We Need to Talk about MacGuffins [Nando v Movies]

[Kalentan]

I can't lie that I, like many others, use the term incorrectly. Or rather the definition it has seemingly become.

When the first MacGuffin was coined by Hitchcock it was used to refer to a plot device that kick-started the movie but ultimately fell by the wayside as the movie progressed and could be replaced by any number of things.

However over the years MacGuffin has been changed to mean, literally any important plot device in the movie either a character or object. So stuff like the Arc of the Covenant, the Infinity Stones, the Death Star plans, and so on were suddenly being classified as MacGuffins despite them all being important to the movie all the way through and not something that could be replaced.

Honestly I feel like we should go back to the original definition because quickly people have begun to label everything a MacGuffin and if everything is a MacGuffin, doesn't that make nothing a MacGuffin?

 

[Scion]

At work so can't watch the video yet, but he's not wrong historically. Definitions can also change over time and it's not really going to work to try and get people to stop using a term in the way they've been using. Having "Macguffin = thing to keep the plot moving" isn't really too much of a stretch. Not every Macguffin has to be the money from Psycho.

And this is an aside, but arguably the Death Star plans do fall by the wayside in the third act when the Death Star itself becomes the actual motivating factor.

 

[Deleted member 2809]

Honestly I feel like we should go back to the original definition because quickly people have begun to label everything a MacGuffin and if everything is a MacGuffin, doesn't that make nothing a MacGuffin?

Click to shrink...

Meh. To me a mc guffin has to be material.

 

[Kalentan]

At work so can't watch the video yet, but he's not wrong historically. Definitions can also change over time and it's not really going to work to try and get people to stop using a term in the way they've been using. Having "Macguffin = thing to keep the plot moving" isn't really too much of a stretch. Not every Macguffin has to be the money from Psycho.

And this is an aside, but arguably the Death Star plans do fall by the wayside in the third act when the Death Star itself becomes the actual motivating factor.

Click to shrink...

I get that but it is getting a point to losing all meaning because basically everything is called a MacGuffin these days because the definition that was once very specific has become too broad.

In regards to Star Wars, the plans allow it to be destroyed. So they were and stayed important because without them the Rebellion wouldn't know how to destroy it. It was only through the plans data (that was shown on Luke's X-Wing) that he knew where to go. Though obviously used the force to make the shot.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I have never heard it being used to describe major plot devices ever.

 

[Sanjuro]

The place that serves expensive drinks at AMC?

 

[Scion]

I get that but it is getting a point to losing all meaning because basically everything is called a MacGuffin these days because the definition that was once very specific has become too broad.

In regards to Star Wars, the plans allow it to be destroyed. So they were and stayed important because without them the Rebellion wouldn't know how to destroy it. It was only through the plans data (that was shown on Luke's X-Wing) that he knew where to go. Though obviously used the force to make the shot.

Click to shrink...

A Macguffin is a storytelling device that moves the plot forward, I don't think that's too broad.

But by the third act in Star Wars it's plot purpose has been served. The characters are no longer motivated by the Death Star plans, they are motivated by the Death Star. The plans give them an answer to the problem but it isn't what's driving the plot anymore.

 

[Kalentan]

A Macguffin is a storytelling device that moves the plot forward, I don't think that's too broad.

But by the third act in Star Wars it's plot purpose has been served. The characters are no longer motivated by the Death Star plans, they are motivated by the Death Star. The plans give them an answer to the problem but it isn't what's driving the plot anymore.

Click to shrink...

But the plans served as the driving force for most of the movie.

MacGuffins by their original definition weren't something to be served other than to get the plot going. It ultimately didn't matter and could be exchanged with anything. As Hitchcock said himself you could you write the entire movie and then go back and change the MacGuffin to be anything.

In Star Wars the plans make up a huge portion of the film and are what allow the resolution to actually happen. They couldn't be exchanged out easily with something else.

I have never heard it being used to describe major plot devices ever.

Click to shrink...

