Talk:MacGuffin/Archive 1

message: I've made a number of edits, replaced the "Hitchcock Films" and "Other Films" with simply "Films" (there were only three of the former listed anyway, and no real necessity to differentiate), and finally, removed the following:
In Final Fantasy VII, the protagonist starts out as a member of a terrorist organization intent on destroying all the Mako Reactors in Midgar, because they believe that the use of Mako, or the Earth's lifeforce, will eventually kill the planet. This Reactor MacGuffin is quickly thrown to the side as the plot turns to focus more on character development and traditional Hero/Villain Final Fantasy conflicts. The terrorists switch their focus to fighting the main villain, and never discuss any plans to destroy Mako Reactors again.
I'm aware that it's a videogame, and as such, it's probably alright that a person's understanding and interest in it might (and perhaps even should) be limited. However, if only out of preference for accurate information over inaccurate information, I'm inclined to point out that there are several problems with the above synopsis:
1. The main protagonist (Cloud) isn't "a member of a terrorist organization", but rather is a mercenary, being paid to work for said organization.
2. The focus on Mako energy - and the harmful consumption thereof - remains a driving element throughout the story. Since the consumption of any limited resource that the world depends on would, in a videogame as in life, generally be considered important, concern about the continued availablity thereof tends not to be "thrown to the side", and FF7 is no exception.
3. Given that the life of the entire planet and the souls of its inhabitants are derived from Mako energy, how could it reasonably be considered an insignificant element in the plot anyway?
4. The vagueness and lack of support for any alleged "traditional Hero/Villain Final Fantasy conflict" notwithstanding, the plot continues to revolve around not only one "main villain" (presumably Sephiroth), but also the company Shinra which operates the reactors in question, and is largely responsible for the world's sorry state of affairs in the story.
Finally - and this is more a pragmatic point than a logical one - if you're either into Role-Playing Games or the thematic parallels hinted at above interest you, I strongly suggest giving the game a shot. Given the low price and wide availability of the game and PlayStations (or computers that meet the fairly low system requirements of the PC version), it will probably cost you more hours than it does dollars.
--71.211.180.8 11:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous / Final Fantasy VII 

message: I think the Futurama reference is misquoted. Nixon says "What a MacGovern I've been" Reffering to the political opponent he defeated. Could someone verify?
Yes.  It was from the "Three Hundred Big Boys" episode. Clarknova 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurama 

message: Recent edits suggest disagreement over whether the word MacGuffin is primarily used as a Hitchcock reference or as a general term for the plot device.  I believe the Hitchcock-specific sense is still primary.  A quick Google search using "a macguffin" -cipher -wikipedia ("a macguffin" to remove most proper-name uses) yields 3,820 hits, while adding -hitchcock pares it down to 759.  This back-of-the-envelope usage study suggests to me that Hitchcock-related uses outnumber general ones by 3 or 4 to 1.  Therefore I am reintroducing the Hitchcock reference as the primary sense in the intro; but disagreement and even reverting is welcome if others feel strongly about this. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly that 3 to 1 is accurate, but remember that Hitchcock invented the word, so he's very likely to be mentioned in many articles that use the word. "MacGuffin = mainly Hitchcock" may be no more accurate from that point of view that say "cricket = mainly England", which any Australian, Indian, or Pakistani will tell you is rubbish. I know from my time peripherally involved in the theatre that the term has widespread use in non-Hitchcock film and theatre, even though Hitchcock is clearly understood to have coined the term.  Grutness|hello?  11:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchcock or general plot-device as primary meaning? 

message: I removed the Zizek quote for several reasons.  It was too long, it only marginally addressed the alleged MacGuffin status of the Iraqi WMDs, and it is available elsewhere (I did not delete the link.)
Also, Zizek's phrase "radioactive diamonds" is imprecise.  It may have been a facetious reference to a different MacGuffin that had been considered for Notorious or it may have been Zizek's mistake. (In the movie the substance is uranium ore.) -- FC 10:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zizek

message: I must say, I have serious doubts about the premise that the non-existent secret agent George Kaplan in North by Northwest qualifies as a Macguffin, since Kaplan is not something you could "replace with anything else" without altering the story.  He's merely, as Leo G. Carroll's Professor character says, "an elaborate ruse."
Besides, I think it's generally understood that the MacGuffin in North by Northwest was, in fact, the microfilm inside the pottery sculpture, which actually fits the definition.  If I recall correctly, Hitchcock admitted as much during his extended interview with Francois Truffaut.  Can anyone confirm this?--DegreeAbsolute 14:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DegreeAbsolute

