How MacGuffins Can Ruin Movies
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2017
- Use my link bit.ly/justwrite_VRV to get a 30-day ad-free trial of the VRV Premium!
Support this channel on Patreon: / justwrite
MacGuffins are ubiquitous in Hollywood blockbusters, and are often the root cause of overly simplistic storytelling. In this episode, I take a look at the pitfalls of using this narrative device, as well as 5 ways to make this trope more interesting, unique and effective.
New videos every other Friday (at least in theory!)
Join the community!
Website ▶ www.justwritemedia.com
Twitter ▶ / sagehyden
Facebook ▶ / justwriteyoutube
Music:
"Enjoy" Music by Joakim Karud / joakimkarud
“Electric Mantis - Daybreak | Majestic Color”
• Electric Mantis - Dayb... 
Кино
"The MacGuffin" Sounds Like A Breakfast Sandwich From McDonald's
it was a food in an episode of sam and max:freelance police
ruclips.net/video/4I0tKuzYP1o/видео.html
There Was Also This One Episode From Teen Titans Go And It Was Litarly A BREAKFAST SANDWICH
I could go for a tasty Egg MacGuffin
@@wraith4978 I enjoyed that lol. Love how the anti Macguffin guy looked almost just like Tony Blair.
How many movies _did_ use an egg as a MacGuffin?
Monty Python's Holy Grail. "We already have one."
Correction "got one"
oh...can we see it?
+Tripwire NO! You are eeenglish types!
Yeah you kahniiiiiiiiiiiigits
JESUS CHRIST
sarcasmo57
Now go away or I will taunt you a second time.
I think "mystery boxes" are a bigger issue than macguffins. Nothing is more infuriating than asking a ton of questions and never getting any answers.
That's JJ for yah, he loves to raise questions he expects others to answer. It sounds good on paper, however JJs problem is he only cares about mystery, acting like it's more important than the reveal. But he forgets that the answer to that mystery is just as important. It's why whenever he does answer a question he raises, it's just so underwhelming.
@@Deuteromis J.J.A fan : *Smokes joint* "Its about the journey not the destination man lol"
@@almalone3282 if you are traveling from a state where marijuana is illegal to a state where it is legal it's more about the destination than the journey lol
@@toddgarver5397 but the real kush was the friends we made along the way!
Well... JJ is certainly no Hitchcock lol
And then there is The Rise of Skywalker
Sean Kins They’re right. I really didn’t care about that Sith wayfinder.
I accidentally laughed in the theatre when they revealed the way finder, there are only two, kylo has one and Rey needs the other. It was SO lazy
why some1 never mentioned this vid to di$ney shit directors lel
@@chandlercampbell3356 The leaks before the movie came out (that were correct) said one was Vader's and one was Palpatine's (makes sense) but that's never explatned in the movie.
Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of the MacGuffin
my favorite MacGuffin is the rug that really tied the room together, man!
Dude just wanted his rug back....then got greedy.
The Big Lebowski is a very interesting example of MacGuffins in cinematography. In theme with the absurdity of the movie, it uses numerous MacGuffins, each one just as meaningless as the previous one. We get the rug that got peed on, the rug that The Dude stole, the 100k suitcase, the laundry bag, The Dude's car, the school homework and Bunny (technically, Donny's ashes as well). Each one of those MacGuffins are distractions, explicit plot devices that often end in fish tail. The Big Lebowski is, amongst other concepts in the similar vein, a study on the annoying aspects of McGuffins and their ultimate unimportance to the plot. None of those McGuffins resolved the plot, they were just used as steps to the other nonsensical piece of information that the characters needed to acquire only to have the entire movie end abruptly, without any closure.
OsKarMike1306 😯
Fuckin eh, man.
The Dude like Big Lebowski?
I'm honestly surprised there was no exploration of how interesting/subtle the One Ring was as a macguffin because of how it affects the characters around it. It affected the internal conflict of the characters. Amazing video! Loved it.
Thats because one ring is NOT A MACGUFFIN. You can't adopt a book in to a movie and expect to have a macguffin, because you know the mystery behind the item. Macguffin is a mysterious item, not an item that has been revealed in the books.
the Ring had already been an important plot point in the Hobbit as well- it was something that the reader was already familiar with that had new evil attributes added to it.
its still a maguffin its the primary driver of the plot.
The One Ring is still a macguffin. It's the item of immense power (imagined or real) that both sides are primarily after for goal [x]. Those goals are opposite. It's just a more interesting macguffin.
