I enjoyed this, I think the distinction is important for filmmakers, film critics and just fans. Thanks! Also the interview clip at the end is so great😂
ELIXIR! THEY'RE CALLED ELIXIRS! Joseph Campbell coined it ages ago to describe *exactly* what The One Ring is, and Excalibur, the Holy Grail, the Prince's kiss, etc etc ad absurdum. It's the boon that the hero receives on their journey which they return/fix everything with. All these things, all these trinkets and baubles in action movies, they're all *elixirs*. And they always have been, if only goofballs like Lucas would shut up and actually read the Monomyth he tried to base all of Star Wars off of
@@lugbzurg8987 Campbell also used the term interchangeably with "boon" but I always thought that one sounded awkward. Elixir is better because it evokes exactly what you visualized - a healing potion, something that has the potential to fix everything/put everything right, while also sounding more metaphorical than 'potion'.
@@z-beeblebrox Though, in this case, an "elixer" has the equal potential for great evil, as we've clearly seen with The Infinity Stones. And up until now, I've only ever heard "Boon" used in the context of "doing a solid" or "owing a favor".
The super soldier serum from Captain America: Civil war is the perfect example of a MaGuffin. It drives the plot forward, but ends up being inconsequential
Chekhov's gun a writing tool for narrative efficiency. If you set up a detail in movie, that detail needs to do something, otherwise, you are better off removing it. Chekhov's gun (and movie run times) are the reason that the theatrical and extended the Lord of the Rings trilogies are different: the theatrical release removes things like the Aragorn recounting the tale of Beren and Luthien to the hobbits; that detail does not result anything meaningful later on, so it is cut for narrative efficiency. But it is an interesting world and character building detail to the people who know the background, and it feels like a natural thing for Aragorn to say
Especially if Peter is unaware of it rather than those glasses. Would have kept the glasses but used them to hint and eventually reveal what's really going on.
I really like the idea of plot coupons, and I'm down for using the term. But I think they sometimes work more like plot credit cards, because they're reusable? Plot passes? I don't know.
I guess there's only one thing left for Nando to do and that is to go back to every single video he's made where he mentions the Macguffin and dub over it with according to him the proper term 'Plot Coupon' make things right.
An example of the perfect Macguffin: the Dragon Scroll from Kung Fu Panda! It is literally nothing yet Po had the strength and power in him the whole time!
To me, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is used by everyone in a certain way, that's the proper use of the word, regardless of what it used to mean. This is how language evolves and changes, and it's pretty natural. Trying to change that doesn't really make much sense. If the term macguffin is used to describe objects of significant importance to the plot, that's what the term macguffin means.
Well, i would say rosebud is a mcguffin. You can change the Word for anything, you can change the sled for anything. It could be a ball, it could be the code for a safe deposit box containing the sled that otherwise has nothing to do with it, Yes rosebud is too important to not be important but otherwise every Aspect of it can be altered and nothing would change.
I loved the video and the educational aspect, but in the long run I doubt it will matter, because language is an ever evolving thing. Perhaps the use of the word as you define it is incorrect, but the definition could change to reflect how we use it.
Why is rosebud not a MacGuffin? By the end of the movie it’s not something that resolved the plot and is more a setting off point for the character of Kane.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I fear the battle was lost while we weren't paying attention, and it'll be hard to reclaim the word. It's like "literally" in that sense: the word was popularized with the wrong definition, now that's an acceptable definition according to dictionaries, it's never going to be fixed. Because MacGuffin was a semi-popular (at most) term (for the majority of society at least) for most of the decades since it was coined, the problem was the popularization came from a bad source (George Lucas and others who didn't understand the concept properly) and with no viable alternative during that period, we ended up in this situation. Now it's in the common lexicon and there's no shoving it back into Pandora's Box, so to speak.
I would still call rosebud a macguffin, the twist that's it's the sled is honestly not much other than a bookend to me, the actual story was basically already over.
I would also still call the All Spark a macguffin since while technically it does things in the plot it feels like it doesn't, since the plot lacks so much weight. Basically I think terms like this should describe the audience experience of the story more than the direct intention of the filmmakers.
I’m not disagreeing with you per-say, but considering how English works and how culture evolved over time and people keep making simple mistakes that only ever get recognized years later, I think it’s too late to change it until something comes along to make “plot coupons” more popular then the term MacGuffin.
I know a perfect type of macguffin. The biological weapon Crossbones stole in Captain America Civil War. It is interchangeable, and exists to only showcase the Crossbones suicide attempt that sets all of the events of the Sokovia Accords into motion.
I think I agree, but I forgot how the movie went, so I may need correction, its the thing he stole, not the thing he detonated (if he blew it up, then I disagree, but if he just blow himself up in some other way, then I agree) If it was used and its use had consequences that affect the characters and changes the story then I don't consider it a Macguffin.
A macguffin is desired for being desired and nothing else. it causes conflict because multiple groups desire it. It, itself, will not change the plot by any action of it own but will be acted upon by characters who make the plot.
@@robertpaulsen4309 it will be interacted with, but not used in specific. Like they can move it around, break it, hide it etc. They act on the object the object does not act.
@@harlannguyen4048 Many people misunderstand the fact that it's supposed to refer to a solution for a problem that comes completely out of nowhere and wasn't set up at all. They think it just means ANY solution to a problem, provided it hasn't been onscreen for about three minutes.
Honestly referring to the incredibly powerful, wipe-out-half-of-humanity-with-a-snap infinity stones as "coupons" Thanos trades in at the end of the movie is just inherently hilarious. By which I of course mean... ...This does put a smile on my face.
Nando showing pictures of Chris Evans at the end felt like he was trying to psychologically make us think he looks like Chris Evans. Come to think of it, I've never seen Chris Evans and Nando in the same room together...
I went in to McDonald's and told them I wanted a sausage and egg MacGuffin, but they said they didn't have any. I told them I REALLY wanted one, but they said it didn't matter.
So if I am getting this correctly... Macguffin = Interchangeable and therefore irrelevant to the plot. Exist to highlight what is important, slowly losing value to the story and instead gives the characters and story more importance. Plot Coupon = Non-Interchangeable and therefore strongly tied into the plot. Exists to highlight what isn't important, gains greater value as the story progresses and is essentially used only to resolve the plot.
I think that's a little cynical. Is the internet not a viable source of information, if well researched? And if the core of a community, such as the film community, agree on the meaning of the word, is the meaning of the word not then transformed? It seems like a lot more people agreed on this new, though admittedly less specific, meaning of the word macguffin than those that used the term "plot coupon" - which is to say, Lowe and Lowe only. I'm all for adding more vocabulary into the lexicon, but I'm not gonna pretend everyone's an idiot except me for using a term the way everyone understood the term to mean.
Just call everything a MacGuffin and call the REAL MacGuffins "Hitchcockian MacGuffin" It's waaaay easier than change people's minds about something which meaning's changed almost 20 years ago
@@glenbarrett2668 the Spiderverse goober is a perfect term for a "plot coupon." It's not in any way important that we know exactly what it is or what it does, but you can't switch it out for just anything. You specifically need to this goober to stop this bad guy.
