Talk:MacGuffin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Star Wars

I've added ([1]) the Star Wars example because its got to be one of the few examples where the movie director/writer has explicitly referred to as the MacGuffin, in this case on the DVD commentary soundtrack at about 15 minutes in (where the stormtroopers find droid bits on Tattooine). It's also interesting that it is of significance to the plot, so Lucas is using the phrase in a sense contra to that of the movie buffs. Who do you believe, eh? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, sorry. My "official" reason was that it wasn't properly cited but a better reason is that, as you say, it isn't a proper MacGuffin even though Lucas describes it as one since the Death Star plans play a vital role in the plot. There might be a place for this (possibly as part of a section about perceptions of what MacGuffins are?) but I don't think it should go in the "examples" section. Thanks for actually mentioning your reasons here, though, which is more than most people do. --Zagrebo 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, have followed your advice and moved to a (perhaps clumsily named) section Problems with defining MacGuffins. Added reference including the times. Actually watching the movie while Wikipedia-ing, which is why I was surprised when I heard Lucas use the word thus and thought it worth adding. Especially given the article actually has very few references. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed up your addition and made the last sentence actually draw a conclusion (that some things are not MacGuffins, even though famous movie directors call them that). Horrors! What a concept, here in mealy-mouthed Wiki-land! +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with your comment, is this not original research? One has to assume Lucas knows about film-making and what the names are for things involved in film-making. It's not a slip of the tongue -- he say's R2D2 is a MacGuffin, and then explains that in the industry that means something that everyone wants, and so causes the characters to do certain things. That it might not be the a MacGuffin sensu strictu per Hitchcock, then perhaps sensu lato R2D2 is a MacGuffin in the sense that at least some movie professionals mean it. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(<--- going back up thataway) So you agree, but yet you revert. I guess what I'd like to ask you to do is to defend your insertion of this new section, with which I happen to agree. Now it sounds as if you're backing away from what you put in, equivocating and waffling. I mean, when push comes to shove, either something is a Macguffin or it isn't: wouldn't you agree with that? That's why we bother with trying to define the term in the first place here. While there are some examples that may fall into a gray area, most others pretty clearly fall on either side of the line separating true Macguffins (taking as our guide Hitchcock's usage of the term) and what I might call "wannabe" MacGuffins (say, all the ones we've managed to jettison from this article—check the history). In this latter category I particularly include things that aren't MacGuffins but are called so (especially things named "MacGuffin" in an attempt to gain ironic cachet).

You were "bold" and put in this cautionary note; will you now defend it? Or will you sink into the swamp of Wiki-waffling, on-the-other-handing, and self-abgenation? (I sure hope not.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things don't have exact meanings. I'm a zoologist by training, and lots of words that laypeople think have specific meanings, like "dinosaur" or "algae" or "reptile" actually mean something less clearly defined than you would imagine. Scientifically speaking, birds are dinosaurs, but few non-scientists put "dinosaur tables" in their gardens to attract feeding dinosaurs like robins and sparrows. Life is full of complexity, and trying to shoe-horn the real world into narrow definitions is pointless. George Lucas is one of the most successful and influential film producers in history. If he calls R2D2 a MacGuffin, then it's a MacGuffin. Perhaps not by your definition, but obviously by his. Our job here isn't to say who's right and who's wrong. Clearly, Lucas is a real expert and we're just amateurs, so when it comes to filmmaking parlance, his authority is higher than ours. So simply much better to accept that while the traditional definition may be that devised by Hitchcock, other filmmakers have used the word slightly differently, as with Lucas. For us armchair scholars to say that someone like Lucas is wrong in his terminology is simply the height of arrogance; whilst we may not agree with his usage or be surprised by it, we should also accept that being a respected professional he has the right to use a movie-making term however he wants. This doesn't diminish anything from the article; in fact, it adds to it, by revealing levels of complexity, and that's a good thing. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Our job as editors is to report sources. Not to draw conclusions, pick a winner, or decide who is right. Contradictory sources are not a problem. Original research is a problem. Notinasnaid 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To pick up on other points: "I mean, when push comes to shove, either something is a Macguffin or it isn't: wouldn't you agree with that?" I would not agree with that. Folk terms rarely have strict definitions. The term you use, "true Macguffins" suggests something that we, as editors, should not be doing. Notinasnaid 07:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not to flog this poor horse too much longer; since the article currently says

Because a MacGuffin is, by definition, basically unimportant to the story, its use can challenge the audience's suspension of disbelief.

that, coupled with what Neale Monks has pointed out in this new section, that "R2-D2 is important to the plot and carries information critical to the ambitions of the various characters in the film", leads pretty clearly to the conclusion that George Lucas either misspoke or misused the term. (Unless, of course, we wiggle in wiki-fashion and conclude that, well, maybe there's a different terminology that famous filmmakers get to use, different from the terms we plebes are discussing here. Or something.) It sets up an odd double standard, one by which we (as editors here) vigilantly guard the gates of this article against any barbarian who dares try to place a non-Macguffin in the lists, and another for judging the utterances of famous moviemakers. In other words, I think that that editor, by adding this section, has kind of painted us into a corner here.