The ring is a character itself
The One Ring is a by-the-book macguffin - an object that drives the story. Taken from the wiki article: "The MacGuffin's importance to the plot is not the object itself, but rather its effect on the characters and their motivations." The One Ring is important to the story and all, but it doesn't *do* anything for the plot besides give the characters a destination - they have to take it to Mordor to destroy it.
It's the effect it has on the characters and their motivations that makes the One Ring so iconic and effective, when so many other macguffins fall short. Most examples that you'll see only have that destination part (maybe with a time component) so the writer can easily pull the action along through the entire story, even though the characters themselves might not change because of the macguffin, or might not even seem all that motivated by it.
The One Ring, on the other hand, is an ever-present motivation that causes complicated interactions between the characters as they journey. But it's still a macguffin.
I'll have a Sausauge Egg MacGuffin with cheese, two Plot Twists, and a large Exposition, please.
"Sorry, we don't serve Exposition here. Will a large Infodump be fine?"
Now you know that's not healthy. Can we, just once, go for some thematic intrigue?
They just opened a new Christopher Nolan movie down the street...
lmao this is underrated
You are misrepresenting what a MacGuffin actually is. It's most important feature is, that it is somethings that the audience does NOT care about, because it makes no difference to the plot. That can not be said for the Ring in Lord of the Rings, because the Ring is bound into every element of the plot, changes the behavior of characters, influences the story and history of the world and is connected to both sides. Not just as a struggle over it as an object, but also because their history and actions are bound to it. So, it's a Plot Device and not a MacGuffin. In comparison the Suitcase in Pulp Fiction is a classic MacGuffin, because it does not matter to the story at all what it is, what's in it or what happens to it. It has zero influence on the characters other than that they fight about it. THAT is a MacGuffin.
The "Kragel" from the Lego movie again is NOT a MacGuffin, because you can't just switch it for anything else and it is very important to the plot and the philosophy behind the story. Glue makes things permanent and takes away the ability to take it apart and rebuild. This can not be switched out for anything else. It's nature and ability to glue things together are bound to the nature of the plot world. It's the centerpiece of the rivaling philosophies in the movie. NOT everything that is an object is automatically a MacGuffin, as you seem to argue in your video.
This sounds "no true scotsman"y to me
By my account, the argument in the video focuses on objects the audience doesn't care about that the characters are fighting over. Which isn't anywhere near "everything that is an object is automatically a Macguffin."
More relevantly, even TV Tropes says "it is *technically* not a *true* MacGuffin" (Emphasis mine) if it is relevant to the plot. So the Kragle has better qualifications as a Macguffin than R2-D2 does. And as with R2-D2, that example expands the definition slightly to show a way to make a better story.
@@TechnicCreations sounds like you just learned that phrase and are getting carried away with it
Ronin? What was in that silver case? Ice skates?
@@TechnicCreations "No true scotsman" fallacies involve warping an existing definition to exclude an unwanted concept or person (as in making up an arbitrary definition of what a _true_ scotsman is). Maintaining a clearly stated definition, as well as criticizing non-adherence to it, is no such fallacy.
To be fair, the Macguffin isn't a bad tool or even a lazy one. Lazy and bad writers just use it a lot. But many great filmmakers used it to great effect like you stated. Don't blame the hammer if the craftsman made a shoddy birdhouse.
It's a tope and tropes are tools, I guess, huh.
That's why this video is talking about how to use it right.
@bla blahblah
Underrated comment of the day; nay, the history of the whole universe !!! X DDD
Blame the vast right wing conspiracy.
The ring in Lord of the Rings is an example of the good, while the more recent SW and marvel movies are examples of the bad?
kung foo panda and the dragon scroll did the macGuffin really well
I'm not going to lie, I found it extremely disappointing.
True, like he said there is more mystery to the mcguffin if you keepnit hidden for a long time. And in the end there was nothing special about it but it taught an important lesson
Riley Court Bennett yeah quite a bit of an anti- Mcguffin. Seeing that it was actually meaningless
CallMe EJ for me it worked really well, the point of the scroll was that for you to reach it, you needed to be the best version of yourself, not only externally but also internally, so once you find out that it's empty you'll realize that you won't need it. If you cheated, let's say you wasted your time and efforts by stealing it you'll realize that you did everything wrong for nothing while Tai Lung wasted years rotting in prison thinking that if he obtained the scroll he would be powerful enough to make everyone pay
I thought it would've been funny if, after the final conflict, the master shows that the scroll actually had something written on it in invisible ink and makes fun of Po for assuming it was supposed to be blank. Even so, though, Po doesn't care what's on it, because he clearly doesn't need it.