My favorite MacGuffin from somewhat recent history is the plane from The LEGO Batman Movie. It kickstarts the plot, is unimportant to the rest of the story, but most importantly is called “MacGuffin Airlines.” Not only was it funny, it correctly fit the definition too!
@@metawarp7446 agree with the other poster. Plot device seems apt. One is a Well-Tempered Plot Device (aka Plot Coupons), the other is an Ill-Tempered Plot Device (aka McGuffins). Both serve to move the plot forward. But only one can change the course of the plot, while the other is practically worthless other than having the said object (like diamonds).
A blizzard is a knockout punch, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means a snowstorm A zipper is a thing that is cool, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means interlocking metal teeth Awful is something worthy of awe, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means something terrible Naughty means nothing or naught, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means misbehavior Senile means something in old age, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means elderly dementia Nobody owns words, their meaning changes over time. Unless you use a specific word in a precise setting, think: guilt or burden of proof in a courtroom, then as long as you're mostly understood by those you converse with you're not committing a crime against grammar.
It's not about grammar. It's about clarity when talking. If we change the meaning of MacGuffin, then we need to come up with a need to come up with a new term for the old MacGuffins. Either way we need a new word.
Somewhere on RUclips there's a wonderful video wherein a dictionary editor explains that her job is to describe the way words are used, not to dictate their immutable meaning.
Ironman 1 2 and 3, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, the winter soldier, civil war, Thor Ragnarok, Antman, Antman and the Wasp, guardians of the galaxy 2, Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and both Spider-Man films beg to differ!
I'd like to discuss this further with you, but it is quite impossible to have meaningful discourse with anyone who does not recognize standardized definitions. I could never be certain if what you say means what it is supposed to mean or some alternative meaning that you choose to ascribe. So, I'll just assume you meant to agree with this totally accurate assertion and thank you for your support. If I'm wrong, just assume that I meant something else and we'll both be happy.
I enjoy the term "Plot Coupon," but the shorter resolution to your conundrum that the meaning of the term MacGuffin has simply evolved over time, and now encompasses both Hitchcock's and Lucas' definitions.
Thank you for finally bringing attention to this, dude. It's been a huge source of annoyance for me to see people suddenly use the word "MacGuffin" left and right, when they clearly don't know what it's talking about. But also, terms *change.* It's not the same as someone redefining a literal invention, Nando.
I feel like this video takes lots of potshots at George. I mean, the guy probably didn't do it on his own; he just found Macguffins (or Plot convinces) as more compelling if they had meaning, plus, there was no word for a macguffin the audience should care for. George was just trying to be a better filmmaker.
I agree. Sure, along the way we have had an overabundance of rather boring artefacts of ultimate power (infinity stones anyone?) but the idea of building onto the Mcguffin to tie into the world the characters inhabit, there motivation and the resolution of the plot is overall laudable. of course it is better when it is elegant (when the time dedicating to explaining the mcguffin+ doesn't slow things down when compared to a disposable Hitchcockian McGuffin)
Maxime Teppe A macguffin that take is a focus of the entire story and can be identified using the Hitchcock definition, is, inherently, bad storytelling, so I completely agree with you there. I'm not sure if I would call the Infinity Stones boring, though.
@@zogwort1522 People know what that means since that's the new definition. A language can't be controlled, it goes against the very nature of what languages are supposed to be.
Language is realistically, descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, language and the meaning of words largely depend on their use and understanding by the public. So, just because "Macguffin" was originally defined a certain way, does not mean that the definition will not or cannot change over time. The point is that most people think of a Macguffin as you have been using it, hence, why not many people, if any at all, called you out on it. The definition appears to have changed over time. I do not believe there is a need to create a new term. Edit: We should probably refer to Macguffins as Hitchcock imagined them as "Hitchcockian Macguffins" or the "Hitchcock Macgguffin."
@@Cubelarooso This is only true when those involved in the industry in whose context the term is used agree on that definition. It would appear that those in the film industry have shifted the meaning and now the public-at-large understand it using the contemporary definition. The point of technical terms is to convey concentrated meanings in as few words as possible: It is not to be pedantic.
As a graduate in English Studies I appreaciate the effort even as I see this transformation of meaning a natural phenomenon. There is an interesting question to be had of whether MacGuffin should be reclaimed for its original meaning or whether a new term should be created to cover precisely thst same meaning. After all, words are purely conventional and what word has what meaning is immaterial as long as everyone is aware of each word's meaning and use. This is to say: words change meaning more often than we think, and there is no need to call a Hitchcockian MacGuffin a MacGuffin or to call Plot Coupons Plot Coupons and it's interesting to think about which way to go about it.
Linguistic prescriptivism basically never works? I mean, I'm as mad about people misusing "literally" or wrongly pluralizing "octopus" as the next guy, but they're gonna keep doing it, y'know? Words are defined by how people use them, not the other way around. Trying to force a certain meaning feels arrogant to me, and is probably pointless. Still, I guess I can sympathize with the general feeling - okay, I'm actually _really_ mad about "literally" and "octopi" - if not this specific case, so eh.
Correct about all of the Macguffin stuff, but I detest the term "plot coupon." It's just hideous. Not a term I'll ever use. Funny, though, how all this Macguffin discussion is basically just a big old Macguffin for talking about plot/quest objects. FWIW, the classic film Macguffin is the travel papers from CASABLANCA, the papers which are supposedly so important and never end up mattering to the plot whatsoever.
Great explanation. Definitely like the idea of collecting them like tokens to cash in at the end. A movie that sets up story points but doesn’t pay off is frustrating. A movie that cashes in on it’s plot tokens rewards the viewer for their attention. MacGuffins are certainly misunderstood, but I think their purpose can’t be understated... an inciting motivation doesn’t have to be the final motivation of the film. It simply provides context to a character’s actions (who is this person I’m being introduced to? What are they like?)
Just because a MacGuffin is used on screen doesn’t mean it isn’t used as a MacGuffin. If the uranium/diamond MacGuffin story line was followed through on, then they are still MacGuffins during the first part(s) of the movie. Hitchcock didn’t have to deal with three hour movie times; in three hour movies, the resolution is driven passed into a deeper resolution. Star Wars could have ended at the delivery of the Death Star plans. If it had, the plans to the Death Star would clearly be a MacGuffin. After the resolution of the initial plot (getting the MacGuffin to the rebellion), the MacGuffin is given a true story arc (arc in SW: decode, use to plan, carry out plan). Even though it has a story arc in the second half, in the first half it is a MacGuffin. Why is this important? When trying to understand the arc of other characters, it’s important to distinguish between plot, character, and things that don’t matter. For quite a bit of SW, the plans don’t matter to us. For quite a bit of IJ, the Ark doesn’t matter to us. So, I counter your coupon proposal with this: an unrealized MacGuffin and a realized MacGuffin. The transition from unrealized to realized MacGuffin-ness could be called imbuing. For our SW example, upon recipes of the unrealized MacGuffin, the admiral imbued the MacGuffin so it could be realized as a way to take down the Empire. I’m not a film-studies guy, so is there a better way to say this?
