Talk:MacGuffin

Removed a link

I 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?

Not 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)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

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)

Reorganizing the referenced list

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

-

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.

An anon IP removed this, 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)

Death Star Plans in Star Wars not a MacGuffin

I 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)

In 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

The 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...

... is another film example. —141.153.216.20 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of spice

The 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)

Gran Torino

Isn'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)

List of MacGuffins

I 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. Netalarm^talk 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. Netalarm^talk 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)

Movie Mention

Just on a side note, in Leon: The Professional (1994) the "couple" calls themselves "The McGuffins". --Kebman (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Way too Broad

This article needs some serious help. My understanding is that a "MacGuffin" is an actual, physical object that the characters chase. The term "MacGuffin" is an ironic way of saying that the actual object itself is unimportant--it could be anything, as long as it advances the plot by giving the characters something to do. The briefcase in Ronin and the Maltese Falcon are excellent examples. On the other hand, my gut reaction is that Avatar's Unobtanium is not, because it is a resource--although the name makes it pretty clear that it's a stand in for any resource humans feel is worth fighting over. And things like honor or survival cannot possibly be MacGuffins as the first part of the article implies. Otherwise, pretty much every movie every made revolves around a MacGuffin! A MacGuffin must be something more specific for the term to mean anything. Is "True Love" a MacGuffin? Because plenty of movies revolve around the search for that...

I'm no film expert, so I'll leave it to someone else to edit the article as they see fit, but I just can't believe something abstract like "fame" can be a MacGuffin. 24.13.48.225 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need a film expert, we need verifiable information from reliable sources. In the present case, Avatar's unobtainium is labeled a MacGuffin by "The Quietus".[1] To counter this, you will need to demonstrate that "The Quietus" either does not call it a MacGuffin (they quite clearly do) or that they are not a reliable source for this information (I have no particular opinion). Alternately, if another reliable source clearly states unbotainium is not a MacGuffin, the section can be expanded to include a second point of view on the issue -- perhaps adding to the understanding that the term is not entirely "scientific" and somewhat subjective. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lot less concerned about Unobtanium than I am about the following sentences: "In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained." 24.13.48.225 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, your primary concern is that you feel a MacGuffin must be a physical object, possibly a unique one. I'm not finding that. At the moment, the reliable sources we have in the article point to several cases where the MacGuffin is not a unique physical object. Looking for a source for a definition, I come up with "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"[2] or "an object or event in a book or a film that serves as the impetus for the plot"[3]. While these seem supportive of it being a physical object or an event or character, numerous sites and a number of our current sources clearly use broader ideas. We encapsulate this with the definition we cite, "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction". Clearly, as a concept, it's fairly slippery and imprecise. Film being an art, that's to be expected. I guess there are solid examples almost anyone would agree on (Rosebud, the Maltese Falcon, the Pulp Fiction briefcase, possibly the Death Star plans) through varying shades of gray to uses that would be harder to argue (driving forces in battlefield war films, love in some romantic films, etc.). To my mind, I guess you might want to suggest a "tweak" to the definition, but I'm not seeing a problem with the unvoiced recognition that the primary plot element in many films is, in a sense, only there to move the characters and story. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

According to tvtropes [4], the term originated with Alfred Hitchcock. According to [5], HitchCock's MacGuffins we not necessarily objects; but they certainly were not abstract things like "Fame". As for the "we need verifiable information", was it Hitchens who said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."? 125.7.63.177 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the definition of a McGuffin is that it can be anything. The best explaination I've heard is that it's presented as a key part of the plot but can in fact be substituted for anything else without significantly changing the plot. For example Unobtainium in Avatar could have been a plant with medicinal properties, good building land, the fibre optic trees, different religious beliefs etc. The only important point is that two or more people care enough to fight over it. However it probably is easier to give examples that use physical objects, which prehaps can lead to the impression that a McGuffin is always an object. Danikat (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)