I see it all the time. Use the search bar on ERA and on here alone you will find hundreds of posts that use it.

 

[The Watcher]

A Macguffin is a storytelling device that moves the plot forward, I don't think that's too broad.

But by the third act in Star Wars it's plot purpose has been served. The characters are no longer motivated by the Death Star plans, they are motivated by the Death Star. The plans give them an answer to the problem but it isn't what's driving the plot anymore.

Click to shrink...

So, would the suit case in Pulp Fiction be considered a macguffin?

 

[Kalentan]

So, would the suit case in Pulp Fiction be considered a mcguffin?

Click to shrink...

Yes, the suit case in Pulp Fiction is a proper McGuffin going based on the original definition.

Definition of MacGuffin
: 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

Click to shrink...

 

[Scion]

But the plans served as the driving force for most of the movie.

MacGuffins by their original definition weren't something to be served other than to get the plot going. It ultimately didn't matter and could be exchanged with anything. As Hitchcock said himself you could you write the entire movie and then go back and change the MacGuffin to be anything.

In Star Wars the plans make up a huge portion of the film and are what allow the resolution to actually happen. They couldn't be exchanged out easily with something else.

Click to shrink...

And this is why I don't think it's a big deal that people defer to a simpler definition. Can you name a modern example of a proper use of the Macguffin? Because I can't and I don't think its broader definition is harmful to discussion.

 

[Deleted member 4367]

I imagine the real problem is using the presence of a macguffin as a bad thing or a criticism. And so when the definition broadens people get frustrated when it is used as an inherent criticism. Like oh this movie has a macguffin that's dumb.

 

[The Watcher]

And this is why I don't think it's a big deal that people defer to a simpler definition. Can you name a modern example of a proper use of the Macguffin? Because I can't and I don't think its broader definition is harmful to discussion.

Click to shrink...

Well, based on the OP's definition, the Firefly facility in The Last of Us to use a non-film reference.

 

[Kalentan]

And this is why I don't think it's a big deal that people defer to a simpler definition. Can you name a modern example of a proper use of the Macguffin? Because I can't and I don't think its broader definition is harmful to discussion.

Click to shrink...

But it is really harmful. The new definition which (which actually originated by Lucas himself) is so broad that people have begun to refer to anything that serves a plot point as a MacGuffin. Again when everything is a MacGuffin, nothing is a MacGuffin, we're getting very close to that. Not to mention that it has become lazy criticism that is just thrown everywhere.

In terms of really modern uses of MacGuffins that follow what Hitchcock coined, there actually really isn't any. Pulp Fiction in 1994 with it's suitcase is probably the most modern you will get. At least in term of film.

Funny enough as the video pointed out there already was a term coined in 1986 by Nick Lowe, the Plot Coupon: plot devices that resolve a conflict in addition to inciting one. This would actually include stuff like the Infinity Stones, the Death Star Plans and the One Ring.

 

[Deleted member 4034]

At work so can't watch the video yet, but he's not wrong historically. Definitions can also change over time and it's not really going to work to try and get people to stop using a term in the way they've been using. Having "Macguffin = thing to keep the plot moving" isn't really too much of a stretch. Not every Macguffin has to be the money from Psycho.

And this is an aside, but arguably the Death Star plans do fall by the wayside in the third act when the Death Star itself becomes the actual motivating factor.

Click to shrink...

It's not that definitions change. People just love using words that sound cool to them incorrectly and crowbarring them into conversation to make their point sound smarter. I see it happen with tons of terms here.

 

[absolutbro]

It's not that definitions change. People just love using words that sound cool to them incorrectly and crowbarring them into conversation to make their point sound smarter. I see it happen with tons of terms here.

Click to shrink...

It's slightly worse than that, imo: they use them until the new (incorrect) usage becomes a correct usage. Because using words correcly is just so hard.

 

[thefro]

I can't lie that I, like many others, use the term incorrectly. Or rather the definition it has seemingly become.