I do think you're mixing up normative statements and positive statements. Lucas was trying to say that the thing that moves the plot forward SHOULD be cared about by the audience. Your "you don't get to rename my bicycle" argument doesn't really translate, because Hitchcock didn't just coin a term for something without any kind of values around it. It's as if he invented a recipe and called it "The Tastiest Treat". If I come along and say you should add more salt, surely I must be allowed to do this. The fact is, there are two distinct schools of thought on what a macguffin should be like. Coming up with a different term for one of them just kind of avoids the issue.
"The Tastiest Treat" is a super loaded term, though, one that appeals to subjective enjoyment. MacGuffin is a term that refers to objective plot relevance. While saying that values come into play, chaging the meaning of MacGuffin won't stop them from showing up in movies. As a matter of fact, putting them under the same umbrella with plot releavent items makes it harder to talk about MacGuffins, identify them, and add or remove them from the story. If That was George's intention, it's actually a bad move. By using the same term he is making items that the audience doesn't care about the same as items that they do care about, making the message hazy at best, like those lists Nando showed.
not ruin just explain why edith wasnt necessary. then you can remeber the movie with whatever brilliant replacement nando comes up with. its called Nando head canon and its the best. besides we'll likley never hear of edith again.
This is absolutely so helpful. I didn't understand what a MacGuffin exactly was just recently these days because I was getting conflicting information. Who knew I was using this term wrong all this time? Apparently you would have, and now I do. Once again, George is responsible. I can't believe it.
Language is ENTIRELY defined by its use, as annoying as that can sometimes be. So no, MacGuffins ARE what that word is used as. The distinction is important, sure. But whining about the specific word used is silly. People have tried for far more important terms than this.
I'd also point out, your use of Plot Coupon isn't correct either. It's a derisive disparaging term, not a positive one. Typically, 'plot coupon' refers to the fracturing of a MacGuffin to add filler and duration to a story rather than any real substance. This type of storytelling has become much more prominent in recent years because of VIDEO GAMES, as it is a very popular and easy method for video games to handle level and stage design (and honestly, not bad in that form, as gameplay is more important there than story). Think--the TriForce. Link has to gather the 3, 9, 18 pieces of the TriForce (depending what game you're playing) to defeat Gannon. But the number is arbitrary. Instead of being a plot device used to move the story forward, these plot coupons are actually used to stagnate story. Instead of being a story with a singular focus, they become a grocery list of tasks the protagonist must accomplish before he can even begin on his quest toward the conclusion of the story. Essentially, a plot coupon makes a film/story ABOUT the plot, about the specific steps needed for the plot to move forward. Where a MacGuffin is a plot device that creates a plot framework on which the story can unfold. Think about the difference between A New Hope and The Last Jedi. A New Hope has the Death Star plans as its MacGuffin. That's the central plot device driving the story from finish to end. All of your structural plot turns hinge on it. The overall story is about a young farm boy going on adventures, getting to see the larger galaxy, and believing in something larger than himself--the Force (Fairly autobiographical for a young man from Fresno). The plot is about a rebellion that stole plans to a space weapon, stored them on a droid, and the bad guys want it back before the rebellion can exploit an weaknesses discovered. Where the plot intersects with the main character's wants and desires is where the story occurs. The function of the MacGuffin is to bring the plot to an otherwise stagnant protagonist. The Last Jedi has no MacGuffin. In its place, it has a laundry list of all these tasks various characters must accomplish for the plot to move forward. There is very little room for story, as so much of the runtime is spent running down this list of errands, many of which are inconsequential to both the characters and the plot. (In fact, many you could cut from the film in their entirety and never notice they were missing as they had absolutely zero effect on the story or plot progression as a whole). The story of The Last Jedi should have focused on Rei , Kylo, and Luke. And built it's story around them. Found a plot that pushes them altogether. But it didn't. The Last Jedi was a story built upon plot coupons--rather than a cohesive overall central plot device, hook, premise, throughline, or any other device used to create and give the sense of a story having a specific direction. I'd also point out that--a MacGuffin also gives the audience a vague idea of what the end of the story will look like. It gives a sense of scope of the overall story. Plot coupons do not do this, as they can go on for ever. Often, that is exactly why plot coupons feel tedious--because when you complete one, there's often a reveal that you need some other thing--and the audience's reaction is, "Another one? Again? Ugh!" And again, needing to acquire the next bigger gun is fine for a video game. And also why this type of storytelling has become more prominent in non-video game media lately. But plot coupons are NOT something you want in storytelling. They are antithetical to story. They are filler.
... So the rat from Endgame (spoilers) Which stood on the button to free Scott Lang (Antman) from the van, to get the van to the Avengers Compound, to get the whole 'time heist' thing... Blah blah blah, to win against (past) Thanos, is a Macguffin? Honestly, that's pretty cool.
.... just call it a Lucas MacGuffin.... people already do that. There are Hitchcock MacGuffins and Lucas MacGuffins. Saying George can’t change the meaning implies that no terms can ever be changed or augmented ever. Using that logic: you can only call rock n roll that. Forget trying to specify genres or sub genres. Rock n roll is rock n roll because someone defined it one way once. Dumb
Make a video on Plot Holes. That's the most abused and misunderstood word in criticism. For the sake of clarity, a plot hole is when a gap or inconsistency in a story line that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. However, people now define all types of bad or lazy writing under the category of plot holes regardless of its shape or form. For example a plot hole is Thanos destroying the infinity stones in Endgame when the Ancient One tells us later in the same film that the Infinity stones are important to sustaining the structure of the universe. So Thanos destroying them either should be impossible, or he should have blown up the universe too. A plot hole is not the empire building the Death Star with an exhaust port that can blow it all up.
Fantastic! I always roll my eyes when people just bandie about the 'macguffin' to negate the objects integral to certain movies. Now I can specifically cite why.