Just a thought. I, personally, found the "blank scroll" twist too cheesy to take seriously. It took me out of the movie.
When is McDonalds going to make a McGuffin?
Don't worry. When they're desperate enough, you'll have the opportunity to get a large McGuffin with cheese.
McGuffin's was their original idea for a name but they didn't think it would catch on so they changed it to McDonald's... honest!
@@guardrailbiter You mean Guffin Royale with cheese?
@@secondchance6603 Really?
@@GregoryTheGr8ster As true as the moon being made of cheese.
You forgot the most important aspect of a MacGuffin: Fungibility. Which means being interchangeable with something else without losing any meaning to the story.
Most of your examples are NOT MacGuffins, but plot devices, since they're not interchangeable. Trading them for something else would result in plot holes. Replacing the One Ring, for example, would create holes as to why Frodo or Bilbo goes invisible or how Sauron can find them and send their troops, etc.
A world ending device in most Mission Impossible movies IS a MacGuffin since whether it's an atomic bomb, a deadly virus, something that melts all ice in the world, the end result is the same and the characters are just trying to get the thing that destroys the world from the bad guys.
You are also incorrect. A McGuffin has no actions. It does nothing. A bomb explodes. That is its action. A McGuffin has no action.
@@anthonycameronnajera8471 exactly! Something that has influence over the plot, even if only a little, is not a McGuffin. The only function a McGuffin has is to resolve/prompt a new situation just by its sheer and simple existence, it does nothing more.
And to the first comment, I agree with you about the interchangeability, but McGuffins ARE plot devices. "Plot device" is a broad term to refer to the various tools used when writing stories. A McGuffin is one of those.
The Rise Of Skywanker Sith Dagger is a Macguffin.
@@anthonycameronnajera8471 Depends on how final say action would be to the actual story. If the bomb exploding means the love interest dies it's a plot device, if means everyone it's a Mcm
I think another really effective way to make the MacGuffin less... well, MacGuffiny is to make it useful in the story in some way. The Ring is "the thing that needs to be thrown into Mount Doom," but it's also an invisibility device. The Holy Grail is "that priceless relic everyone wants," but it's also the only thing that can heal Indy's mortally-wounded father. Suddenly the MacGuffin doesn't feel quite so extraneous to the plot when it's regularly being applied and employed throughout the narrative. This isn't possible for every story, but for those it can, it gives the MacGuffin that much more interesting.
+Andrew Weber Also the opposite way can be used. Instead of the MacGuffin being this powerful large thing, it can be a small thing that people are ok with not caring about. The map/amulet in Raiders of the lost arc would be an example of that. It is an important item, but it has no special/worldending whatever effects. In that way a MacGuffin can be used for conflict and it avoids being the focus of the storry.
Yeah the ring has a use other than as a macguffin (invisibility), but it's also constantly reaching out to those around it and affecting them. At every single moment of the movie, the ring is actively corrupting people around it making something the audience is very attentive to, as it can harm their beloved characters, and not in some generic firing an energy blast way, but turning them into an evil person. After what it did to Boromir, the audience is constantly worried about Frodo for the rest of the trilogy.
Andrew Weber
The One Ring is almost a character itself. It has a mind of its own and it is manipulating the events to some degree.
The ring is not a macguffin. a macguffin is something the audience does not care about. That does not mean that a film about people looking for a thing makes the thing a macguffin. what makes a macguffin is that the audience is not invested with the the thing that drives the plot. In the case of of Lord of the Rings the the Ring has lots of "character development" its mysterious and it has a major effect on the characters. No one who likes the movie is not invested in the Ring as a plot device.
if you could easily change the thing that drives the plot with another thing without major changes to the plot you are looking at a macguffin
A McGuffin that is actually important and does something is not a McGuffin. The Maltese Falcon is the classic McGuffin. The briefcase in "Pulp Fiction" is such a McGuffin that it was lampshaded as being a McGuffin by being so mysterious. Several of the examples in the video are not really McGuffins (R2D2) since they are independently important to the plot. You could literally change the "Maltese Falcon" to "Silver Sparrow" and the rest of the plot is unchanged. It doesn't "do" anything. Not so for many of the examples given.