message: "In regard to the tune ..." -- what movie does this refer to?  - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchcock quote 

message: From the article: "In the Highlander series, immortal characters battle each other for a "Prize" which is never specified."
I thought the prize was all the power from the other immortals, and rulership of the world/universe?
This is correct. It's mentioned at the end of the first Highlander movie. The last remaining immortal gains influence in and influence over the minds of the political leaders of the world in some way (telepathy, telesuggestion), if I remember things right. Another aspect of the Prize was (I think) mortality. While the immortals cannot father/conceive children, the winner of the Prize will be able to do so.
However, the description of the Prize still remains a bit unclear in that movie, and the protagonist is also not seen taking advantage of the Prize. So the Prize may still be regarded as a MacGuffin...although I am not really sure about that. Maybe the reference to the Highlander movie should simply be taken out? Any ideas, anyone? --Klaws 10:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, as with other examples, "The Prize" should be removed if there's not a reference claiming it to be a MacGuffin. Having said that, it arguably fits the criteria ("The Prize" is never shown to actually affect anything in the plot at all, other than be pursued). -- Zagrebo 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  highlander, the prize? 

message: Surely the Holy Grail, as it features in some of the Arthurian legends, is the msot famous MacGuffin?
:I'd say no. It is irrelevant to the plot of many sub-legends and merely contributes to the setting, but that doesn't make it a MacGuffin. Where it does feature, the Holy Grail has properties that convey why this item is of such tremendous importance other than the bare fact that people are interested in it. In short, if it is used as a MacGuffin, this is never done consciously; instead the teller is implicitly referring to a well-known object of legend that is implicitly accepted by the listeners as a good reason to do what the Knights of the Round Table do.
:Compare it to a hypothetical cycle of stories where, say, some cryptozoologists team up to hunt Bigfoot, having all sorts of, eh, exciting adventures in the progress (use your imagination). Here Bigfoot is not a MacGuffin, even if Bigfoot never actually appears in any of the stories; he/it is essential to the plot, and not replaceable by a generic thing of interest. Or how about Godot from Waiting for Godot? Though ostensibly motivating the characters, Godot never appears and we learn almost nothing about him, yet nobody would call him a MacGuffin. (Of course, Bigfoot and Godot are not objects like MacGuffins usually are, but I hope you see how the analogy works.)
:In short, calling the Holy Grail a MacGuffin would seriously muddy the waters, as it would set up any object of great importance that rarely or never plays an active role in the story to be called a MacGuffin, and that's not what MacGuffins are. The central aspect of a MacGuffin is not that it's a passive, unused thing, but that we don't know what it is and/or don't need to know in the first place: all that matters is that people come into some sort of conflict over having the MacGuffin. Microfilm, secret documents, diamonds and glowing briefcases qualify; the Holy Grail does not, and I can't image Arthur and his Knights doing the whole "knightly virtues" thing because they're after, say, the Eye of Argon. 82.92.119.11 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Grail 

message: Seemed ridiculous to have two different sections on exactly the same topic (MacGuffins in non-Hitchcock films) so I integrated them into a single section. BinaryTed 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrated the two sections for non-Hitchcock films 

message: The list of Macguffins seems to include numerous examples that hardly fit under the definition of Macguffin.  I removed the coke bottle from The Gods Must Be Crazy as the storyline is entirely dependent on the identity of the item.  It seems to me that a lot of the items on this list aren't Macguffins.  They are just plot devices.  The terminator arm example, for instance.
:Agreed, things need to be removed.  I took out the Terminator entry. We know why they need them to be destroyed (to stop the Terminator research), and we know exactly what they are. I also removed the Saw II entry.  Antidote syringes a McGuffin?  They would not be killing each other over pieces of cake. It seems some serious work needs to be done on the list. --TG
::I agree with this. The list is too long and many items aren't right. Rmhermen 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate items on list 

message: In friends, Ross and Chandler argue over a joke, that was sent into playboy about a Dr Monkey. You never find out what the joke is. Is this a MCGuffin?
Similarly, in Malcolm in the middle, Hal has to choose between pulling the plug on someone or not. At the end, it's revealed he found out about a third option, which was a much better desicion, but you never find out what it was.
--Richy 19:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The audience never finds out what it is" doesn't automatically make something a MacGuffin.  The MacGuffin is the thing that drives the plot.  As such, I would say that your first example might be a MacGuffin (but shouldn't be added to the article unless there's a citation from a reliable source that says it is); the second definitely is not.  The third option is something Hal finds out about at the end of the episode; it's not something that drives the plot from the beginning. Chuck 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these McGuffins? 