Of course, we could just delete the whole section, if that would help you sleep better at night ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think this dead horse has legs yet. You seem to be using an unattributed bit of writing by one editor to say that a public figure is mistaken. This is surely the wrong way round. The first statement, presented as fact, should be presented as opinion (whose?), with a contrasting opinion. This is a very common problem with articles, and vanishes if editors can take a different perspective. Who has said, on tablets of stone, that Hitchcock's definition is to be used to exclude stuff? Just as we have moved to insisting on sources for the examples, so we need to go further in accepting our job as curator of sources in the article body. Notinasnaid 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC

It seems to me that R2D2 really is unimportant. Instead of a robot, he could have been a sheaf of papers, a flash drive or a Wookie with a chip implant. You can argue that he's important as a character, but with regards to functionality for carrying information, it seems he's a MacGuffin. 74.61.40.17 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)wakablogger

R2D2 is a MacGuffin in the sense, that it carries the plans of the Death Star. It's initiating the action. /roger.duprat.copenhagen

How can Lucas be at odds with the "prevailing" use of the word?

I don't get this. Whatever you think of his movies, there's no question he's an important and knowledgable filmmaker. Unless any of us here are also filmmakers, then our opinions don't count for much. Of the three references to this article, one (the Indy IV one) says nothing either way. Of the other two, one's an amateur dictionary site, the other an amateur cinema site. The second site uses this article as a reference, so its use seems a completely circular argument to me.

Surely, if a filmmaker calls something in his movie a MacGuffin, then it's a MacGuffin. You might say that isn't what Hitchcock meant, but reading through the Hitchcock quote, I don't see that it rules out R2D2. In fact Hitchcock says "it could be anything - or nothing - at all". Hence, the term is inclusive, not exclusive.

I don't see any, NOT ONE, reference in this article from a respected filmmaker using the term MacGuffin in the proscriptive way advocated here. If amateur movie buffs want to use the word in a narrow sense, that's fine, but the article should respect the fact that people in the industry clearly do not.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How are there only three references in this article? Every single citation for each of the examples at least implicitly defines a MacGuffin, and all of them go against Lucas's definition. Of course he is an important filmmaker, that's why his opinion gets mentioned. But just because a single person (no matter how important, aside from any statutory authority) calls something a MacGuffin doesn't make it that. Just as a single biologist calling a crocodile a mammal wouldn't warrant calling the definition of mammal "disputed." Doing otherwise is, as I've been saying, is representing minority viewpoint as being more important than it is, in violation of WP:WEIGHT. And you misunderstand what is meant by "It could be anything;" he's referring to the physical representation in the film, not that MacGuffins are some undefined thing. --Eyrian 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I meant the External Links not References. Anyway, the François Truffaut reference says nothing specifically about what the MacGuffin means in movie-making, merely where the word came from. The Slavoj Zizek reference isn't linked to anything in the text, so who knows what it means. If someone can share, great, otherwise it seems a useless reference. Regardless, putting The meaning of the term used by Lucas here is at odds with the prevailing one after the R2D2 example is redundant and misleading. It's redundant because the very first sentence I wrote says that not all people in the industry use the word the same way. That is quite clearly exactly and precisely true. It's misleading because it implies there is a "prevailing" sense within the movie industry. You are implying that Lucas is using the word in the "wrong" way. Quite the reverse, it seems to have a flexible meaning. In the Indiana Jones example linked at the bottom of the article Spielberg and Lucas are referring to some mysterious MacGuffin that quite clearly *is* important, presumably along the lines of the Holy Grail and Lost Ark featured in the other movies. As I recall, those weren't irrelevant to the plot. The Holy Grail saved Indy's dad, and the Lost Ark killed off all the bad guys. So there you have Steven Spielberg and Geroge Lucas (for heaven's sake!) using MacGuffin in sense contra to what some Wikipedia editors would prefer. This seems nonsensical, surely? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While "people use the word differently" is, of course, exactly and precisely true, it is also completely useless. There are always people who use every word differently. The initial sentence merely sets up the controversy. And, again, the common definition isn't just derived from some ignorant Wikipedia editors, every single other reference uses it. As for the Lucas and Spielberg link, where does it name the MacGuffin? Without that key point, it's useless for determining the definition. Your "presumption" is original research. --Eyrian 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But where's the "common definition" published? Which filmmakers subscribe to it or have used it? The Hitchcock definition doesn't say it *has* to be a useless, unimportant thing, merely that it *can* be a useless, unimportant thing. Besides, Hitchcock was merely setting out what he meant by the term in the 1930s; if modern filmmakers use it differently, shouldn't that be respected as well? In fact, on the face of it, how is R2D2 and the Death Star plans any different to "the papers" featured in "spy stories" as Hitchcock himself puts it? Looking at the MacGuffin quote in depth, he says its "the device, the gimmick, if you will, or the papers the spies are after... The only thing that really matters is that in the picture the plans, documents or secrets must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they're of no importance whatsoever". That seems to be exactly what Lucas means with R2D2 as well; he doesn't care about robots or the Death Star, he explictly says R2D2 is the object the characters are after, and that's the important thing. Princess Leia is the Spy, the Secret is in the robot, and the Plans are for the Death Star. Seems to match perfectly. So what's the big deal? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, except that, as has been pointed out, R2D2 is important to the plot (and presumably important to Lucas as "the narrator"), no? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no single point of authority for a common definition. It is determined by the preponderance of uses. And I'm at a loss as to what you mean about Hitchcock not saying it "has to be" something. When I say a cat is an animal, I rarely say it "has to be;" that's just common parlance. As you say, modern reinterpretation should be considered. And it has been. Every other reference disagrees with Lucas. If not explicitly, then implicitly in the definition of the MacGuffin used. Therefore, Lucas must be considered to be in the minority.

Your interpretation of what is going on in Lucas's mind is original research. --Eyrian 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm quoting from both guys directly. Hitchcock says all that matters to him is that the MacGuffin motivates the characters. Right? Lucas then says that (to him) R2D2 is a MacGuffin, in that the characters all react around him. These two things don't seem to me contradictory. Doesn't seem like original research either; compared with some of the other stuff here, it's an explict statement by a major filmmaker backed up with easily verifiable reference. Adding "The meaning of the term used by Lucas here is at odds with Hitchcock's quote" just seems clumsy. Obviously the two filmmakers are using the word in a different way, but is that "at odds"? That implies that one is wrong. Surely better to accept that the term is an umbrella term that may be applied to things in slightly different ways. You could contrast the MacGuffins in the Maltese Falcon with the one in Pulp Fiction as being different things, too. The Maltese Falcon is imagined to be valuable by the characters, but turns out not to be, while the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is mysterious and unknown to the audience but the characters at least all take it as read that it is valuable and precisely what it appears to be. Fundamentally Lucas and Hitchcock are plainly talking about the same plot device, a thing that the audience may not understand or care about, but the characters in the film clearly do. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<---Is this maybe about not being able to accept that, perhaps, Lucas could be wrong? or, more generally, that even workers in any given field can misspeak or misuse terms associated with that field? You seem to be overly deferential to Lucas here, when his usage of the term seems, on its face, to be at odds with practically everyone else's understanding of it. The fact that he is an accomplished and respected filmmaker in no way makes him immune to mistakes in usage. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not particularly deferential to Lucas. Ask me what I thought of Phantom Menace and you'll quickly find that out! What I'm curious about is who is the "practically everyone" you're talking about. Filmmakers or amateurs? Lucas and Hitchcock don't seem to me to be contradicting one another (though I doubt Hitchcock had robots in mind when he coined the term). But please, quote me some senior filmmakers who use the term MacGuffin in the narrow sense seemingly advocated in this article. Not amateur wordsmiths or armchair cinema buffs, but serious filmmakers and script writers. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I presume that in the latter category you'd also accept respected and credible film writers and critics, correct? Not all reliable sources work within the industry, you know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define "respected" and by whom they are "respected". If we're talking the Dean of Theatrical Arts at the University of California, that would be fine. if we're talking a guy who wrote a book about zombie movies, less so. At the end of the day, what I'd posit is that Hitchcock and Lucas are both upper echelon references, being important filmmakers. But people who write about films but don't actually make them aren't so high up in terms of regard. My background is science, and within any given field you have a certain number of genuine experts working on that subject. The further away from the "leading edge" of activity you go, the less authorititive the writer becomes. People who write books about, say, dinosaurs but aren't actually palaeontologists can be useful secondary sources but they are less valuable than primary sources. Same here: people who work in the industry will use words in the way that matters most. How you or I use them, as rank amateurs matters least. In between are people who don't make films but happen to know a bit about them and write about them for a living. Put it another way: if one of your writers or critics said to Lucas, "Hey George, y'know you used that word wrong?" would he listen to them or ignore them.

There's also a question of applying an artificial level of purity that doesn't exist. Take a word like "limelight". That means something now that it didn't mean when the word was coined. Things change, and words change with them. If Lucas is using the word MacGuffin in one of the ways it is used in the industry, then that matters. Since you and I haven't sampled 100 film directors and script writers, we can't say whether George is 1 out of 100, 25 out of 100, or 50 out of 100 in terms of how he used the word. Ergo, it's best (I'd suggest) to simply say Hitchcock used the word one way, and while it is common to use the word to mean something more or less similar to his idea, other filmmakers use it in another way. No-one can disagree with that, I'd guess. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting)The problem with saying something like that is that it's a disingenuous representation of the common use of the term, a violation of Wikipedia's policy about undue weight. Lucas's view is pretty clearly a minority viewpoint (based on an overview of the sources), and so unless there are considerably more sources that redefine what a MacGuffin is, it's deceptive to list the definition as disputed when it's really not. Appealing to a "survey" of sources is ridiculous. If every article was predicated on some sort of democratic overview of leading-edge knowledge, we'd either be unable to say anything, or be able to misrepresent minority views as predominant ones. ALL THE OTHER REFERENCES DISAGREE WITH LUCAS. As a prominent individual, he is entitled to be listed, but that doesn't make his misuse of the term, which is counter to the use of every other cited reference, a majority view. --Eyrian 20:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't disagree with you, and not being expert in the field hesitate to argue with movie buffs, I return to the fact while some Wikipedia editors are repeatedly saying that this is what the term means, the Wikipedia article itself doesn't have any references to back this up. It has multiple quotes from Hitchcock, which is fine, but no other screenwriters or directors. The External links (save the Spielberg/Lucas one, which is ambiguous) are *amateur* sites and shouldn't really be references at all. The Further reading section again are about Hitchcock. So while you may be right, and 9 out of every 10 screenwriters use the term in the same way as Hitchcock, there's nothing much in the article to prove it. So without verification, we fall back on opinion. At worse, my Lucas example is showing at least one (major) director who uses the term in a particular (perhaps erroneous) way. At best, my Lucas example is showing that the use of the term within the movie industry has changed. And give me a break about "undue weight"; of the movie professionals discussed in the article, Lucas is precisely 50% of them. Undue weight would apply if there were 100 directors all of whom used the term as defined by Hitchcock. Now, why don't some of the editors here rise to the challenge and find some quotes from screenwriters and directors using the word sensu Hitchcock, instead of relying on appeals to "overviews" and "prevailing use" and so on that aren't *substantiated here* even if they are 100% true statements. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the list of citations for the entries in the list, they all refer to MacGuffins in a way that is explicitly in agreement with Hitchcock, or they use the word in a way implicitly consistent with his definition. --Eyrian 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya' think? Here we go.