3:46 the magical objects in Harry Potter are *cloaked* in mystery
Pun like the masters suggestion pops up
I love you
Double pun.
That scene takes place in the Department of Mysteries :P
Is that two puns...or pun squared?
Kartikey Sharma Double means twice as much. That means two puns.
Sage, you are the greatest man who ever lived.
Lol. I hadn't noticed. Thank you for that.
Who's here after Rise of Skywalker?
I'm just here for some delicious McMuffins
@@Golemoid MauLer? :D
So happy I decided to watch it on the internet
A Disappointed Black Man It got recommended to me and I got decently deep into the comments before realizing that it wasn’t a new video
I think that film invovled 4-6 MacGuffins
The one ring isn't counted as mcguffin as far as I know. It actually has actual impact in the narrative of the movie.
It has seductive powers, look at Boromirs behaviour, if it wants it can decide to leave a character, Gollum had to deal with that, etc. It has agency.
The one ring is a villain.
it's definitely not. I have no idea why it's used as an example. It actually makes me feel slightly mad lol...
@@barbarianjk2355 yeah, and in the books, you actually get to see what its channeling to anyone that wears it, as it IS basically Sauron himself promising great power, and addiction.
It definitely isn't. The ring is almost...alive, or feels that way. As another comment said, it has agency, and it also builds up relationships to various characters - With Gollum, with Bilbo, and we see the effect on Frodo unfolding the entire time (which is basically the core of the plot).Even its theme in the score sort of has a breathing effect.
Also, if you go by the "the audience doesn't care" definition then it doesn't count either because we DO care about the ring. It's the One Ring!
The Arkenstone from the Hobbit, that is a PERFECT example for a McGuffin.
This makes R2D2 one of the greatest MacGuffin's of all time, because he's both a character to get invested in, AND also an anti-MacGuffin at times. Think about it; R2D2 is basically abused for a large majority of the first film. He gets the plans, then is rocketed off to some desert planet to be shot and captured by droid merchants after being insulted and abandoned by his cohort, then is almost lost entirely in the story when the protagonists pick another droid over him, only going back on that decision when they found the other droid was defective. The most important plot device in Star Wars was almost passed over for a piece of garbage. That's brilliant!
Except R2D2 isn't a macguffin. He's a character. The fact that everyone is looking for him does not make him a macguffin.
Headrock Exactly. Like in saving Private Ryan, he is the main "object", in this case person, that the characters are looking for. But Ryan isn't a macguffin just because he is someone that is being seeked
I think almost at the very moment when you can say "X is the greatest Macguffin", or to rephrase, "X is different from all other macguffins", then X ceases to be a macguffin altogether. One of the most defining characteristics of a macguffin is that you could easily plant something else in its place without changing anything. For example, take the Tesseract out and replace it with a gigantic plasma sword, or a ball of neutronium, or the soul of a dead god, or anything else you could come up with - and the story remains *100% the same.* That's the clearest indicator that the Tesseract is a macguffin.
Change R2D2 and everything else has to change as well. He is not a macguffin.
On the other hand, Luke Skywalker in TFA is very close to being a macguffin - *if looking at TFA completely separately from the rest of the franchise* - since his only purpose is to be found. His impact on the story or on other characters is practically nonexistent within the constraints of that movie. You could replace Luke in TFA with a completely new character, described as the last great Jedi master in the universe, and the movie would function almost exactly the same. Macguffin.
Headrock, exactly. And I guess, Macguffins can change back into actual characters like Luke did in The Last Jedi. He stopped being a Macguffin in that film.
Well you can only measure a macguffin (or a character) within the context of a story. If you look at the Star Wars saga as a whole, Luke most certainly is not a macguffin by any means. He's just one in TFA.
Completely missed Hitchcock's film Notorious (1944). The MacGuffin was originally Uranium hidden in wine bottles.
The producer said, “What in the name of goodness is that?”
Hitchcock replied, “This is uranium; it’s the thing they’re going to make an atom bomb with.”
The producer asked, “What atom bomb?”
“Look, if you don’t like uranium, let’s make it industrial diamonds, which the Germans need to cut their tools with.”
The Producer was happy.
Uranium, Industrial Diamonds, doesn't matter except the characters want it.
"There is only one Ring master and he does not share power!"
How could the Ring be considered a mere McGuffin. It is a character of its own and the audience is deeply involved in its history. It's not a simple precious ( :D ) treasure or something. It can abandon or corrupt people. It's bound to the story even before it's beginning.