message: I'm going to remove the idea of FLCL as a MacGuffin. While it is suitably vague, it really doesn't motivate or drive the plot, so it's not really a MacGuffin, is it?
Also, the idea that "FLCL is obviously a reference to" a Led Zeppelin song strikes me as odd, considering this is the first place I've heard that suggested.
--Awa64 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLCL 

message: How does Othello, correctly described as a play, count as written word? Films scripts are just as much written word as a play script. Just saying it doesn't belong in that category. Pipedreambomb 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The written word" 

message: I've got some concerns about the "examples" section of this article, which appears to have cancer.
It has become a list of everyone's personal favorite MacGuffin reference, no matter how obscure.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Several of the examples given aren't really MacGuffins.  The essence of a MacGuffin is that it does not matter what it is; it is an interchangeable, modular, generic part.  You can change the MacGuffin to something completely different and still have the exact same movie.  Indeed, it appears most of the effort on this talk page has been about whether this or that really is a MacGuffin.
There is a lot of commentary and detail in the various examples which have no relevance to the actual article.  It doesn't really matter (to this article) what the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is a homage to, if anything.
I'm tempted to say it should just be culled down to a few examples, but that will prolly bring about a debate on which ones should be kept. 
What do others think?  (Don't forget to sign your comments.)
--DragonHawk 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is taking over.  Also, it's too heavy loaded toward more modern examples.  Some, in fact, should be taken out and put in a section about the borderline between MacGuffins and non-MacGuffins.  (The article could really use a section on what sort of things might or might not be MacGuffins.)  Goldfritha 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example section is unhealthy 

message: After reading this article Im thinking that The Simpsons would be great to use as an example - every episode up to about series 14 had one, but I dont feel I know enough about MacGuffins to add to the article. Especially in the episode A Tale Of Two Springfields, where a badger is the MacGuffin and Homer actually says to it "Go away! We got bigger problems now." 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure about The Simpsons 

message: Quote: "It could be argued that the Holy Grail in Dan Brown's popular novel The Da Vinci Code is a MacGuffin. While it is the driving force of the novel, its importance is quickly lost as the main characters spend most of their time running from the police."
I believe this should be removed because the Holy Grail is the central part of the plot and its existance is understood at the ending. The statement "the characters spend most of the their time running from the police" is a horrible explaination of what the story is about. User:Jonthecheet 07:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Da Vinci Code 

message: I don't think the sacred stones can be regarded as a MacGuffin since their power is necessary to restore the prosperity of the village. Whilst they undoubtably help drive the plot they are not something that could be replaced with any old object since they have a unique power important to the whole storyline.
- Zagrebo 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally - You could take any object and ascribe it those same powers
This is why it's not a MacGuffin - it would, as you say, have to be something possessing the same powers. In order to be a MacGuffin it would have to be replaceable with something without those powers (such as an ordinary rolex watch) since the powers are (as you concede) essential to the plot. Zagrebo 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple of Doom

