Misused: Mac Guffin

As I implied before, I think this is the best way to go, but I'm not sure if Classic Mac Guffin needs to be a page at all. We could easily just mention Hitchcock's original definition as part of the description.

If they were going back in time to steal the Mona Lisa without everyone in the past noticing, yes.

To take the first Harry Potter example, the Sorceror's Stone: Voldemort wanted to steal it, Harry and friends decide they need to get to it first. The actual object itself was never put to use (outside of a later consensus to destroy it). You could easily replace it with the Philosopher's Phone, Hope Diamond, Mona Lisa, etc. and the actual events directly involving it are unchanged. So it's not just in the MacGuffin family, it's a MacGuffin Classic.^note (MacGuffin Alfredo?)

And even after that, a few of them also get taken back out from time to time solely for their individual powers. (Rabbit medallion = fastest way to get to "Minnesota")

edited 11th Oct '12 8:25:54 PM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Eh, I dunno how relevant that is, since you can pretty much make an Eigen Plot for any given set of powers.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Actually, that would be a good reference point on what does or does not count as "plot relevant." If the plot requires the specific qualities of the item to be used on multiple occasions, then it is clear it isn't interchangeable (which reminds me of a Cold Opening of MacGyver where the plot coupon he had to steal was a map and he ended up utilizing it about 5 times in creative ways to get himself out of various jams).

And it was hilarious. That's using the Plot Device to come up with creative directions to take the plot. All in the name of using stuff in ways they're not meant to be used. So no, no McGuffin.

edited 12th Oct '12 5:27:52 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!

Again, you guys seem to be confusing story details with actual plot. In the Jackie Chan Adventures, example, the plot seems to be an overarching plot type 1 (Overcoming the Monster) broken up in to a series of subplots of type 3 (The Quest). In that context, the artifacts are very much the MacGuffin.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

But the reasoning behind it is that if the qualities of the item were different then the story would be different. Just using the first season with the Talisman's as an example, yes the bad guys are not pursuing them for their specific magical powers as all they want is to release Shendu. But each episode of the first season is about locating a Talisman, finding out its unique power and having some shenanigans related to that power (Astral Projection resulting in an episode with Jade on the astral plane while as Shendu possessed her body and she had to enter Jackie's dream to explain what happened). And all of those powers come back in the season finale as they have to face off against Shendu and remove those talismans from him again.

It doesn't matter if it is a serialized story of a TV show or a single story of a movie, when the properties of the item influence the path the story takes then it isn't a MacGuffin. There is a murky area that complicates things, as the Ark of the Covenant does kill the Nazi's but I think the implication there is that the path being the same is what really matters and not just coming up in the climax.

To be honest, that's probably because your definition of "plot" in this thread is extremely broad. I seriously, seriously doubt that it's the sense Alfred Hitchcock was using in his original definition, and it's certainly not the sense most people use today when discussing whether something is a MacGuffin.

It's not my definition. It's a definition I found right here on this very wiki. And I'm not trying to claim it's the definition; I'm merely pointing out that it's a definition, and one that can't be ignored when trying to determine if something is a MacGuffin.

And while Hitchcock may not have had something as broad as The Seven Basic Plots in mind when he coined his term, I think it's pretty obvious he had something very broad in mind. The whole concept is inherently broad. Hitchcock's suggestion that all caper films can be boiled down to "protagonists plan to steal the MacGuffin" is a pretty broad notion of plot, even though that's not one of the seven basics.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that something much more narrow and precise can reasonably be described as "the plot of work X". I'm not willing to throw out perfectly good examples of the MacGuffin based on an arbitrarily narrow definition of plot, though. Unless you have some suggestion for how we can logically and consistently determine if a particular broad description of a plot is too broad to qualify for testing MacGuffin-ness?

eta: And I think page is full of counter-examples to the claim that people don't mean something that broad when they refer to MacGuffin.

edited 12th Oct '12 11:13:57 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I'd rather not throw out examples, either. What I would like to do is expand the trope to use what's the common modern definition anyway, instead of bickering over what constitutes a plot. If there's really a need for the Classic Mac Guffin to be troped, then we can do that too, but MacGuffin itself doesn't need to be so restrictive.

I'm not sure that it is - how many caper films does the object being stolen affect even what you're calling the "story details"?