Yeah, not to mention the film was based on the novel. It'd be kind of weird to make a "Lord of the Ring" film series and in the first act of the first film Bilbo says, "Oh that old ring? I sold it at pawn shop, why don't you just go on an adventure where the fate of the world isn't in your hands?" And that's how you get "The Hobbit" film series.
I don't remember the movies, but in the book the ring is not a character with its own will or motivation, only those who use and covet it give it meaning -- its malicious influence doesn't have any nuance, but the characters whose wills struggle against it do.
Ivan Herndon In that specific example it would have been an anti-McGuffin.
GeorgeNoiseless It is stated many times that the ring has a will of it’s own, that’s even clearer in the books than the movie.
The one ring also doesn’t have a plain malicious influence, rather it seduces the wearer with using its power and creates paranoia and desire in all those around it. The practical power of the ring depends on the wearer and increases the closer it gets to Mordor. That’s why they decided on a hobbit to carry it, because hobbits have hardly any desire for power or capacity for evil.
Unlike a McGuffin, the ring cannot be replaced by just another valuable, because it doesn’t just undergo the action, it acts on its own and drives the story on account of it’s unique properties.
To make a long-winded point: A plain McGuffin would never have been able to make Boromir fall in the same way he did.
Boromir saw the ring as a way to save his home but agreed to go along with the fellowship and help in keeping Frodo safe. Big side point about Boromir is that he is a noble character, he wouldn’t normally be one to break his vow or try to hurt the hobbits. When the moment comes he isn’t thinking clear, because for that one moment the ring warps his thinking so much that he succumbs to its temptation and recovers himself a few minutes later when the ring is out of his reach. He then realises what he has done, redeems himself and tries to save the other hobbits as we find out in the second book. With his last words he tells Aragorn that he has failed and lost himself.
All those things are things that a normal McGuffin can’t do. The definition doesn’t really fit either:
An object the characters care about: They don’t really care about it, the ring actively seduces them to use it when they don’t want to, it uses the desires of the people around it against themselves.
But the audience doesn’t: The audience does care, because the ring has clear agency and shapes the plot directly.
That’s why the ring isn’t just a McGuffin. Since it’s imbued with the soul of Sauron and is a part of him and acts on it’s own I actually think it’s closer to a magic character than to a plot device, but because it’s technically still an object that’s debatable.
Sorry for any bad english.
Edit: The ring is actually most likely meant as a loose analogy for the burden of not giving in to temptation and the catholic concept of sin since there is a deep christian undertone in the story but trying to fit it as a narrative device I don’t see it as a McGuffin.
Without the ring, there'd be no story or motivations. One MacGuffin to rule em all.
The ring does something, does matter, so does NOT fit the original definition of MacGuffin.
A basketball is a macguffin.
During the game, the basketball becomes the most important object in the universe. All the players want to take possession of the macguffin, use it to gain points, and keep the other team from getting it. But the macguffin isn't why we watch the game. It's only the catalyst for the other characters to interact.
If it were just an inbounds pass and a guy drains a deep three with every possession, the game would be boring. Basketball is exciting because of how different players handle the macguffin--how they maneuver with it; how they work together to overcome the defense of the other team; how the other team reads their movement and blocks it; there might even be a contest between the two best players to see who is better. Maybe your team wins, maybe the "bad guys" win.
You don't care about the _ball;_ you care about what the *players* are doing _with_ the ball.
I disagree with "macguffins are lazy storytelling" meme. To me it seems a lot like the "long takes are great" meme. Yes there are examples of both being true, but the reverse can also be true. These things are really just tools in the filmmakers tool belt, and when used effectively, well, they're effective (or vice-versa).
True, I suppose the point is that a lot of recent blockbusters seem to use macguffins lazily so it's a current issue.
TL;DR: If you must use a MacGuffin, make sure it ties into and doesn't overshadow the rest of the story.
Great MacGuffin's should have or represent some sort of character trait or flaw. The One Ring causes character conflict. The tesseract doesn't.
Another great way to handle the MacGuffin is to play it off, like Guardians of the Galaxy. During Tivan's monologue about the Infinity Stone, nobody really cares and Rocket even calls attention to the fact that, yeah, nobody really cares. Obviously that technique works in a comedy more than an action or drama.
EDIT: I commented this before finishing the video, he basically says all of this but smarter than I did.
OR make it valuable enough for the audience to care about.
"nobody really cares." Which according to Hitchcock, is a good thing. But what did he know, amirite?
Hitchcock never said it was a good thing that no one cares. He just said that's how it normally is.
The traditional definition of a macguffin is that it’s nature doesn’t affect the plot, only its existence.
Hahahaha, Hitchcock hits the nail on the head.
"The thing that characters on the screen worry about, but the audience don't care." Brilliant!
Hitchcock coined the term. I think he knows what he's talking about.
The line "if it was just about the plans to blow up the Death Star, it would be boring" overlaying Rogue One made me spit on my screen in laughter. xD
One of my favorite examples of a MacGuffin being done right was in the film noir Kiss Me Deadly. The characters are after a mysterious object they literally call "the great whatsit" that eventually turns out to be some sort of radioactive material in a box (I believe the "opening the box" scene from Pulp Fiction was inspired by the same scene toward the end of KMD.) While it does then turn out to be a WMD, and thus falls under the "stop the bad guy from destroying the world" use of MacGuffin, what separates it from that is that, for the vast majority of the movie, the characters don't *know* that's what it is, or what it is at all, they just want to find it for one reason or another. So even though the search for the great whatsit drives the plot, it's all about the fascinating and seedy characters who are looking for it, led by one of the sleeziest, darkest and greatest antiheroes ever, Mike Hammer.
What is a WMD?
@@invisibleghost3820 Weapon of Mass Destruction
I'm surprised he did not talk about the McGuffin misdirect. I think the best recent example I can think of is Captain America Civil War. I'm not the biggest fan of the MCU, but I really appreciated how the movie is dealing with vague ideas such as those UN Accords and then a bunch of Winter Soldiers. In the end, none of it even mattered. It was just about big egos, poor communication and lies that all led to a pretty emotionally poignant conclusion. I like the idea of the path or journey to reach the McGuffin eventually eclipsing any perceived importance the object may have originally held.
Neither the Accords nor the Winter Soldiers are macguffins.
I would agree!!! The notebook with the directions for the winter soldiers was most definitely a macguffin that didnt even matter. I dont love Civil War but its a super well made film and emotionally poignant because of what came before and its use of plot devices like this
+Ignatius Klepto How didn't it matter when it was crucial for Zemo to use it on Bucky to know the information to that place in Russia? It was most definitely useful and important.
Well technically the story telling term is a Red Herring, but I think it works particularly well when used correctly. In Civil War you think that Zemo is trying to ressurect a bunch of super soldier's, but it was only to lure the protagonists to him so he could drive an emotional wedge between two characters that already had a ton of tension.
Unknown, I meant more that we are led to believe his endgame is to control more Winter Soldiers and have some sort of army. The macguffin still is in play but the endgame is a misdirect so the macguffin doesnt meet the endgoal like with most macguffins it just is a stepping stone to it like the first step in a heist plan or film
The Almanac in Back to the Future II I feel is one of the greatest MacGuffins in film history, I remember really caring who got that.
I'd guess that what made it interesting is that we see for a good chunk of the movie how much damage it could cause if it stayed in the wrong hands on the Biff timeline, raising the stakes for Marty
Bilbo Baggins absolutely great point!
Now that worked because of the situation. An everyday object of the future falling in the hands of a absolute douche bag gravely effecting the future.
Bilbo knows his MacGuffins! ;-)
It was number five on one of our lists!
Wouldn't an anti-macguffin be something the characters don't care about but the audience does care about?
Ya, I stopped believing in this examination there too.
Unfortunately you've misunderstood the meaning of what a macguffin is, and hence the video is incorrectly describing things from the get-go. A macguffin is NOT just an object that is central to the plot. For a macguffin to be a macguffin it needs to be insignificant in its own right outside of its ability to move the plot forward.
So most of the examples you showed aren't macguffins. The ring in Lord of the Rings is incredibly powerful, if someone was to take it for their own gain (and not use it to develop the plot) they would become more powerful, hence, not a macguffin. The infinity stones in the marvel universe are NOT macguffins because they represent heaps of power themselves, e.g. if someone gets the power stone they can destroy whole planets, that's not insignificant outside the plot, and hence it is not a macguffin.
A macguffin would be something like a map or key, where it has no use outside of something the characters need in the story. If someone gets that map or key and isn't trying to find the thing in the plot then it is useless to them, hence, we the audience don't care about it, hence it's a macguffin.