message: * The Ring In The Lord of the Rings trilogy may be viewed as a classic MacGuffin, which is pursued throughout all three of the books and is frequently the center of the plot. Arguably, one could substitute a limited-edition Rolex watch for the ring. Substitute "Rolex watch" every place that "ring" appears, and the story is still the same.
:Except, of course, the parts where the ring confers invisibility and unnatural longevity, mystically draws the attention of its forger, reveals an inscription when thrown into a fire yet manages to remain cool, is the ruling object of several others, represents absolute power that inevitably must lead to ruin and, well, cannot actually tell its wearer what time it is.
:I see some discussion has been held on this already, and as far as I can tell it leads to an obvious conclusion: if you need to transfer properties of an object, it cannot be a MacGuffin. A real MacGuffin is an object whose properties are completely irrelevant save for the sole property that characters want to possess it because it has some unspecified but great value. This is the key.
:You can substitute a limited edition Rolex watch for diamonds, or a microfilm with the Anti-Life Equation, or a glowing briefcase, or a Lektor device, but not the Holy Grail or the One Ring. It doesn't work, because the Holy Grail and the One Ring have clearly defined properties that matter to the plot of the story. The Ring needs to represent absolute, corrupting power for the story to work; the Holy Grail needs to have its religious significance (in most stories that feature it, anyway). The One Ring is in fact a good example of "may look like a MacGuffin but isn't".
:The "Rolex watch" test must be taken in its strictest sense: if you replaced the object in question with an actual, normal, but very valuable Rolex watch (or pot of dubloons or secret documents with unspecified contents or...) does the story still work? If so, you've got a MacGuffin. If not, you've got an object that may be a very transparent plot device or (especially) a plot voucher, but it's not a MacGuffin. If you extend this definition you easily slide down a slope where every object that's uniquely important to a story suddenly becomes "a MacGuffin", and that (as far as I can tell) is not what a MacGuffin is commonly taken to be. The complete irrelevance of what the MacGuffin is and what it can be used for is the central element, not that it's the main thing that moves the plot along. 82.92.119.11 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - in order to be a MacGuffin the object's abilities must never come into play in the plot itself (and therefore, for the purposes of the plot, it could be anything) - this is why the Lekter Machine in From Russia with Love is a MacGuffin but the nuclear missiles in Thunderball are not. Zagrebo 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same argument awhile ago and I think this problem should reflect not only in the examples but the actual definition. I guess we can start searching for specific definitions, or if not we have discovered a flaw in this definition that was not noticed before. Either way something should be done.--Jonthecheet 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed it again because, as discussed here the one ring is not a true MacGuffin because its unique powers are not only important to the plot but affect it directly many times (such as the power of invisibility it gives, or its ability to affect the minds of characters). In order for it to be a MacGuffin it would have to be replaceable with any object at all - it fails the "rolex test" because in order for an ordinary watch to work in the story it would need to have the ring's powers and history and an ordinary watch has none of these -- Zagrebo 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Watch to tell the time, one Watch to find them 

message: After reading the article, I still wonder why "MacGuffin" instead of "weenie".  If Hitchcock spontaneously came up with a nonsense name with the train story, can we add something to the article saying that's what happened?  and if the term was coined/invented by Hitchcock, can we say that it was invented by him, rather than merely "popularized" by him?  Derekt75 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of the term 

message: Don't we know exactly what's inside the safety deposit box?  How is this a MacGuffin? 24.12.236.93 03:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside Man 

message: ==== Submitted for Approval ==== 
* In DC Comics, the Anti-Life Equation is a MacGuffin for DarkSeid and anyone who dares oppose him. The Anti-Life Equation is a plot device inserted into multiple storylines predominantly to give rise and purpose for DarkSeid's interest in the human race in general and the given storyline in particular. It is ultimately an unattainable thing or concept which DarkSeid endlessly seeks, and has even been defined in a myriad of ways but never in a concrete and definitive manner. It is among the greatest and most overused of MacGuffins in comic book history.
Bleargh 
I had originally just put this in the article, but after reading this discussion page again there seems to be some uncertainty or misunderstanding among Wiki's group mind as to what justifies a MacGuffin. The Anti-Life Equation cannot be described in detail. Many writers have tried but multiple attempts have only led to DarkSeid's disappointment. If he ever succeeds in finding the Anti-Life Equation, he wins and the story (and all future stories) is finished and the bad guy wins. Game over. So it's the ultimate MacGuffin in that it can be defined multiple times but never to the villain's satisfaction. It's eternally elusive to him and unattainable, allowing writer after writer to insert it into any DC comics storyline for the sole purpose of increasing the gravity of a storyline to cosmic proportions. DarkSeid would appear in a dark alley or a submarine or a child's playground if he believes it would lead to him attaining the Anti-Life Equation. I welcome arguments against the Anti-Life Equation being considered among a list of mankind's greatest MacGuffins. ZachsMind 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an external reference which states that the Anti-Life Equation is a MacGuffin? Chuck 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a MacGuffin to me, although I agree it would be helpful if there was an external source that could back this up. -- Zagrebo 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DarkSeid's MacGuffin 

message: * In DC Comics, the Anti-Life Equation is a MacGuffin for DarkSeid and anyone who dares oppose him. The Anti-Life Equation is a plot device inserted into multiple storylines predominantly to give rise and purpose for DarkSeid's interest in the human race in general and the given storyline in particular. It is ultimately an unattainable thing or concept which DarkSeid endlessly seeks, and has even been defined in a myriad of ways but never in a concrete and definitive manner. It is among the greatest and most overused of MacGuffins in comic book history.
Bleargh 
I had originally just put this in the article, but after reading this discussion page again there seems to be some uncertainty or misunderstanding among Wiki's group mind as to what justifies a MacGuffin. The Anti-Life Equation cannot be described in detail. Many writers have tried but multiple attempts have only led to DarkSeid's disappointment. If he ever succeeds in finding the Anti-Life Equation, he wins and the story (and all future stories) is finished and the bad guy wins. Game over. So it's the ultimate MacGuffin in that it can be defined multiple times but never to the villain's satisfaction. It's eternally elusive to him and unattainable, allowing writer after writer to insert it into any DC comics storyline for the sole purpose of increasing the gravity of a storyline to cosmic proportions. DarkSeid would appear in a dark alley or a submarine or a child's playground if he believes it would lead to him attaining the Anti-Life Equation. I welcome arguments against the Anti-Life Equation being considered among a list of mankind's greatest MacGuffins. ZachsMind 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an external reference which states that the Anti-Life Equation is a MacGuffin? Chuck 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a MacGuffin to me, although I agree it would be helpful if there was an external source that could back this up. -- Zagrebo 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted for Approval 

message: I cut down the list of "examples" to a bare minimum.  In some cases, what I cut was at random, trying to distil things to "key" examples that really illustrate the point, as opposed to an indescriminate list of information.  However, in many, many, many other cases, the things I cut either were not MacGuffins at all, or weren't firmly established enough in the text.  All MacGuffins are Plot Devices, but not all Plot Devices are MacGuffins.  One of the reasons the list was growing so huge was that it was becomming a list of plot devices.  In all too many of the examples, the item in question could not have been replaced by "any other object"... there was a quality about the object in question that made it inherantly important to the plot; making it a plot device, not a MacGuffin.
The list still isn't perfect though.  I'd like to cut it down even more; preferably to ONLY those entries that have been referenced BY OTHER RELIABLE SOURCES as being MacGuffins.  We'd need a Hitchcock, and the Maltese Falcon, the briefcase from Pulp Fiction, as those are the most commonly referenced MacGuffins, but anything else would need a cite before being added.
Lets get some respectability here. Fieari 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Pruning 

message: Removing. Not sure about Arena and Daggerfall but AFAIR you don't pursue the Elder Scrolls there. They are just a background settings element. In Morrowind you most definitely never get even bothered with an Elder Scroll. In Oblivion the character of the item (ability to modify the past) is an essential plot device. Adding a much better MacGuffin from Fallout instead. --80.55.73.182 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elder Scrolls 

message: Sometimes the MacGuffin is all but forgotten by the end of the film. is marked as original research?
* Most of disaster movies spend the first half on introducing the characters. Each of them has some MacGuffin motivation that is completely irrelevant to the plot, then the disaster destroys their plans and puts them together against the forces of nature.
* Survival Horrors usually drag the characters into the dangerous place using a MacGuffin, which gets completely forgotten later. A party at abandonned house, an empty hotel in the mountains being a good place for writer's work, a mysterious town because it has appeared in dreams, ancient ruin explored by scientific expedition and such. The original reasons why the characters got in there are rarely of any significance later after the "horrifying discovery" is made.
* Sci-fi, fantasy - all too often people "from our world" get dragged into the other world, and the transport device (time vehicle, spaceship, magical amulet, whatever MacGuffin was used to get them there) remains forgotten till the very end when it's used to get them back home. 
Specific examples:
* "From Dawn to Dusk" the original "escape" plot device gets completely obliterated by the events at Titty Twister.
* "Soylent Green" the murder invastigation becomes insignificant at revelation of the origins of Soylent.
* "The Chronicles of Narnia" The german bombings and IIWW loses any meaning whatsoever really fast.
The point being, this is not a fact on the side of "research" but on the side of "common knowledge" and any movie fan can cite a dozen of forgotten MacGuffins from memory.--80.55.73.182 08:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that the examples above are MacGuffins at all, but rather that they qualify as plot devices. I'll leave the OR tag off, but I'm going to label it citation needed. Assertion that something is a MacGuffin doesn't nessesarily qualify it as such. Fieari 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacGuffin all but forgotten 