Your definition of MacGuffin isn't accurate (and yes, I realize it's straight lifted from wikipedia). It's not that the MacGuffin is intrinsically unimportant. It's that the AUDIENCE doesn't care what it is. It could be anything. The characters, however, do care about it to varying degrees for various reasons--as it is the device driving the plot--the thing that gets the characters moving forward. The reason could be as simple as Marcellus Wallace told me to. Or it's my Mission Impossible. Or a dame hired me to track it down. It's simply the thing the characters are seeking. Whether or not the MacGuffin is used as a piece to resolve the end of the plot is the part of it that doesn't matter. It's function is NOT to conclude the story upon acquisition, but to get the story rolling and generally push it into Act Two. That is why when a producer gets hung up on the details of what the MacGuffin is (which happens quite a bit when you're trying to verbally pitch them a story)--the response is, it doesn't matter. The producer is asking plot related questions NOT story related questions. What matters is the STORY--the journey the characters take because of the MacGuffin. (NOTE: This is also why so many prequels that exist solely to fill in the backstory of a MacGuffin fail--which many current reboots are doing. Because no one cares about the MacGuffin and its history. They care about the journey the characters took to retrieve it. They'd rather see another film with the characters they love chasing some other never before mentioned item, than a prequel that fleshes out the origins of the original item. Also note that this journey happens regardless if you are chasing a briefcase or Excalibur. Again, the MacGuffin CAN BE important in a larger sense to the story. However, its main function is to get the story MOVING, and not how impactful it may or may not be by the story's conclusion). This is also why you seem confused when people call the One-Ring a MacGuffin--which it is. It could have been a sword, a book, a sacred child, a wand--what it is doesn't matter. All it has to be is the thing Frodo has to carry and Sauron is seeking. P.S. George Lucas isn't disagreeing with Hitchcock. He accurately describes a MacGuffin. The Death Star plans are a MacGuffin. The problem is people have misinterpreted Hitchcock saying that a MacGuffin is unimportant. He wasn't saying that a MacGuffin MUST BE UNIMPORTANT--which seems to be how you are interpreting it. His point was--it could be anything. It just has to be important enough to the characters that they want to chase it and send them on their journey through the story. That's it. It's really simple. And you're making it way more complex than it is lol A MacGuffin can be important to the conclusion of a story. Hitchcock's point was that whether or not the MacGuffin is important is not a determining factor of telling a story. Lucas's point was--he likes making stories with MacGuffins that play a role and have some significance to the end of a film. These are not mutually exclusive statements. P.S. From a storytelling perspective, Indiana Jones isn't made to chase the Ark for the sake of recovering the Ark. He's chasing it so he has to run into an old flame, the daughter of a mentor archaeologist, who just so happens to have a medallion from the Staff of Ra he needs to recover the items. The Ark and the staff and the medallion are unimportant. They could have been anything. What was important was making Indy run into his old flame. If you doubt this--the end of the film is literally putting the Ark in a giant warehouse for "top men" to look at. That's how unimportant it was to the character's journey. Likewise, in Back to the Future, the lightning bolt, Delorean, flux capacitor, 88 MPH all DO NOT MATTER. What matters is that Marty goes back in time, meets his parents when they were his age, almost bangs his mom, makes his dad cool, and overcomes stage fright. MacGuffins exist to push plot forward so that the story can take place.
In reality, Thanos is just an extreme couponer, using a bunch of coupons to take 50% off the universe.
Sorry, you can only use one Infinity Stone per purchase.
He’s the mom that pays in coupons
@@falconx50 I want to speak to your manager!
Thanos real name is Karen
extreemkb I guess whoever made the Infinity Coupons forgot to add a "only one coupon per purchase" clause to the fine print
And today we learned that the word mcguffin is a mcguffin
I enjoyed this, I think the distinction is important for filmmakers, film critics and just fans. Thanks! Also the interview clip at the end is so great😂
ELIXIR! THEY'RE CALLED ELIXIRS!
Joseph Campbell coined it ages ago to describe *exactly* what The One Ring is, and Excalibur, the Holy Grail, the Prince's kiss, etc etc ad absurdum. It's the boon that the hero receives on their journey which they return/fix everything with. All these things, all these trinkets and baubles in action movies, they're all *elixirs*. And they always have been, if only goofballs like Lucas would shut up and actually read the Monomyth he tried to base all of Star Wars off of
I've always only heard of elixers as being like potions and magical antidotes and stuff.
@@lugbzurg8987 Campbell also used the term interchangeably with "boon" but I always thought that one sounded awkward. Elixir is better because it evokes exactly what you visualized - a healing potion, something that has the potential to fix everything/put everything right, while also sounding more metaphorical than 'potion'.
@@z-beeblebrox Though, in this case, an "elixer" has the equal potential for great evil, as we've clearly seen with The Infinity Stones.
And up until now, I've only ever heard "Boon" used in the context of "doing a solid" or "owing a favor".
@@lugbzurg8987 Right but isn't that true of elixirs too though? A tonic in one circumstance is a poison in another
The super soldier serum from Captain America: Civil war is the perfect example of a MaGuffin. It drives the plot forward, but ends up being inconsequential
So glad you made this video! My favorite thing to order at McDonald's is the Egg MacGuffin.
Since we're talking narrative devices, would Chekhov's Gun be a plot coupon?
Malletdude31 Isn’t that something that has 0 importance to the plot and should be removed. Also is deus ex machines a limited time sale?
Chekhov's gun a writing tool for narrative efficiency. If you set up a detail in movie, that detail needs to do something, otherwise, you are better off removing it.
Chekhov's gun (and movie run times) are the reason that the theatrical and extended the Lord of the Rings trilogies are different: the theatrical release removes things like the Aragorn recounting the tale of Beren and Luthien to the hobbits; that detail does not result anything meaningful later on, so it is cut for narrative efficiency. But it is an interesting world and character building detail to the people who know the background, and it feels like a natural thing for Aragorn to say
Especially if Peter is unaware of it rather than those glasses.
Would have kept the glasses but used them to hint and eventually reveal what's really going on.
I really like the idea of plot coupons, and I'm down for using the term. But I think they sometimes work more like plot credit cards, because they're reusable? Plot passes? I don't know.
I guess there's only one thing left for Nando to do and that is to go back to every single video he's made where he mentions the Macguffin and dub over it with according to him the proper term 'Plot Coupon' make things right.
6:43 Our man George should've just coined a new term, not bastardised MacGuffins.
CheesecakeLasagna 70s George could have coined a new phrase but 2000s George can only bastardize things, usually his own work
Words are defined by the way we use them
Would the Dragon Warrior scroll from Kung-fu Panda (an item who’s entire narrative purpose is that it’s unimportant) be a MacGuffin or Plot coupon?
That's kind of its own thing. A fake out plot coupon. Some people use the term Non-guffin
An example of the perfect Macguffin: the Dragon Scroll from Kung Fu Panda!
It is literally nothing yet Po had the strength and power in him the whole time!
The golden idol from the start of Raiders.
To me, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is used by everyone in a certain way, that's the proper use of the word, regardless of what it used to mean. This is how language evolves and changes, and it's pretty natural. Trying to change that doesn't really make much sense. If the term macguffin is used to describe objects of significant importance to the plot, that's what the term macguffin means.
I like the term. But if we want to talk about MacGuffins and Plot cuopons simultaniously, what should we refer them as? Just plot motivators?
Hey Nando: Erin McKean "Go ahead, make up new words!" (TED talk)
So would that make the Egyptian artifacts in your Justice League rewrite a Mcguffin.
Well, i would say rosebud is a mcguffin. You can change the Word for anything, you can change the sled for anything. It could be a ball, it could be the code for a safe deposit box containing the sled that otherwise has nothing to do with it, Yes rosebud is too important to not be important but otherwise every Aspect of it can be altered and nothing would change.
I loved the video and the educational aspect, but in the long run I doubt it will matter, because language is an ever evolving thing. Perhaps the use of the word as you define it is incorrect, but the definition could change to reflect how we use it.
So is the basket in The red ridding hood a Macguffin?