• Intro section - Alfred Hitchcock quote from lecture at Columbia University.
• Description - Nothing at all. Entirely unreferenced.
• History - Pearl White's use of "weenie", not "MacGuffin" so not relevant. Hitchcock in Truffaut. Hitchcock on TV. The thoughts of Ken Mogg, speculating on what Hitchcock meant. The beautifully phrased Hitchcock "on TV interviews from time to time" explaining MacGuffins (unreferenced, naturally).
• Problems with defining MacGuffins - George Lucas talking about Star Wars.
• Examples - An editorial review (Alias) on Amazon.com! An amateur site (Ronin). Straight Dope (Pulp Fiction), a site not exactly considered an academic or scholarly resource. Another amateur site, albeit a good one (Maltese Falcon). A newspaper (Wu Ming). Another amateur site (One Piece).
• Further reading - Two books apparently about Hitchcock but only one seems to link with content in the article.
• External links - Two amateur sites, one ambigous one that doesn't actually define MacGuffin, it only uses it in the text.

So, by my count, there's really only two moviemakers actually referenced explicitly as to what they mean by a "MacGuffin". Almost everything else is amateur stuff, or quoting Hitchcock in different ways. The amateur stuff is difficult to critique. May be good, may be poor. But it's hardly proof of how the term is used in the industry, is it? So instead of taking me to task for suggesting the Emperor has no clothes, how about finding some proper references to prove me wrong? Quotes from modern filmmakers, or from scholarly works, or whatever. If Tarantino said the briefcase was a MacGuffin, that would be the sort of thing to quote. But not Amazon.com reviews for heaven's sake. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the major problem is a lack of sources. Is MacGuffin still used mostly the way Hitchcock intended it or has it changed? Lucas could simply be using the word incorrectly or he could using the word the way it is commonly used now. Rodger Ebert used the term in his review of transformers the Hitchcock way saying that the "allspark" is a MacGuff - it doesn't matter what it is. As he is a notable film critic that would lend weight to the way the article stands. 151.112.57.22 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rosebud

I think that famous "Rosebud" from "Citizen Kane" movie can be considered as MacGuffin, isn't it? --AndyTerry 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it isn't something that drives the plot regardless of what it is: it's actually something crucial to the whole story (the boy's sled, lost later in life). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that Rosebud was his sled had little to no significance to the plot or Kane's life -- it was just a random memory that crept out, therefore it is a MacGuffin. The point of a MacGuffin is the irony that the driving force of the story is something insignificant -- it needn't be something never defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.164.128 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 June 2007

I don't think its insignificant - its pretty-much the answer to the main question of the film ("what was Rosebud?") and is crucial to the viewer's understanding of Kane. It's not a "random memory", rather a significant one. One of the best definitions of "MacGuffin" (which we've used when discussing examples in this article -see talk page) is that it is interchangable - it could be absolutely anything for the purposes of the plot. Apart from that, we need to keep the "examples" section to a minimum. Earlier versions of this article were horrible lists of every passing editors favourite "MacGuffin" (many if not most of them original research and not proper MacGuffins at all) --Zagrebo 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The sled could have been interchanged with Albus Dumbledore's woolen socks. The reporter would still go for the story. What Kane wanted was happiness, and for all his money and power, the closest he came to attaining happiness was sledding on Rosebud outside that Colorado shack. Perfect MacGuffin. MMetro (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ALfred Hitchcock himself called the Rosebud sled a Macguffin in a TV interview with Dick Cavett. I don't have the link or a transcript of the interview so I won't add it to the list on the main page, but if anyone wants to look for it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.9.15 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

administrative issues

Just a quick note. Some editor made a comment and placed it between one of my comments and my signature. This later got placed in the archive. (I probably wouldn't have even noticed if the comment had sounded like something I'd say) I've edited the archive and properly attributed the comment. Please, folks, properly attribute your comments. --superluser_tc 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... if I'm reading it right the person who made that addition had an IP number and not an account. So I doubt they read anything called "administrative issues". As my old dad used to say, if something's broken, just fix it. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to point out what happened, in case anybody wondered why the archive page had been edited. The only reason why I mentioned signing comments is because I wanted to point out what can happen when you don't.--superluser_tc 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca

I'm sure this has come up before but I'm going to press it anyway. The letters of transit in Casablanca are nonsensical. The characters are using letters of transit signed by Charles de Gaulle to exit Vichy France. There is no way that Vichy would recognize these letters as being official documents. Nor does it make any sense why Nazis would be in possession of these documents. Roger Eberts makes this same point on the DVD commentary track. So I guess my question is- If the characters don't in fact need the letters to leave that why are they not a MacGuffin?

KHorberg 15:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument favoured by the majority of the editors here is that while the papers would certainly be a MacGuffin sensu Lucas, they are not a MacGuffin sensu Hitchcock. As I've discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the distinction between the two usages is artificial and probably overly purist. I suspect it matters more to amateurs writing about cinema than to directors or scriptwriters within the business themselves. But from a pragmatic approach, if you can find a verifiable source where the movemaker refers to the papers as a MacGuffin, then you should add it. At the moment, the list of examples is very short and leans heavily on amateur rather than academic or professional sources. a major flaw to the article. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

In defense of my edit to add Transformers to the list of film examples, I can think of no more authoritative source to state that a particular item is a MacGuffin than Roger Ebert. As someone else noted in the revert of my edit, Roger Ebert does not rely on Wikipedia to make this determination - he relies on his professional judgement and merely directs those who don't know what a MacGuffin is to this page. Great press for Wikipedia! I'll admit that I thought it would be clever for those so directed to find the Allspark in Transformers specifically listed as a Macguffin, but that does not detract from its timeliness and relevance as an example. --Javance 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A "more authoritative source" would be the creators of the film. This mention seems to only be added because he mentions Wikipedia in his review and people like to stroke their egos by pointing out that Ebert mentioned "them" (read: Wikipedia users). Ebert directed readers to read what a MacGuffin is by coming to this page, not to come to this page and see that "Wikipedia" defines this item as a MacGuffin. --70.152.254.223 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the self-reference was in a comment, it was largely acceptable. However, it has been removed. Cited examples of MacGuffins should be added to the article, until it becomes long enough to warrant a list spin-off. --Eyrian 06:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'Transformers' quote should be returned. I think it's an excellent example of how the term is used by *people within the movie industry*. We can't use "moving goalposts" to keep out examples we don't happen to like. At first the criterion was that any example should be referenced. This is. The definition was then "purified" to include examples where the MacGuffin did nothing except motivate characters. This seems to do that, and Ebert explicitly says so. We now seem to want the example to be notable. How is a Star Trek episode references by an Amazon.com review more notable than a major Hollywood movie referenced by one of the most respected film critics in the US? Please, this isn't *just* an article about *what you think a MacGuffin is* but something broader that must reflect reasonable usage by others even if you don't agree with them. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the film's creators are not necessarily "more authoritative" than one of the most prominent film critics in the industry. It's not unusual for the creative people themselves to not understand their creations. You're moving the goalposts so far you might as well have said "since God is more authoritative than Roger Ebert, I'm removing your example because it doesn't cite God." Second, whether or not the example is self-referential is orthogonal to its suitability as an example. Let it stand or fall on its other merits.--Javance 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment contains the germ of the problem here, to me: "It's not unusual for the creative people themselves to not understand their creations." Meaning that even the likes of George Lucas and even the overly-esteemed Roger Ebert could be wrong about what is and isn't a MacGuffin. That still leaves us the vexing problem of defining and deciding what is and isn't one for the purpose of this article, of course. The point being that just because Roger uses the term in a review (rather dismissively I thought, as I said in an edit comment) don't mean (sic) it's necessarily so. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ebert may be an authority on film, but he is not an expert when it comes to Transformers. He may have seen a MacGuffin or he may just not have enough understanding of the subject to know why it is important. Planetstasiak 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not an expert" on Transformers? So what? This isn't about the film, it's about the plot device. No special knowledge of the subject of that flick is required. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what a creator or critic said, the Allspark in Transformers the very definition of what a a MacGuffin is not. The Allspark was present in the very first scene, motivated the characters, was searched for by them throughout the movie, was explained and focused on again 2/3rds through, used in the climactic scene with 5 minutes left in the movie, and then was remarked upon again with significance during the narration in the epilogue. It was the entire point of the movie, it was never forgotten. Ebert's article is no longer available at the link given, but he's either flat out wrong, or he was intentionally expanding the definition in order to say that the real story was elsewhere. Either way, his usage is innappropriate for this article, unless you want to make a new and unnecessary section on misuses of the term. A six year old could be told the definition, watch the movie, and know this is wrong, regardless of who says it is. Let's start using some common sense. BigKennyK 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How is that different to the Maltese Falcon? They all search for that, they all want it, it motivates the characters, it turns up in the final scene, and the fact its a fake is the most memorable part of the movie, the scene everyone knows. If the Maltese Falcon is a MacGuffin, so surely is the Allspark? Or am I missing something very obvious? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

129.25.12.232 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)So are the 'papers' in a spy movie. It can be in the very first scene, can be explained again 2/3 of the way through, can be used again with significance during the climax, and can be the entire point of the movie. Yet it is, definitely, a MacGuffin.

15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Also, I want to add: the 'allspark' can be replaced with something else, such as 'the fifth element', or 'plans for super-duper bomb' and the plot would not change. The explanation would change, and dialogue would be slightly altered, but the movie would be exactly the same. Isn't that the definition of a Macguffin? We need to remove the paragraph saying that Ebert's definition differs from Hitchcock's because it does not. The 'Allspark' is a textbook example of a Macguffin.

The "Allspark" works as a MacGuffin precisely because it is so very silly. Something that in some vague way creates life? What? The Allspark exists in the film to motivate the characters to do things (i.e. create plot), but does not in itself have much depth of meaning or explanation. One of the central aspects of a MacGuffin is replaceability. In the crook plots, the necklace is easily replaced with a ring, a bracelet, a stash of gold coins, a set of valuable old stamps. In a spy thriller, the contents of the papers just have to be Important -- what they actually say (the code for launching nukes? the identity of Valerie Plame?) is unimportant. For it to be a MacGuffin, the thing in itself doesn't much matter, only that it be capable of motivating everyone in the movie. I would agree that Lucas kind of misused the term when he called R2-D2 a MacGuffin.