message: Would the antique shotguns in the movie Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels be considered MacGuffins? I'm not sure... because the movie is a caper that revolves around them, they are valuable, but could easily be diamonds or bullion I suppose, but they are shot, so I don't really know. Xzamuel 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're ever utilised in the film (which you suggest they are) then I'd say no. -- Zagrebo 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real question to be asked is not "are the shotguns in LS&2SB MacGuffins?" but rather "should the shotguns in LS&2SB be mentioned in the MacGuffin article on Wikipedia?"  Given Wikipedia's no original research and reliable sources policies, my answer to the latter question would be that they should be cited if there is an expert (e.g., a film or literary critic) who says they are MacGuffins.  If there is no such expert, then they should not be mentioned in the article, even if they are in fact MacGuffins. Chuck 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels 

message: Every example of a MacGuffin in the article is the result of original research. No movie ever made openly, explicitly, and objectively proclaims that it contains a MacGuffin. Every MacGuffin mentioned in the article is the result of someone's personal judgment.205.188.116.203 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the no original research policy.  It means that Wikipedia editors can't add their own, personal original research.  It doesn't mean that no one's research at all can be added--and naturally, all research is original at some point.  No original research means that just because I think something is a MacGuffin isn't a good enough reason to include it in the article.  If Roger Ebert or Alfred Hitchcock thinks something is a MacGuffin (and has publically expressed that opinion), then it can be included, ideally with the appropriate citation.  Yes, every example in the article is the result of "someone's personal judgment."  Whether it's acceptable for inclusion or not depends on who that "someone" is. Chuck 05:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research Problem

message: Someone just added The Third Man, with the illegally trafficked penicillin as the MacGuffin. I think this is far too facile a read of this work; the fact that the penicillin is never actually seen (in the film) doesn't necessarily make it a MacGuffin. In the film (but even more evident in the novel), the matter of the penicillin gives a definite moral dimension to the work: the fact that it's being stolen, and that therefore those it was intended for are likely to suffer without it, colors the Harry Lime character, and is an essential part of the story.
Therefore, I'm removing this entry. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Third Man; not a MacGuffin 

message: People seem to LOVE adding their favorite movie/show/novel/whatever to the list, and if every MacGuffin ever made was added, the bloat would be incredible.  We need to tighten our criteria a bit.  Or perhaps, what do people think about splitting the example lists off into another page, say, List of fictional works containing a MacGuffin?  Potential?  Or cruft any way you look at it? Fieari 06:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off into a dedicated list page? 

message: Hi all, the list of example MacGuffins (particularly for films) seems a little long, containing a few non-notable examples. Should we be a little more restrictive in the number and notability of which films we include here? Also, I think clear MacGuffins should be used... for example, while I can see how the Snakes on a Plane example could be a MacGuffin, it really required a bit of a stretch to fit the mold. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of examples 

message: All material objects of value, when not possesed, are MacGuffins.
:Not until they drive the plot of a fictional story, they aren't. Fieari 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universality 

message: Could the Triforce from the Legend of Zelda series be considered a MacGuffin? It drives the plot, but it's only ever loosely defined...
:Do try to pay attention: a MacGuffin isn't something that's "loosely defined", but something whose precise form is irrelevant to the plot. Sounds like what you describe (I have no idea what it is) is more a case of bad writing than a plot device like a MacGuffin.
:Besides which, the article really doesn't need any more examples overloading that section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triforce 

message: It seems to have a slightly different meaning in Sci F circles as being a technological device or principal that is key to the action - ideally in 'hard' Sci_fi everythng should be based on known scientific principles except for one McGuffin (e.g. faster than light travel). http://www.warpcoresf.co.uk/mcguffingenerator.php
:Adding something like this to the article requires reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for what you think would be ideal hard SF writing.  Your suggested SF definition doesn't add anything to the article; in SF, any MacGuffin is likely to be technological, simply because it's SF not fantasy or Victorian mystery or Western. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  04:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term in science fiction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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". 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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" or "an object or event in a book or a film that serves as the impetus for the plot". 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)

text: According to tvtropes , the term originated with Alfred Hitchcock. According to , 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)
replies: text: TVTropes is not a reliable source. It's a reader-editable site, like a wiki or the more fluffy portions of IMDb. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: Perhaps (and unobtanium is absolutely a MacGuffin). But the lead currently closes with "Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, a potential threat, a mysterious but highly desired item or object, or simply something that is entirely unexplained."  This is obviously far too vague, and implies that the term has no concrete meaning at all (witness all the confusion on this talk page).  Basically, the lead needs to be rewritten, and if abstracts like "money, victory, glory, survival [or] ... power" are to be included, it needs to be in a way that implies they are not normal MacGuffins.  I can take a stab at that. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  04:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken a stab at this, now. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  04:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too broad 

message: The last sentence of the opening description reads "The term is also used by a game development studio as a reference to a design object which forces interactivity onto a narrative" and links to an independent game developer's blog.
I believe this, most innocently, violates   notability guidelines; worst case, violates  advertising guidelines. Have flagged it as ADVERT and will  remove without discussion in a couple of days.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25EC:C9D9:F0DB:185D:DD65:8A65 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No response - removing. Admins, feel free to revert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25EC:C9D9:4828:9832:69ED:F5D8 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacGuffin Game Studio 

message: Yes, a MacGuffin is a common plot device. Yes, various films, books, TV shows, etc. include characters, dolls, books, etc. named "MacGuffin". Should we therefore include every reference in popular culture or would this be indiscriminate inclusion of trivial information?
:
Well, let's try a comparison. Various films, books, TV shows, etc. include references to "god". Should that article include every reference in popular culture or would this be indiscriminate inclusion of trivial information? Obviously, it would be a huge, indiscriminate list.
:
If, however, a reliable source discussing MacGuffins/gods includes significant discussion about the impact of a particular reference on the concept of MacGuffins/gods, then we might have something. For example, no article on Gerald Ford would be complete without discussion of Chevy Chase's lampooning of him on Saturday Night Live. The skits had a very real impact on his presidency. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" items 

message: Surely this should be included in Literary_technique ? 124.168.82.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Literary Technique' Inclusion? 

message: I can't understand the second sentence: For example, a MacGuffin provides both the title and the motive for was popularized by Alfred Hitchcock in the 1930s, but the concept pre-dates the term. It looks like at least two words missing between the motive for and was popularized. I would edit it myself if I could make a sensible guess as to what the missing words are. Can someone else help?
AlistairLW (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and use 

message: the NOC list in Mission: Impossible (1996)
A very clearly defined item that in no way meets the definition "with little or no narrative explanation".  Somewhat less so for the Heart of the Ocean necklace in Titanic and the mineral unobtainium in Avatar (2009).  The case in Ronin_(film) would be a textbook example and isn't listed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Examples' 

message: Much discussion of what is or is not a MacGuffin.  Can anyone add anything about the etymology of the word: why is this nebulous thing given that particular name, why is it capitalised, etc.  Who was the fabled MacGuffin?  I once had a boss called MacGuffin, he motivated me to spend much time writing a piece of software that was ultimately irrelevant.  Does that count?
212.56.103.144 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on MacGuffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220053445/https://arts.independent.co.uk:80/books/features/article294355.ece to http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article294355.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220053517/https://arts.independent.co.uk:80/books/reviews/article298163.ece to http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article298163.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The 2016 election as an example. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MacGuffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518152501/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/briscocountyjr.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/briscocountyjr.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thekingdomofloathing.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently removed an addition referring to MacGuffins in the New Testament.  I am opposed to this insertion for three reasons:
# The article defines a MacGuffin as being in fiction.  Religious texts do not purport to be fiction;
# Readers of scriptures would argue that all items mentioned have importance, significance, and intrinsic value, whereas a MacGuffin does not;
# The source cited appears to be original research and promotion of a particular work of literature.— Anita5192 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Full disclosure would be that you are the cited author's research assistant. Almost all of your edits have been links to his work inserted into various articles with little or no attention to context or the sense of the article as a whole. Here, for example, the link and the 'apocalyptical literature' example from the Book of Revelation followed on from a sentence about the use of the Grail MacGuffin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That's a very tenuous connection. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: How could you have misled me? You simply told me that you were his research assistant. That was very honest, but you didn't mention it in your full disclosure above. There is more to WP:COI than whether or not you are full-time or get paid. Your MO of adding links to Dr Ressiguie's work to multiple articles, without concern for context or coherence of the article, combined with the fact that that is all you are doing on Wikipedia, gives the impression of WP:Spam, even if that is not the intention. You are doing the right thing by making arguments for inclusion on the talk page, but you will need to convince other editors to make the changes you want. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacGuffins in scripture