Why is rosebud not a MacGuffin? By the end of the movie it’s not something that resolved the plot and is more a setting off point for the character of Kane.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I fear the battle was lost while we weren't paying attention, and it'll be hard to reclaim the word. It's like "literally" in that sense: the word was popularized with the wrong definition, now that's an acceptable definition according to dictionaries, it's never going to be fixed. Because MacGuffin was a semi-popular (at most) term (for the majority of society at least) for most of the decades since it was coined, the problem was the popularization came from a bad source (George Lucas and others who didn't understand the concept properly) and with no viable alternative during that period, we ended up in this situation. Now it's in the common lexicon and there's no shoving it back into Pandora's Box, so to speak.
I would still call rosebud a macguffin, the twist that's it's the sled is honestly not much other than a bookend to me, the actual story was basically already over.
I would also still call the All Spark a macguffin since while technically it does things in the plot it feels like it doesn't, since the plot lacks so much weight. Basically I think terms like this should describe the audience experience of the story more than the direct intention of the filmmakers.
Sooo.. waiting for Gadot.... Gadot is the Mcguffin?
I’m not disagreeing with you per-say, but considering how English works and how culture evolved over time and people keep making simple mistakes that only ever get recognized years later, I think it’s too late to change it until something comes along to make “plot coupons” more popular then the term MacGuffin.
My takeaway from this: Inigo > Vizzini.
I prefer the goober as coined by into the spiderverse, but I'm all for bringing back the plot coupon
Im going with goober
Goober is great, it sounds goofy just like 'macguffin' and it comes from a truly incredible movie.
i also like goober. i was hoping nando would have brought it up but guess not
I like goober
Funny how said goober is not a McGuffin.
I know a perfect type of macguffin.
The biological weapon Crossbones stole in Captain America Civil War. It is interchangeable, and exists to only showcase the Crossbones suicide attempt that sets all of the events of the Sokovia Accords into motion.
That's a great one!
But u kinda need it to be a bomb for the story to work
I think I agree, but I forgot how the movie went, so I may need correction, its the thing he stole, not the thing he detonated (if he blew it up, then I disagree, but if he just blow himself up in some other way, then I agree) If it was used and its use had consequences that affect the characters and changes the story then I don't consider it a Macguffin.
speedy01247 it was the thing he stole but he didnt use the chemicals to blow himself up as he already had himself wired to blow ahead of time.
@@tobe.moemeka The biological weapon he stole wasn't the bomb. He had a bomb strapped to himself beforehand. So it technically IS a macguffin.
A macguffin is desired for being desired and nothing else. it causes conflict because multiple groups desire it. It, itself, will not change the plot by any action of it own but will be acted upon by characters who make the plot.
"Acted upon"? Do you mean that the macguffin is used by the characters or is it simply acquired and/or possesed
@@robertpaulsen4309 it will be interacted with, but not used in specific. Like they can move it around, break it, hide it etc. They act on the object the object does not act.
So in that case Jedi’s are MacGuffins to military factions
It doesn't need to be an object of desire. The crime syndicate in North By Northwest is one of my favorite macguffins.
So like a trinket that does nothing on its own but is seen as highly valuable?
You should also address how people misuse the term Deus Ex Machina.
How exactly?
YES, I second this.
*ahem* Cinema sins *ahem*
@@harlannguyen4048 Many people misunderstand the fact that it's supposed to refer to a solution for a problem that comes completely out of nowhere and wasn't set up at all. They think it just means ANY solution to a problem, provided it hasn't been onscreen for about three minutes.
THIS!
Maybe the real MacGuffin was the friends we made along the way.
@TraucerDaUrbania
I need this on a t-shirt, please and thank you.
Nah you do not want your friends to be interchangeable plot drivers.
🤯
@@JamalFreeman I felt that.
If a MacGuffin is nothing, does that mean we all have no friends ? 😭
Honestly referring to the incredibly powerful, wipe-out-half-of-humanity-with-a-snap infinity stones as "coupons" Thanos trades in at the end of the movie is just inherently hilarious. By which I of course mean...
...This does put a smile on my face.
when that extreme coupon lady walks up to the register with 100 items and 300 coupons
"I am inevitable"
With Thanos' plot coupons, he managed to save 50% off all life in the universe!
Nando showing pictures of Chris Evans at the end felt like he was trying to psychologically make us think he looks like Chris Evans.
Come to think of it, I've never seen Chris Evans and Nando in the same room together...
But he looks more like a young Robert Downey Jr, just compare him to young Tony at the beginning of Civil War.
This is a lot of nitpicking not unlike the podcast.....
Mostly nitpicking
I went in to McDonald's and told them I wanted a sausage and egg MacGuffin, but they said they didn't have any. I told them I REALLY wanted one, but they said it didn't matter.
Too bad they did not give you a bag with an interchangeable item inside to drive the plot of your day.
In this case, what you ordered is not a macguffin as it is essential to the pun
Brilliant!
Opens and there’s just an orange light
So if I am getting this correctly...
Macguffin = Interchangeable and therefore irrelevant to the plot. Exist to highlight what is important, slowly losing value to the story and instead gives the characters and story more importance.
Plot Coupon = Non-Interchangeable and therefore strongly tied into the plot. Exists to highlight what isn't important, gains greater value as the story progresses and is essentially used only to resolve the plot.
That's about it
@@NandovMovies Thanks.
Chaos Emeralds
Nando v Movies so then what if it’s used throughout the story and not just at the end?
@@NarfiRef They arn't usually used at the end.
"That's not up to you, George!" Ha!
Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg is jockeying to be the poster boy for "loyal to a fault".
I saw that as more George believing that MacGuffins should evolve.
But then why use the term, if not for what it means, when you can make literally any other sound with your face?
So you're telling me that people blindly and incorrectly parrot "film terms" that they've heard online to make themselves sound smarter? Unbelievable.
Sarcasm Cliche. (Ding!)
Whoops
Whoopsie
I think that's a little cynical. Is the internet not a viable source of information, if well researched? And if the core of a community, such as the film community, agree on the meaning of the word, is the meaning of the word not then transformed? It seems like a lot more people agreed on this new, though admittedly less specific, meaning of the word macguffin than those that used the term "plot coupon" - which is to say, Lowe and Lowe only. I'm all for adding more vocabulary into the lexicon, but I'm not gonna pretend everyone's an idiot except me for using a term the way everyone understood the term to mean.
Not smarter but make it look like their opinion is more valid becaus they talk about specific movie terms.
Blyzer Yup
Nando: “George lucas”
Me:🙂
Nando: “2000s George lucas”
Me:🙃
Just call everything a MacGuffin and call the REAL MacGuffins "Hitchcockian MacGuffin"
It's waaaay easier than change people's minds about something which meaning's changed almost 20 years ago
My friend just calls it a goober
I also love the term "goober", as coined in Spiderverse
@@glenbarrett2668 the Spiderverse goober is a perfect term for a "plot coupon." It's not in any way important that we know exactly what it is or what it does, but you can't switch it out for just anything. You specifically need to this goober to stop this bad guy.