Exactly. A Macguffin is a motivating force for characters in the movie. It can - and ideally, should - be central to the plot of the movie. It is unimportant in the sense, as stated above, that it could be anything - its main narrative import is to have the characters act. Slac speak up! 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple actually. If the All-Spark is not a McGuffin, then neither are the letters of transit in Casablanca. They both are constantly sought throughout the entire movie, and though McGuffins, they play a pivotal role in the plot at the end of the movie. Whether it be killing Megatron or helping Ilsa and Victor escape to America, they are one and the same. If one is to be removed from the list, then so must the other, and I believe a similar argument could be made for most of the other McGuffins on the list, such as the statue in The Maltese Falcon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.40.44 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Allspark may have some issues about whether it's a MacGuffin or not... but the glasses do not. Sam's ebay auction is what starts the movie. That is what caused the Autobots and Decepticons to go after Sam. However, they are forgotten about half way through, since the government take Sam to the Allspark. The glasses are never even mentioned after Simms takes Sam and Bumblebee. The Allspark actually plays a part in the conclusion of the story. The glasses are the MacGuffin. DeathWeed (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The glasses serve as a MacGuffin in a chase scene, or maybe as a clue or red herring, but ultimately, they are not the MacGuffin. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Headpiece of the Staff of Ra and other transient objects as the MacGuffin. MMetro (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother

Does the pineapple in the first season episode The Pineapple Incident qualifies as a MacGuffin? It moves the story, it`s never revealed why, when or how it got there and it names the episode.--Morpheos 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends; have you got a reliable source mentioning it's a MacGuffin? --Eyrian 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a MacGuffin to me, by any definition. It's the focus of a joke, innuendo really, with exactly how the pineapple was involved being left to the imagination where it is bound to be funnier. It's rather like when Blackadder says Baldrick, believe me, eternity in the company of Beelzebub and all his hellish instruments of death will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me and this pencil... Neale Monks 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It's "Rosebud" all over again, but you definitely need a secondary source to cite in this overcrowded and misunderstood topic. MMetro (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Transformers re-write

I like it. Well done. It cites usage in the industry but then explains the differences in a *non judgemental* way. Good stuff. Trying to prevent explanations or uses we don't like is wrong, but letting the reader come to a conclusion based on varied expert opinion is precisely what this article should strive for. Neale Monks 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples

I realize that we're not intending to be exaustive by any means here, but we need to at least capture examples from a wider variety of genres. We should have examples from video games and drama, at the very least. I'm sure there are other genres as well that are significant. And if we're gonna have examples from cartoons, we should have more than one. There are too significant of differences between the different types for them to be encapsulated by any one example. Manga may be significant in Japan, but it's mostly niche in the U.S. and Europe, and there's plenty from the U.S. that isn't very popular in Japan, either. Maratanos 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea. The thing is, each entry requires a citation. If you can find any, particularly for other genres, that'd be great. --Eyrian 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is an example from a video game that does a particularly good job of demonstrating what a MacGuffin is, then it should be included. On the other hand, it is silly to search for an example from a video game just for the sake of having an example from a video game. Bobbyi 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that subjectively pretty much all video games contain MacGuffins. For example the "coins" Pac Man needs to run around eating, they don't do anything, they're just to give the player something to do. The player eats all the coins, and then a new level begins. You can find equivalent things in just about any computer game, things that motivate the player character but don't really have any bearing otherwise. The problem is finding an objective reference where someone credible is saying this. Neale Monks 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So if we let that (finding an objective, reliable source to support the "fact") be our gating factor, then it's much simpler: no reference, no put in. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So how is a reference to a MacGuffin not an allowable entry? My Kingdom of Loathing entry has been deleted twice, but I have a feeling that this is happening because whomever is disagreeing with me hasn't played the game. In the context of the game, the "Holy MacGuffin" happens to be a staff... it could be any object, really, but the point is that it is something the player is pursuing to advance the plot, and that to me seems to fit in with the definition. Rekrdskratcher 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

In the final book The End, towards the end of the book (Chapter 13, I think), a conversation about the Baudelaire orphan's fortune is mentioned, which gets the response from Sunny (who normally speaks in nonsensical words which have to be translated by her siblings) "MacGuffin". I think this is a good example of a MacGuffin, as the whole series of books centre around Count Olaf trying to get his hands on the fortune, but ultimately, the fortune is never retrieved. Would this be a good example to include in the literature example section? StephenBuxton 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find an independent, reliable source stating it's a MacGuffin, then yes. If not, no. --Eyrian 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A more clear MacGuffin in the entire series (or at least from the 8_th book) would be the suger bowl, you never see it, only here of its existance, you never learn what is in it and at the end of the series you have no clue about what has happend to it. It is not cofirmed that it is a MacGuffin I just wish to throw this in for consideration.--Whap (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A Box of Chocolates definition

I know this definition is purely OR, so I would not dream of putting it in the main article. The reason I am writing it here is that I want to check that I have got the understanding of a MacGuffin correct. A MacGuffin (or at least, my idea of one) is an object in a plot that does not do anything other than cause the plot to happen. If you could take a plot item, replace it by a box of chocolates, and the plot still develops in the same way as before, then it is a MacGuffin. Does that sound about right? StephenBuxton 13:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I think the classic test is to replace the Maltese Falcon -- the definitive MacGuffin, I suppose -- with some other object. Could Sam Spade et al be chasing a box of chocolates? Sure. Or a black cat. Or a pint of milk. All the object does is motivate the characters to come together and do stuff in a dramatic way. All the matters at the end of the movie is that the item is retrieved. Where we get into trouble is where George Lucas calls R2-D2 a MacGuffin. Yes, R2-D2 is motivating the characters like Luke and Leia and Ben Kenobi to come together, and yes, he causes them to behave dramatically and so move the plot along. But the problem is you can't replace R2-D2 with a box of chocolates, since a box of chocolates wouldn't contain the plans to the Death Star and so allow the Rebels to defeat the Imperials. In other words, the last "act" of the movie depends on R2-D2 being precisely what he is, and nothing else. Of course, the problem with being a purist about the term is that whether or not the MacGuffin is merely a motivator or a motivator plus a plot device is subjective. To take your Unfortunate Events example from earlier: the Baudelaire fortune could be a MacGuffin, since it isn't actually used by any of the characters to any great extent, and serves merely to get the children into trouble and to give the Count something to be nefarious about. So it's a motivator. But you could also argue it's a plot device too, since you couldn't replace the fortune easily with a box of chocolates: it has to be a fortune since it's inherited from the parents and it has to be something they're too young to use themselves, and so set them up to be "protected" by various guardians and relatives. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that it's not necessarily "OR" to somehow work that in to the description of a MacGuffin here. It's really just a slightly metaphorical restatement of the primary quality of that device, that it doesn't really matter what it is. Of course, if you could find a reference somewhere, that would be even better. But please, let's not throw away the latitude that we have here; after all, the role of the writer is to explain, and this is simply another rhetorical device in their box of tricks to help them do so. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The ring, rosebud, and the pieces of eight