Except "being insignificant in its own right" isn't part of the definition of MacGuffin. The definition presented in the video, is also not part of the definition of MacGuffin. The definition of MacGuffin presented in the video, was said by someone who didn't understand what MacGuffins are. A MacGuffin is an object or device, whose sole purpose in the story, is to trigger the plot. As a result, it does not matter if the object or device has significance outside of the story, nor does it matter if the audience care about the object or device. The main reason for the existence of the false definition presented in the video, is because an object or device is far more recognizable as a MacGuffin, when the audience isn't invested in the story.
The Sorcerer's Stone, from Harry Potter, is a MacGuffin. It's one and only use in the story, was to drive the plot, and nothing else. However, because the audience was invested in the outcome of the object, only the keenest of minds saw it for what it was.
The Power Stone, is a MacGuffin. Only there to drive the plot forward. However, because there was little investment in story, more people recognized it for what it was. Again, it doesn't matter what significance it has in the world, in which the story takes place. Does the object exist in the story, to drive the plot forward?
The One Ring, is also a MacGuffin. It's existence in the story, is merely to drive the plot. However, people were invested in the outcome, wanting the ring to be destroyed, that again, only the keenest of minds can recognize it for what it is.
The easiest question you could ever ask, to determine if an object or device, is a MacGuffin: Can the story, progress without it?
If yes, the story can progress without it, then it is not a MacGuffin. If no, the story can not progress without it, then it is a MacGuffin.
In Star Wars A New Hope, R2-D2 Carrying the Death Star plans, made R2-D2 a MacGuffin for the plot, without him the story would not progress. It isn't until the plans were delivered, that the droid can be removed from the remainder of the story, which isn't all that much further before it ends. This was demonstrated, when R2-D2 finally got hit during the attack on the Death Star.
People being invested in the story, and invested in the outcome of the MacGuffin, and its significance to the universe outside of the story, does not matter. If it drives the plot forward, and nothing else (from a storytelling standpoint), it is a MacGuffin, by definition.
The moment I saw the thumbnail for this video I was worried. Because star wars doesn'thave any macguffins. The Sith hilocron? Without it, the resistance can'tget to Palpatine planet and stop his army. The map to Skywalker? Skywalker was considered the best chance the rebellion had of defeating the first order, and greatly affected later movies. The plans for the death star? How else were they supposed to destroy the death star?
Each and every time it is irreplaceable.
Except those are MacGuffins. They only exist within the confines of their respective movies, to push the plot forward. The Original Trilogy simply had a good story behind it, where people were heavily invested in the climax of the movie.
Force Awakens, had a story, that was overshadowed by the fact Rey is a Mary Sue. Which by the way, the story of Force Awakens, is the exact same story as A New Hope... seriously, compare the movies: Desert Planet, Force Sensitive main Character, Battlestation capable of blowing up a planet, battle to destroy said space station... The "Map to Skywalker" was the MacGuffin, rather than a cry for help.
Rise of the Skywalker, was a literal fetch quest for a MacGuffin. A Fetch quest with oh so many more contrivances and oh so many more plot holes than the average movie, that it doesn't even count as a freaking story, and even calling it a poorly written fanfic is giving it way too much credit.
@@deathsheir2035 I'm not saying the sequels are good, but they don't have Macguffins. The plans for the death star are irreplaceable in the plot - if you try to turn it into money, for example, then it drastically changes the story.
A Macguffin exists only to drive the plot forward without actually being relevant to said plot. And once again, you cannot replace the death star plans, or the map to Skywalker, or the holocrons, without drastically changing the plot of the movie. The specific nature of their existence both drives the plot forward and is necessary for the plot itself to take place. Therefore, not a macguffin
Please read the following definition of McGuffin, and tell me where it says "has no relevancy to the plot"
*A MacGuffin is an object or device, whose sole purpose in the story, is to trigger the plot.*
An Object relevant to the plot, triggers the plot, therefore that object is a McGuffin.
So of course a McGuffin can't be replaced. Without a McGuffin, there is no story. a McGuffin however, doesn't need to show in the first act. It can make its appearance in the middle, and still be a McGuffin. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a good example, yes we see Hagrid picking up the stone in Gringotts, however, our heroes don't take an interest in it until the middle of the story.
McGuffins that make an appearance at the end of a story, are usually a way to set up a sequel.
Death Star Plans: You claim it cannot be replaced. Therefore it is a McGuffin that triggers the plot. Without it, there is no story.
Map to Skywalker: You claim this one cannot be replaced. It is an object that triggers the plot, therefore a McGuffin.