Is your friend Spider-Man?
@@USM-1610 no, it's some dude named Peter b
@@davinwilliams3130 My friend Miguel O' Hara also uses that word
"if we redefine what's relevant, we can produce more relevant content."
-IGN
Ooooh, you're talking about a goober
It's not a goober, it's a gizmo
My favorite MacGuffin from somewhat recent history is the plane from The LEGO Batman Movie. It kickstarts the plot, is unimportant to the rest of the story, but most importantly is called “MacGuffin Airlines.” Not only was it funny, it correctly fit the definition too!
So, in your Justice League rewrite, those egyptian artifacts are McGuffins and the Mother Box is a Plot Coupon. Did i get it?
Can someone create a website where we identify if an object of importance is a mcguffin or a plot coupon.
tvtropes.org
Should we have a term that incompasses the both terms under the umbrella? Sounds useful to me. Ideas?
@@metawarp7446 sounds like a plot device to me
I'd prefer a whole new term, like MacRuffins.
@@metawarp7446 agree with the other poster. Plot device seems apt.
One is a Well-Tempered Plot Device (aka Plot Coupons), the other is an Ill-Tempered Plot Device (aka McGuffins).
Both serve to move the plot forward. But only one can change the course of the plot, while the other is practically worthless other than having the said object (like diamonds).
the episode of teen titans go with a named macguffin is actually correct according to this video... i didn't realize that was possible.
@7:35 “THAT’S NOT UP TO YOU GEORGE”
Jesus Christ, where was this statement 20 years ago.
A blizzard is a knockout punch, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means a snowstorm
A zipper is a thing that is cool, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means interlocking metal teeth
Awful is something worthy of awe, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means something terrible
Naughty means nothing or naught, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means misbehavior
Senile means something in old age, but somewhere along the way the word got changed and now it means elderly dementia
Nobody owns words, their meaning changes over time. Unless you use a specific word in a precise setting, think: guilt or burden of proof in a courtroom, then as long as you're mostly understood by those you converse with you're not committing a crime against grammar.
It's not about grammar. It's about clarity when talking. If we change the meaning of MacGuffin, then we need to come up with a need to come up with a new term for the old MacGuffins. Either way we need a new word.
Somewhere on RUclips there's a wonderful video wherein a dictionary editor explains that her job is to describe the way words are used, not to dictate their immutable meaning.
New definition: a MacGuffin is any object in a story that brings the product placement to life
8:36
Infinity stones are to marvel what beer is to Homer J Simpson.
"The cause of and solution to all of Marvel's movie plots!"
Ironman 1 2 and 3, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, the winter soldier, civil war, Thor Ragnarok, Antman, Antman and the Wasp, guardians of the galaxy 2, Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and both Spider-Man films beg to differ!
If enough people use a word incorrectly for long enough it becomes correct
Very false.
@@FlatOnHisFace no it’s literally how language evolves
I'd like to discuss this further with you, but it is quite impossible to have meaningful discourse with anyone who does not recognize standardized definitions. I could never be certain if what you say means what it is supposed to mean or some alternative meaning that you choose to ascribe. So, I'll just assume you meant to agree with this totally accurate assertion and thank you for your support.
If I'm wrong, just assume that I meant something else and we'll both be happy.
I enjoy the term "Plot Coupon," but the shorter resolution to your conundrum that the meaning of the term MacGuffin has simply evolved over time, and now encompasses both Hitchcock's and Lucas' definitions.
So, will you start selling Nandocycles anytime soon?
I'm gonna hold off for 20 or so years until I can get myself one of those 13-wheeled nandocycles.
This channel is officially shifting from videos about movies to commercials for my unridable bicycle.
He doesnt want George Lucas to change the meaning of the word of his bike.
If we're not going to use the term MacGuffin anymore I'd like to put in my vote for "McGruff the crime dog."
I don't think the point is to stop using the term MacGuffin, it's to stop using it incorrectly.
You mean a McGruffin.
I'm not early, nor am I late. I arrived precisely when I meant to.
Okay Bran
grass
👏👏👏
Dark Sev. I wish I remembered what Bilbo said to this...
@@clark5317 Do you mean Frodo?
There's a theater, I think in LA, where they have the snack shop on the side. The name of that shop? MacGuffins. *happy sigh*
AMC theaters near me have a bar called MacGuffins.
Nando v Movies Yup. That must be it :-)
Thank you for finally bringing attention to this, dude. It's been a huge source of annoyance for me to see people suddenly use the word "MacGuffin" left and right, when they clearly don't know what it's talking about. But also, terms *change.* It's not the same as someone redefining a literal invention, Nando.
Words were invented. How is it different?
I feel like this video takes lots of potshots at George. I mean, the guy probably didn't do it on his own; he just found Macguffins (or Plot convinces) as more compelling if they had meaning, plus, there was no word for a macguffin the audience should care for. George was just trying to be a better filmmaker.
I agree. Sure, along the way we have had an overabundance of rather boring artefacts of ultimate power (infinity stones anyone?) but the idea of building onto the Mcguffin to tie into the world the characters inhabit, there motivation and the resolution of the plot is overall laudable. of course it is better when it is elegant (when the time dedicating to explaining the mcguffin+ doesn't slow things down when compared to a disposable Hitchcockian McGuffin)
Maxime Teppe A macguffin that take is a focus of the entire story and can be identified using the Hitchcock definition, is, inherently, bad storytelling, so I completely agree with you there. I'm not sure if I would call the Infinity Stones boring, though.
This video is based on the false premise that word definitions are prescriptive, whereas in reality they're descriptive.
@@zogwort1522 People know what that means since that's the new definition. A language can't be controlled, it goes against the very nature of what languages are supposed to be.
Language is realistically, descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, language and the meaning of words largely depend on their use and understanding by the public. So, just because "Macguffin" was originally defined a certain way, does not mean that the definition will not or cannot change over time. The point is that most people think of a Macguffin as you have been using it, hence, why not many people, if any at all, called you out on it. The definition appears to have changed over time. I do not believe there is a need to create a new term.
Edit: We should probably refer to Macguffins as Hitchcock imagined them as "Hitchcockian Macguffins" or the "Hitchcock Macgguffin."
No. When it comes to technical terms, strict definitions are essential.
@@Cubelarooso This is only true when those involved in the industry in whose context the term is used agree on that definition. It would appear that those in the film industry have shifted the meaning and now the public-at-large understand it using the contemporary definition. The point of technical terms is to convey concentrated meanings in as few words as possible: It is not to be pedantic.
As a graduate in English Studies I appreaciate the effort even as I see this transformation of meaning a natural phenomenon. There is an interesting question to be had of whether MacGuffin should be reclaimed for its original meaning or whether a new term should be created to cover precisely thst same meaning.
After all, words are purely conventional and what word has what meaning is immaterial as long as everyone is aware of each word's meaning and use.
This is to say: words change meaning more often than we think, and there is no need to call a Hitchcockian MacGuffin a MacGuffin or to call Plot Coupons Plot Coupons and it's interesting to think about which way to go about it.