I'm not sure yet whether I understood the concept. Does the ring in LOTR apply? I would think so, that it's a ring seems rather random (as long as you chose to ignore things like Lessing's "Nathan The Wise"), it could as well be 'The Sword Of A Thousand Truths'. If the ring is a McGuffin, it should be added to the example list. What's the difference between a McGuffin and a plot device in general? Doesn't it have to be an actual device or item? If so, 'rosebud' in 'Citizen Kane' wouldn't be a McGuffin, but simply a plot device, since it's not an actual object but an abstract idea throughout the film. Davey Jones' heart in 'Pirates of the Carrebean' would not be one, since it has a significance in itself, beeing the heart of one of the characters - while a ring is normally simply a piece of jewellery. My all time favourite Mcguffin would be the 'pieces of eight' in the 3rd Pirates movie.Ebn 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Try the "box of chocolates" test. If you replaced the Ring with a box of chocolates, would LOTR still work? No. While you could give Sauron a murderous sweet tooth, you'd still need to use the actual nature of the Ring to explain a lot of plot:

• The Ring is magical, it confers invisibility. The specific nature of this power matters, and it's not actually why the Ring is sought after, so that's one thing a box of chocolates couldn't account for.
• The Ring represents corrupting power, which is why it must be destroyed, and which is why a point is made of why the heroes can't simply use it. Frodo's ultimate surrender and use of the ring in turn ties to the entire point of having Gollum. Replacing that with a box of chocolates would destroy a big part of the novel's message.
• The destruction of the Ring ties in with the decline of everything else maintained by the other rings, who lose their power. Again, a box of chocolates couldn't be made to do that, even if it was a very nice box of chocolates.

The Ring is an excellent example of "an object that drives the plot, being of more concern to the characters than the audience or the writer". If that's your definition of a MacGuffin (and it seems that many people are happy to use that, including George Lucas) then the Ring's a MacGuffin. If you go with the Hitchockian definition of "a completely interchangeable doohickey that has zero bearing on the actual plot" then it's not.

There are two issues here. First, MacGuffin-ness is a sliding scale, not black and white -- you can have as many aspects of a MacGuffin seep into the story, to the point where some people would argue it's no longer a MacGuffin, but shaping the plot. The key in the Hitchcockian definition is "actual plot". If you asked George Lucas, for example, he'd argue that for the actual plot, it doesn't matter that R2-D2 is a robot with the Death Star plans. He could have used anything that both the rebels and the empire wanted. Of course, the resulting movies would have been different, since a whole character would have been replaced, but to Lucas, that's not important to the "actual plot" (something along the lines of "rebel heroes and one in particular overthrow the empire" etcetera). He sees it on a higher level than most of us would.

And second, all the powers of the Ring are there by author fiat. It is true that Tolkien could have replaced the Ring with a sword, or a staff, or, indeed, a properly enchanted box of chocolates. The fact that it's a ring doesn't matter, but what does matter are the specific properties the ring has been given. You could transfer those to another object, but you couldn't ignore them and put in a generic "object of importance" like you could with a microfilm in a spy drama; that wouldn't work. This is what people usually mean when they argue that the Ring's a MacGuffin because it could be replaced by "anything", but that particular argument is misleading. 82.95.254.249 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Something else that would change by exchanging the Ring for another object would be the method that the object of power was taken from Sauron (and later from Frodo). As it was a ring, cutting/biting the finger off was the method used. I suppose if it were replaced by a doughnut, then the ring could still be called a MacGuffin. However, putting your finger into a walnut whip to turn yourself invisible is a bit messy and liable to attract wasps.

I'm beginning to wonder if my "box of chocolates" analogy could be taken too far... StephenBuxton 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

R2-D2 is the character who holds the MacGuffin. The MacGuffin is actually the Death Star Plans. That is why R2-D2 sneaks off to search for Obi-Wan. As a box of chocolates, the plans could conceivably melt and short out the Death Star reactor core. MacGyver did something similar once. And if the Princess kept the MacGuffin-- let's just say full body cavity search.

Or the plans could be in a microfilm hidden in at box of chocolates. /roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.127.252 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The One Ring is also a MacGuffin. If Sauron had a peanut allergy, the story couldn't be that different. This is so silly-- the MacGuffin is a template. As it becomes endowed with characteristics, it takes the form of whatever the story needs it to. That is why Sauron's Ring is so specific in details, because Tolkien wanted a MacGuffin worth a journey of many miles.

In Harry Potter, the MacGuffin changes with each book, from the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, to the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, to Sirius Black, to Harry himself, the prophecy, and finally the Horcruxes. Hitchcock didn't mean that the MacGuffin HAS to be worthless, by definition. He meant it started as a blank slate of WANT, and WANT motivates characters to ACTION, and ACTION drives PLOT. Sometimes, that slate is filled in a hurry, like the papers that don't make sense in Casablanca. Sometimes, that slate is crafted into the One Ring to Rule Them All. Even if it's as something as simple as buried treasure, it is a catalyst for the other ingredients of a great story. MMetro (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Life of David Gale

It does not seem to me that the tape in The Life of David Gale is a MacGuffin, since it does tell us a few things about the plot, specifically in the ending. What do you guys think? Ty Weezy 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.131.245 (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mission Impossible III's Rabbit's Foot

Where does MI3's Rabbit's Foot fit in to this? JJ Abrams called it a MacGuffin in several interviews. It's an mysterious "thing" that all the characters seek. It's explained what it *could* be, but the audience or movie characters are never sure. Tom Cruise's character steals an object that may or may not be the Rabbits Foot.--24.249.108.133 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen the movie, but I think you answered your own question. It gives the action a reason to exist. We can debate whether something is senseless violence, but a senseless car chase is a waste of gas.

MMetro (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the Rabbit's Foot from Mission Impossible III is the perfect example of a MacGuffin, and should probably be put on the page's list of examples in film. Brash (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not without citation. Even then, it's probably a good example, but see the pre-December 2007 list of cliffhanger endings. Many of the listings are cruft and not even cliffhangers. An unreferenced sequel would encourage the same thing on the MacGuffin page, plus flame wars from fans who feel that noting the use of MacGuffin is a cheap shot at calling a movie a cheap plot. Not true, but it's already there, under Problems with MacGuffins. Robert McKee mentions an Object of Desire in STORY. I've also found another reference to creating a unity of opposites between protagonists and antagonists. Not sure if it is synthesis and original research to describe a MacGuffin in those terms. I'm sure Linda Seger mentioned the Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark as a MacGuffin in Making a Good Script Great, but I'm not adding it until I find my copy to verify it. MMetro (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference. Bottom of page 1 the reviewer refers to the Rabbit's Foot as a McGuffin. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2006/05/04/m_i3/index.html Mctmike (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And another: http://www.premiere.com/moviereviews/2800/mission-impossible-iii.html This one describes the Rabbit's Foot as "a close cousin to a Scottish object much beloved of director Alfred Hitchcock" - a clear reference to the MacGuffin. (I'm new to Wikipedia - is it cool to quote that here on the talk page, or no?) Mctmike (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to insert any supporting material here; this is the place to hash things out before sticking them in (or taking them out of) the article. However, that second reference, at least, seems very weak to me: it's only mentioned in passing in the review, and it's not clear that the reviewer is really qualified to comment on that. I'll leave it to others to give their two cent's worth here.

By the way, there's no reason to capitalize "rabbit's foot". It's not a proper name. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930388.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 From the article: "...of a certain "rabbit's foot." The latter is a classic MacGuffin that will be sought and referred to throughout, as Hunt and his team zoom around the ever-diminishing world trying to eliminate the threat it represents."

Ideally, is the goal here to get a reference from an authority? The screenwriter, the director - somebody like that? Or is just getting a quorum of reviewers sufficient? Mctmike (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Variety is a well-respected industry rag, so I'd say that qualifies as a reliable source. I'd toss the other two references; no need to have multiple low-quality citations if you have one good one. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems With Problems With MacGuffins

I noticed that an IP took my changes to the point where ILiketobeAnonymous reverted to the original POV'd statement. While I admire the citations for the original quotes, the original contributor seems to disagree with these quotes, as the resulting synthesis violates WP:NOR. Unless there is corroborating evidence for the synthesis (and I highly doubt anybody of serious worth questions Ebert's assessment of the All-dreck), the synthesis should be removed. However, the removal will seriously harm the subsection unless other better-documented problems can be found. I suggest keeping the quotes elsewhere while removing the section entirely, or replacing it with the 24 November 2007 Third Paragraph of description-- but that is also uncited. Any other ideas? MMetro (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The creation of the problems section was Revision as of 19:20, 13 May 2007 by Neale Monks. I hardly think less than a year establishes it as old.Since then, it has added a second example of citation and disagreement. However, 3RR foreshadowed, I can see that removing the POV is futile, and I will seek the advice from admin and outside council. If they think it's okay, fine, ILtbA, but I feel that it is misusing the citation. MMetro (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men

Is the briefcase of money a MacGuffin? I would be inclined to say yes, but I will leave it to someone else to add it to the list if they agree. I would almost say it is the definition of a MacGuffin, since the movie revolves around chasing the briefcase, but the movie is really about the characters and their personalities, and the money never really matters at all. --155.91.28.231 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard from anybody else, but I think the consensus is that anything listed on the article page must be cited, otherwise the page would quickly become unmanageable. MMetro (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be cited if there's consensus on it; managing the page is what the talk page is for. The briefcase is a MacGuffin -- it never becomes clear why it's so sought-after. That's to say, it's not really logical that it's just about the money. On the other hand, a bit of the money is used, so it's not the best example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.133.245 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you note the comment that is only seen in the source, it states the consensus-- that an uncited example will be quickly removed. I'm leaning towards spinning off a list into its own page, so that no one cares if it gets crufty-- but as you can see from your own comments, the briefcase is not the best example. Yet people, in the interest of adding their own favorite items, add them without any scholarly thought as to whether the object actually is a MacGuffin, especially when some moron thinks that literary technique was invented in a videogame. MMetro (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)