When the first MacGuffin was coined by Hitchcock it was used to refer to a plot device that kick-started the movie but ultimately fell by the wayside as the movie progressed and could be replaced by any number of things.

However over the years MacGuffin has been changed to mean, literally any important plot device in the movie either a character or object. So stuff like the Arc of the Covenant, the Infinity Stones, the Death Star plans, and so on were suddenly being classified as MacGuffins despite them all being important to the movie all the way through and not something that could be replaced.

Click to shrink...

That's a George Lucas thing. He considers the Arc, R2-D2 (with the Death Star Plans) in the original Star Wars, etc. MacGuffins.

The first building block of any Indiana Jones movie, according to Lucas, is something called the MacGuffin. The term, popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, refers to an object or goal that kicks the story into action and drives it to the third act. Hitchcock held that the less specific the MacGuffin the better. In his 1959 suspense classic, North by Northwest, the men chasing Cary Grant are after microfilm containing "government secrets"—that's all the audience learns about why the film's villains cause the hero so much trouble—and Hitchcock considered that to be a perfect MacGuffin, because it was so wonderfully vague. While Lucas agrees with his predecessor on the importance of the MacGuffin, his conception of the device differs significantly from Hitchcock's. Rather than seeing it as a gimmick with the function of getting things rolling, Lucas believes that the MacGuffin should be powerful and that the audience should care about it almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen.

He feels he had an excellent one in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The much-sought-after Ark of the Covenant not only held the Ten Commandments but also functioned as "a radio to God" and possessed enough Old Testament power to smite those who looked on its treasures. If the Nazis were to gain control of it, instead of good old Indy, well, you can imagine the consequences. But a first-rate MacGuffin is hard to find, and Lucas says he was not completely satisfied with those he had for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (the sacred Shankara Stones, which, for reasons no audience can keep straight, must be retrieved in order to save kidnapped village children from an Indian death cult) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (the life-giving Holy Grail, which comes in handy when Indy's dad is dying).

Click to shrink...

 

[Kalentan]

That's a George Lucas thing. He considers the Arc, R2-D2 (with the Death Star Plans) in the original Star Wars, etc. MacGuffins.

Click to shrink...

Yeah. It's the origin of when people began to use the term for everything.

 

[Scion]

What's harmful is lazy criticism, changing the pet name for a plot device from Macguffin to Plot Coupon does nothing to address that.

It's not that definitions change. People just love using words that sound cool to them incorrectly and crowbarring them into conversation to make their point sound smarter. I see it happen with tons of terms here.

Click to shrink...

But language does change over time, even if its for the reasons you listed above.

I'll concede that someone that there is a different term to describe that, I'll even adopt it. But I don't think people's misuse of the term is anything but a symptom of the poor state of internet film criticism.

 

[Kalentan]

What's harmful is lazy criticism, changing the pet name for a plot device from Macguffin to Plot Coupon does nothing to address that.

Click to shrink...

This ignores the fact that Plot Coupon existed before the "modern" version of MacGuffin even existed. Only reason why Plot Coupon isn't used as much is because it never got as popular, nor does it sound "cool".

 

[thecouncil]

The place that serves expensive drinks at AMC?

Click to shrink...

this was my first thought.

 

[Scion]

This ignores the fact that Plot Coupon existed before the "modern" version of MacGuffin even existed. Only reason why Plot Coupon isn't used as much is because it never got as popular, nor does it sound "cool".

Click to shrink...

That addresses why people use MacGuffin instead of Plot Coupon, not why modern film conversation would sound better if people used the correct term.

 

[Kalentan]

That addresses why people use MacGuffin instead of Plot Coupon, not why modern film conversation would sound better if people used the correct term.

Click to shrink...

I feel like your kind of missing the point? No one is saying that everyone needs to start using Plot Coupon. But rather acknowledge that the term MacGuffin has become bloated and itself become very lazy. It was originally coined to be a very specific thing. A tool for the director to use. But now has become a term to critique a very broad set of storytelling tools.