I also think it is the wrong direction to go by assuming anything that Hitchcock "meant" when he popularized the term, as he is not here to clarify himself and answer questions (he probably never anticipated both how well known it would become and how debated it would be). If we go that route then we would have to eliminate all examples except his own and those exactly like it, such as "documents" in a spy thriller and "diamonds" in a heist film. And that also goes into a little bit of an elitist attitude of Hitchcock worship (of a "We ignore anything but what he has said" type of thing).

And I think the argument going on is that there is a difference between "the story" and "the plot" (People will have different definitions but bear with me here). The plot is a sequence of events that coalesces into a greater whole, becoming a story. Thus a Plot Device is something that allows the plot to move, which covers a much broader range of categories than what we are talking about here.

Basically, what I'm explaining is that a macguffin is something that is overall important to the story but has no actual bearing on how the plot moves from A to B. The reason Lucas calls the Indiana Jones artifacts a macguffin is because to them the only thing that matters is that he is chasing something and write the script according to the chase and not what the item actually is.

I am now against expanding the definition of MacGuffin. The current, narrow definition of MacGuffin is already a real trope with many examples. If we broaden the definition, we would need a Trope Transplant (perhaps to "Classic MacGuffin"), and a transplant of MacGuffin (which has 3000+ internal in-links) is probably just not possible.

I recently edited two descriptions:

• Artifact of Attraction no longer says that the artifact is a MacGuffin.
• Egg MacGuffin now says that the egg might or might not be a MacGuffin.

I have not yet edited these:

• Does MacGuffin Escort Mission need a MacGuffin? If the object's identity is too important to be a MacGuffin, someone can still escort it, yes?
• Does MacGuffin Melee need a MacGuffin? They can fight over any Plot Device, correct?
• MacGuffin Title is really "Plot Device Title", yes?

The edit, when it happens, will probably change "MacGuffin" to "MacGuffin or Plot Device" within the trope description.

I might add a sentence to Living MacGuffin: "The person tends to be a MacGuffin, because she is interchangeable; it does not matter that she is a person and not a valuable object or big pile of money, as long as it is unreachable and wanted by the other characters." I am still trying to find better wording for this sentence.

I am having trouble with Living MacGuffin at the moment; I took the title too literally, as "any MacGuffin who is a living person." So Princess Peach from the Mario games seems to be an obvious Living MacGuffin. The basic Mario plot is: Bowser steals Peach, Mario jumps through levels to reach Bowser, Mario rescues Peach. The fact that Peach is a person does not matter; if Bowser would steal Mario's dinner, the plot would still work. So Peach is a MacGuffin...

...but she's not a Living MacGuffin because the trope description requires that the character is "free, in little to no danger" and specifically excludes the Damsel in Distress. So Peach is a MacGuffin, and a living person, but not a Living MacGuffin. After I am no longer confused, I will probably de-list Peach from Living MacGuffin.

I don't think we have a justification to make a Mac Guffin Classic page and remove other examples any more than we have a justification to redefine MacGuffin to accept those examples. If you're concerned with messing with a defined term, it's just as damaging to segregate the examples to sidestep debate. Creating Mac Guffin Classic doesn't actually solve anything, since people are still going to use the term MacGuffin. There will always be this discussion. I'm sure there are film school essays written about the subject. It's a debatable subject.

I think we should just forget about it and just not be absurdly rigid when ruling on examples. Especially when it takes so little to push something from "entirely interchangeable" to "has one small plot impact".

The examples on the MacGuffin page are not the problem. The "subtropes" are the problem. We have subtropes that have "MacGuffin" in the title even though the subtropes do not require MacGuffins. For example, MacGuffin Title includes titles with PlotDevices that are not MacGuffins. And Mementomac Guffin admits that most of the objects are not MacGuffins.

It seems that MacGuffin will keep its current definition. So, I won't change the definition of MacGuffin. Instead, I will fix the problem by editing a bunch of other trope descriptions to show that those tropes do not require MacGuffins.

If MacGuffin itself doesn't have a problem, then do we need to continue this thread? I move to lock this up and any further issues with subtropes can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with their own threads.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Motion for thread closure seconded.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

And I will close it, as MacGuffin itself does not seem in dire need of repair.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer