like the gold in TTotSM; it is not a MacGuffin, because it is entirely integral to the plot, and cannot be replaced with a random stand-in. Dune and its sequels could have been written to use spice as a McGuffin, but they weren't - the spice is intimately bound into the story in numerous ways, from space travel to the future fate of the God-Emperor and of humanity itself. You're misunderstanding what a MacGuffin is (though correct that it need not be "abstract"; there's nothing abstract about the Maltese Falcon, for example, it just doesn't matter to the plot in any way that it's a falcon statuette and from Malta). Anyway, we don't have reliable sources saying spice is a MacGuffin (and there wouldn't be any, since it's not). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Gran Torino
ResolvedIsn't the Gran Torino in the movie Gran Torino another example. Walt's family, particulary his sons and grandaughter are more interested in it than in him. And the gang made it Thao's initiation to steal the car. Even the title of the movie leads us to believe it's highly important. But ultimately it's purpose is just to drive the real plot of the movie which is more Walt's relation with Thao and Sue and their family. The car was otherwise meaningless to the story. -annonymous 7/20/2010 9:53 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.217.253 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source that labels it a MacGuffin? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
List of MacGuffins
StaleI don't know who'd added the note, but it's been there for quite some time in the edit window and bears a mention here as well
- "PLEASE NOTE: this list is intended to provide some illustrative examples of MacGuffins. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every MacGuffin, ever. Before adding an item, 1) CONSIDER whether it adds value for the reader which is not provided by the examples already present, and 2) BE SURE TO CITE A REFERENCE for the assertion that the listed item is actually a MacGuffin."
That's pretty reasonable and keeps it from becoming indiscriminate or absurdly long. There's a problem at the moment with the single purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest continually trying to add Jack Said as a notable MacGuffin, which it does not seem to be. heyuguys.co.uk/ movie blog is not a good reference. To that editor, please stop. You're approaching WP:3RR and there's also the COI issue. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop pointlessly deleting my contributions and I won't be approaching the three reversion rule. It's a valid addition. It's only your OPINION that says it is not. Your opinion is not law here - fact is - and the fact in this case is that the silver briefcase in Jack Said is a valid addition to the Macguffin list. If you have a personal vendetta, please do not pursue it on Wikipedia as that is not what we are here for. There is no conflict of interest, I simply edit things I know about. Please stop reverting my edits or I will have to report you. Smiddly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiddly (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Jack Said is not a valid addition, as the list is intended to be a list of examples, not a exhaustive list of every example. As a list of examples, the films listed should be notable and not little known films like the one you are adding. Please stop adding it back and discuss it on this talk page. Netalarmtalk 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Possibly this section needs some kind of lead in the article, not hidden as a note in the edit view, explaining why only a few examples suffice and that sources are needed without being self-referential, something like "film critics have identified some McGuffins." Or maybe rather than a list, which tends to attract additional examples indiscriminately, maybe the examples should be rendered in prose somehow. Given that a McGuffin can be just about anything, arguably no examples are needed anyway. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Such sections encourage trivial additions, and the section should be removed altogether. It would be better to integrate examples in the "History and use" section. Avoiding a list and using only prose for examples will discourage the trivial additions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've narrowed the list down to those that are cited. Now we just have to integrate it into prose and eliminate more so only a few examples are provided. Really, all of these examples are not needed. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- TV Tropes will gladly take them if you don't want them.--occono (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the earlier decision (see top of talk page) to remove TVTropes as an external link or source, since it is not reliable being a user-edited tertiary source (i.e., it's basically just a wiki). Many of the things listed at that page are not actually MacGuffins, but people have added them for the same mistaken reasons they've been trying to add various other non-MacGuffins here (Death Star plans, Dune spice, treasure of the Sierra Madre, etc.). That said, this is twice now that the proposal to not have a list and to instead integrate example into the prose has come up and not been supported. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- TV Tropes will gladly take them if you don't want them.--occono (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've narrowed the list down to those that are cited. Now we just have to integrate it into prose and eliminate more so only a few examples are provided. Really, all of these examples are not needed. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Movie mention
ResolvedJust on a side note, in Leon: The Professional (1994) the "couple" calls themselves "The McGuffins". --Kebman (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)