Linguistic prescriptivism basically never works? I mean, I'm as mad about people misusing "literally" or wrongly pluralizing "octopus" as the next guy, but they're gonna keep doing it, y'know? Words are defined by how people use them, not the other way around. Trying to force a certain meaning feels arrogant to me, and is probably pointless. Still, I guess I can sympathize with the general feeling - okay, I'm actually _really_ mad about "literally" and "octopi" - if not this specific case, so eh.
Correct about all of the Macguffin stuff, but I detest the term "plot coupon." It's just hideous. Not a term I'll ever use. Funny, though, how all this Macguffin discussion is basically just a big old Macguffin for talking about plot/quest objects.
FWIW, the classic film Macguffin is the travel papers from CASABLANCA, the papers which are supposedly so important and never end up mattering to the plot whatsoever.
We need to spread “goober” as the proper plot coupon.
Great explanation. Definitely like the idea of collecting them like tokens to cash in at the end. A movie that sets up story points but doesn’t pay off is frustrating. A movie that cashes in on it’s plot tokens rewards the viewer for their attention. MacGuffins are certainly misunderstood, but I think their purpose can’t be understated... an inciting motivation doesn’t have to be the final motivation of the film. It simply provides context to a character’s actions (who is this person I’m being introduced to? What are they like?)
Wild... I pictured you as 20 year old college kid of Afro-Latino ethnicity and a long face.
DiaMatPhilosopher he showed his face before in one of the DC rewrites (I forgot which one lol)
@@nickgiannini8882 He shows it nearly every video so idk where this guys been.
@@maxhydekyle2425 Curious on what in his voice made him think he was African-Latino mix.
@@nickgiannini8882 First in the fourth JL rewrite video I think.
Derek Lewis wow I’ve watched a ton of these and never seen him. That’s wild
Just because a MacGuffin is used on screen doesn’t mean it isn’t used as a MacGuffin. If the uranium/diamond MacGuffin story line was followed through on, then they are still MacGuffins during the first part(s) of the movie. Hitchcock didn’t have to deal with three hour movie times; in three hour movies, the resolution is driven passed into a deeper resolution.
Star Wars could have ended at the delivery of the Death Star plans. If it had, the plans to the Death Star would clearly be a MacGuffin. After the resolution of the initial plot (getting the MacGuffin to the rebellion), the MacGuffin is given a true story arc (arc in SW: decode, use to plan, carry out plan). Even though it has a story arc in the second half, in the first half it is a MacGuffin.
Why is this important? When trying to understand the arc of other characters, it’s important to distinguish between plot, character, and things that don’t matter. For quite a bit of SW, the plans don’t matter to us. For quite a bit of IJ, the Ark doesn’t matter to us.
So, I counter your coupon proposal with this: an unrealized MacGuffin and a realized MacGuffin. The transition from unrealized to realized MacGuffin-ness could be called imbuing.
For our SW example, upon recipes of the unrealized MacGuffin, the admiral imbued the MacGuffin so it could be realized as a way to take down the Empire.
I’m not a film-studies guy, so is there a better way to say this?
"Am I being pedantic?" asked the man with a podcast called Mostly Nitpicking.
I do think you're mixing up normative statements and positive statements. Lucas was trying to say that the thing that moves the plot forward SHOULD be cared about by the audience.
Your "you don't get to rename my bicycle" argument doesn't really translate, because Hitchcock didn't just coin a term for something without any kind of values around it. It's as if he invented a recipe and called it "The Tastiest Treat". If I come along and say you should add more salt, surely I must be allowed to do this.
The fact is, there are two distinct schools of thought on what a macguffin should be like. Coming up with a different term for one of them just kind of avoids the issue.
"The Tastiest Treat" is a super loaded term, though, one that appeals to subjective enjoyment. MacGuffin is a term that refers to objective plot relevance. While saying that values come into play, chaging the meaning of MacGuffin won't stop them from showing up in movies. As a matter of fact, putting them under the same umbrella with plot releavent items makes it harder to talk about MacGuffins, identify them, and add or remove them from the story. If That was George's intention, it's actually a bad move. By using the same term he is making items that the audience doesn't care about the same as items that they do care about, making the message hazy at best, like those lists Nando showed.
I'm sorry. But unsnap 12:17 sounds so bad. What about like... blip? Dunno, just thinking off the top of my head.
Thank you for being one of the best RUclipsrs
7:31 Is George Lukas immortal?
yes, yes he is.
When I heard "The Marine Biologist" from Seinfeld I lost it.
Alright so Nando is gonna ruin Far From Home for me...SWEET
not ruin just explain why edith wasnt necessary. then you can remeber the movie with whatever brilliant replacement nando comes up with. its called Nando head canon and its the best. besides we'll likley never hear of edith again.
I am now officially using plot coupon!
This is absolutely so helpful. I didn't understand what a MacGuffin exactly was just recently these days because I was getting conflicting information. Who knew I was using this term wrong all this time? Apparently you would have, and now I do. Once again, George is responsible. I can't believe it.
Are we going to go back to using just "whelmed" too?
Great video as always~
Language is ENTIRELY defined by its use, as annoying as that can sometimes be. So no, MacGuffins ARE what that word is used as.
The distinction is important, sure. But whining about the specific word used is silly. People have tried for far more important terms than this.
Interestingly enough, the Russos referred to the stones as Macguffins in the Infinity War commentary
I remember that reference.
I'd also point out, your use of Plot Coupon isn't correct either. It's a derisive disparaging term, not a positive one.
Typically, 'plot coupon' refers to the fracturing of a MacGuffin to add filler and duration to a story rather than any real substance. This type of storytelling has become much more prominent in recent years because of VIDEO GAMES, as it is a very popular and easy method for video games to handle level and stage design (and honestly, not bad in that form, as gameplay is more important there than story).
Think--the TriForce.
Link has to gather the 3, 9, 18 pieces of the TriForce (depending what game you're playing) to defeat Gannon. But the number is arbitrary. Instead of being a plot device used to move the story forward, these plot coupons are actually used to stagnate story. Instead of being a story with a singular focus, they become a grocery list of tasks the protagonist must accomplish before he can even begin on his quest toward the conclusion of the story.
Essentially, a plot coupon makes a film/story ABOUT the plot, about the specific steps needed for the plot to move forward. Where a MacGuffin is a plot device that creates a plot framework on which the story can unfold.
Think about the difference between A New Hope and The Last Jedi.
A New Hope has the Death Star plans as its MacGuffin. That's the central plot device driving the story from finish to end. All of your structural plot turns hinge on it. The overall story is about a young farm boy going on adventures, getting to see the larger galaxy, and believing in something larger than himself--the Force (Fairly autobiographical for a young man from Fresno). The plot is about a rebellion that stole plans to a space weapon, stored them on a droid, and the bad guys want it back before the rebellion can exploit an weaknesses discovered. Where the plot intersects with the main character's wants and desires is where the story occurs. The function of the MacGuffin is to bring the plot to an otherwise stagnant protagonist.