Maybe rather than people just throwing the term MacGuffin around, they'd actually have to use some real thought into explaining why Plot Device X is bad.

 

[Scion]

I'll concede that getting people to use the right terminology would be a step in the direction of thinking critically, I just don't share your optimism that people would start thinking critically in its place. I don't think pet names are even necessary, if people threw out "plot device" in the same way they threw out "MacGuffin" we wouldn't even be having this conversation but the underlying problem would still remain.

 

[Cyberclops]

There's a light novel/manga/anime/live action movie called Sakurada Reset that has a storyline involving a small black rock called the MacGuffin. It's supposed to be powerful but its purpose is never fully explained and it ends up being inconsequential to the overall story as the main bad guys show no interest in it. It's like if the Avengers were looking for the Infinity Stones while Thanos was executing his own plan that had nothing to do with them.

 

[Kalentan]

There's a light novel/manga/anime/live action movie called Sakurada Reset that has a storyline involving a small black rock called the MacGuffin. It's supposed to be powerful but its purpose is never fully explained and it ends up being inconsequential to the overall story as the main bad guys show no interest in it. It's like if the Avengers were looking for the Infinity Stones while Thanos was executing his own plan that had nothing to do with them.

Click to shrink...

That's actually much closer (if not on point) to the original definition of it.

 

[Cyberclops]

That's actually much closer (if not on point) to the original definition of it.

Click to shrink...

I can't for the life of me remember if the power of the MacGuffin is used at any point in the anime.

 

[Oyashiro-Sama]

This is all much ado about macguffin if you ask me.

 

[Arkanim94]

Imo the best way to classify a macguffin nowadays is: something that moves the plot forward but doesn't contribuite to it in an active way.

The arc in indiana jones is a macguffin until the very end, when it becomes a deus ex machina lol

 

[Entryhazard]

A Macguffin is a storytelling device that moves the plot forward, I don't think that's too broad.

But by the third act in Star Wars it's plot purpose has been served. The characters are no longer motivated by the Death Star plans, they are motivated by the Death Star. The plans give them an answer to the problem but it isn't what's driving the plot anymore.

Click to shrink...

By definition a macguffin is a plot device which plot function is that many characters want to attain it, moving the plot but otherwise doesn't have an actual use in the story
The plans are sought after, but in the end they also are actually used to find and hit the weak point of the Death Star

 

[Cuburger]

I imagine the real problem is using the presence of a macguffin as a bad thing or a criticism. And so when the definition broadens people get frustrated when it is used as an inherent criticism. Like oh this movie has a macguffin that's dumb.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, as lame as it is that Lucas changed the definition because he felt a object used as a plot device should continue to be important to the plot, people even more frequently use it as any plot-important object is simply a macguffin and that it's therefore lazy writing.

It's the CinemaSins school of film criticism, which is worse imo than Hitchcock having his term modified.

 

[Jon Carter]

I have never heard it being used to describe major plot devices ever.

Click to shrink...

Same here. The definition of MacGuffin that I learned in film school in France is that it's a material object that drives the plot but what that object is has no impact on it. The definition on the French Wiktionary says the same thing:

(Cinéma) Objet important pour les héros et généralement mystérieux qui sert de prétexte au développement d'un scénario mais dont la nature exacte n'a pas d'influence sur le scénario. Par exemple, l'unobtainium dans Avatar (2009), le mystérieux paquet dans Ronin (1998) et la « patte de lapin » dans Mission impossible 3 sont des MacGuffins.

Click to shrink...

(Filmmaking) Usually mysterious and important object for the protagonists that drives the plot of a screenplay, but the specific nature of which has no influence on the story. For example, the unobtainium in Avatar (2009), the mysterious package in Ronin (1998) and the "rabbit's foot" in Mission: Impossible III are MacGuffins.

 

[Torpedo Vegas]

 

[Deleted member 5621]

So you're telling me the first season of Lost in DVD is not a MacGuffin