The Last Jedi has no MacGuffin. In its place, it has a laundry list of all these tasks various characters must accomplish for the plot to move forward. There is very little room for story, as so much of the runtime is spent running down this list of errands, many of which are inconsequential to both the characters and the plot. (In fact, many you could cut from the film in their entirety and never notice they were missing as they had absolutely zero effect on the story or plot progression as a whole).
The story of The Last Jedi should have focused on Rei , Kylo, and Luke. And built it's story around them. Found a plot that pushes them altogether. But it didn't.
The Last Jedi was a story built upon plot coupons--rather than a cohesive overall central plot device, hook, premise, throughline, or any other device used to create and give the sense of a story having a specific direction.
I'd also point out that--a MacGuffin also gives the audience a vague idea of what the end of the story will look like. It gives a sense of scope of the overall story. Plot coupons do not do this, as they can go on for ever. Often, that is exactly why plot coupons feel tedious--because when you complete one, there's often a reveal that you need some other thing--and the audience's reaction is, "Another one? Again? Ugh!"
And again, needing to acquire the next bigger gun is fine for a video game. And also why this type of storytelling has become more prominent in non-video game media lately. But plot coupons are NOT something you want in storytelling. They are antithetical to story. They are filler.
Ah yes MacGuffins! those ... things?
Humm... I'm sorry but we gotta come up with a better name than plot coupon, it doesn't have the same ring to it
We could have a Scottish person say it. A Plot Coopin.
“There’s always an override key, a magic ring, an infinity stone, a box said to hold the Ten Commandments, so I always call it a *_goober_* “
Can you do your pitch for justice league 2? Like what new characters and why you added them and the plot and the villain or villians
Oh cool, a Nando video on Amazing Spiderman 2
(Spider blood)
Why don't I understand Hitchcock's joke at the end?
I think The George Lucas MacGuffin should be called a McMuffin
... So the rat from Endgame (spoilers)
Which stood on the button to free Scott Lang (Antman) from the van, to get the van to the Avengers Compound, to get the whole 'time heist' thing... Blah blah blah, to win against (past) Thanos, is a Macguffin?
Honestly, that's pretty cool.
I think that's a deus ex machina.
.... just call it a Lucas MacGuffin.... people already do that. There are Hitchcock MacGuffins and Lucas MacGuffins.
Saying George can’t change the meaning implies that no terms can ever be changed or augmented ever.
Using that logic: you can only call rock n roll that. Forget trying to specify genres or sub genres. Rock n roll is rock n roll because someone defined it one way once.
Dumb
The fact the Arthur article is edited for his intro as the first paragraph is amazing.
When you mentioned Arthur, I instantly thought of PeanutButterGamer's most coveted franchise.
I thought it was PuttPutt
A lot of videos just present a problem and don’t suggest a resolution, but you did! Plot coupon is certainly gonna catch on. Great video
Really informative video! Great content as always and I'll be sure to use the term plot coupon
Make a video on Plot Holes. That's the most abused and misunderstood word in criticism.
For the sake of clarity, a plot hole is when a gap or inconsistency in a story line that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. However, people now define all types of bad or lazy writing under the category of plot holes regardless of its shape or form.
For example a plot hole is Thanos destroying the infinity stones in Endgame when the Ancient One tells us later in the same film that the Infinity stones are important to sustaining the structure of the universe. So Thanos destroying them either should be impossible, or he should have blown up the universe too. A plot hole is not the empire building the Death Star with an exhaust port that can blow it all up.
Fantastic! I always roll my eyes when people just bandie about the 'macguffin' to negate the objects integral to certain movies. Now I can specifically cite why.
Your definition of MacGuffin isn't accurate (and yes, I realize it's straight lifted from wikipedia). It's not that the MacGuffin is intrinsically unimportant. It's that the AUDIENCE doesn't care what it is. It could be anything. The characters, however, do care about it to varying degrees for various reasons--as it is the device driving the plot--the thing that gets the characters moving forward. The reason could be as simple as Marcellus Wallace told me to. Or it's my Mission Impossible. Or a dame hired me to track it down.
It's simply the thing the characters are seeking. Whether or not the MacGuffin is used as a piece to resolve the end of the plot is the part of it that doesn't matter. It's function is NOT to conclude the story upon acquisition, but to get the story rolling and generally push it into Act Two. That is why when a producer gets hung up on the details of what the MacGuffin is (which happens quite a bit when you're trying to verbally pitch them a story)--the response is, it doesn't matter. The producer is asking plot related questions NOT story related questions. What matters is the STORY--the journey the characters take because of the MacGuffin.
(NOTE: This is also why so many prequels that exist solely to fill in the backstory of a MacGuffin fail--which many current reboots are doing. Because no one cares about the MacGuffin and its history. They care about the journey the characters took to retrieve it. They'd rather see another film with the characters they love chasing some other never before mentioned item, than a prequel that fleshes out the origins of the original item. Also note that this journey happens regardless if you are chasing a briefcase or Excalibur. Again, the MacGuffin CAN BE important in a larger sense to the story. However, its main function is to get the story MOVING, and not how impactful it may or may not be by the story's conclusion).
This is also why you seem confused when people call the One-Ring a MacGuffin--which it is. It could have been a sword, a book, a sacred child, a wand--what it is doesn't matter. All it has to be is the thing Frodo has to carry and Sauron is seeking.
P.S. George Lucas isn't disagreeing with Hitchcock. He accurately describes a MacGuffin. The Death Star plans are a MacGuffin. The problem is people have misinterpreted Hitchcock saying that a MacGuffin is unimportant. He wasn't saying that a MacGuffin MUST BE UNIMPORTANT--which seems to be how you are interpreting it. His point was--it could be anything. It just has to be important enough to the characters that they want to chase it and send them on their journey through the story. That's it.
It's really simple. And you're making it way more complex than it is lol
A MacGuffin can be important to the conclusion of a story. Hitchcock's point was that whether or not the MacGuffin is important is not a determining factor of telling a story. Lucas's point was--he likes making stories with MacGuffins that play a role and have some significance to the end of a film. These are not mutually exclusive statements.
P.S. From a storytelling perspective, Indiana Jones isn't made to chase the Ark for the sake of recovering the Ark. He's chasing it so he has to run into an old flame, the daughter of a mentor archaeologist, who just so happens to have a medallion from the Staff of Ra he needs to recover the items. The Ark and the staff and the medallion are unimportant. They could have been anything. What was important was making Indy run into his old flame. If you doubt this--the end of the film is literally putting the Ark in a giant warehouse for "top men" to look at. That's how unimportant it was to the character's journey.
Likewise, in Back to the Future, the lightning bolt, Delorean, flux capacitor, 88 MPH all DO NOT MATTER. What matters is that Marty goes back in time, meets his parents when they were his age, almost bangs his mom, makes his dad cool, and overcomes stage fright.
MacGuffins exist to push plot forward so that the story can take place.
I prefer distinguishing between modern macguffins and Hitchcockian macguffins than calling them plot coupons
Note, if your changing the glasses, they already existed In universe...