You're wrong about the Map to Skywalker by the way. It can easily be replaced. The movie as a whole could have been far more enjoyable, if A New Hope wasn't playing on top of everything. What I mean by that is, replace the Map with Starkiller base plans, and it becomes A New Hope. As for finding Luke, either everyone in the resistance already knows where Luke is and how to get to him, or the First Order has a piece of the map, and our Heroes acquire it in some fashion during their assault on Starkiller Base.
The search for Skywalker could have been a far more interesting plot, had it not been overshadowed, by another plot. If the director and writers treated the movie as an Opera set in space, rather than an action film set in space, maybe the sequel trilogy would have been far more interesting.
So Infinity War is most likely going to be a reunion of 6 the Macguffins in one movie.
Pretty much... ppl really just want to see Thanos. We are pretty much over the stones. Each one is basically more powerful or dumber than the last. We want to see Thanos vs Avengers. I dont care abt the glitter
Perhaps, but Marvel mostly does MacGuffins well. In the films involving the Tesseract as the MacGuffin, the characters aren’t fighting over it; the villains already have it, and the heroes are just trying to stop their ambitions period, not stop them from using the Tesseract. With the Mind Stone and Eye of Agamotto, they’re just tools for the heroes to use, so they aren’t really MacGuffins. The Power Stone is more of a true MacGuffin, but it does tie into the theme of working as a team (generic, sure, but effective). The only one where I’d say it’s truly an issue is the Aether in The Dark World - then again, that movie does everything worse.
I honestly just want to see the fun, quirky banter between the infinity stones.
Mind Gem- "Hey baby. Mind if I bum a joint?"
Soul Gem- "Sorry pal. All soul'ed out."
Reality Gem- "Ain't no booze n'aether."
Tesseract- "Buddy you're looking a little spaced out."
Orb- "More power to you."
Eye of Agamotto- "It's about time."
Gemnist that's true.
Cinema Rodschach true but one of those mcguffins is the vision who we care about so it’s a lot more like a R2D2 type Mcguffin.
R2-D2 is my favorite McMuffin
I'm Lovin' It! Hi, yes, can I please get an Artoo McMuffin, and a large orange juice.
McMuffin... *Rich Evans Laugh*
lol
We can call him Fart McMuffin!
Hey, similar interests yet again my friend.
I love how he has a Star Wars character for his thumbnail, especially since rise of Skywalker is chalk full of mcguffins
I feel The Mandalorian did it really well. Making The Child so freaking adorable that every audience member cares about it instantly.
He's a character. Full-on, right away not a macguffin past his introduction. A macguffin that is immediately not a macguffin.
* me who’s profile is baby Yoda / Grogu * xD uhhh
I think you’ve missed the point of this video entirely.
The one Ring in LOTR fails the definition of a Macguffin on essentially every level.
The one ring from LoTR is not a McGuffin, but an active character and direct antagonist to at least half the fellowship.
It's a glorified MacGuffin.
@@LordExor No, it really isn't. It's in the possession of the protagonists for almost the entirety of the movie, it affects the lives of everyone tied to it, it's practically a character unto itself. It's only a Macguffin to people who don't understand the meaning of the term.
@@JoesGuy It's a plot device either way, and Sauron's another glorified plot device by extension. Neither entity is in possession of an actual character/personality, so to make the outrageous claim that the ring itself somehow qualifies is bemusing to say the least.
@@LordExor if you ask me... ring was more of a prisoner, allways tring to escape and trick his jailors and tring to run to his saviors(nazgul)
not a "1 of important thing that needs to be carried"
it was talking to them, promising lies to them and seducing them
not shown in movies but when sam was about to give ring back to frodo at mordor ring promised him to turn mordor a green farm, beatiful and charming all thanks to him! Can you imagine how stupid promise is this? its literally attempt of desperation because it realizes how DOOMED(GOT IT? GOT IT! HELL YEA YOU DID! :D) it is and started using stupid lies that are literally imposible even if charming for them.
I mean sure Sam likes gardens... but making one at backdoor of sauron? :P
also while ring being carried much more things are happening... survival of middle earth must still go on and killing sauron is meaningless if people of middle earth are allready dead.
@@LordExor actually its not a plot device too... its existance has a very good reason
he used ring to bind himself to other rings he created so he can control their wielders and rule middle earth. He was about to succeed too if a man that was not bound in fate(gift of man) cut his fingers by accident and random as his last attempt of survival
That ring is important because its holding power of sauron! This has positives and negatives
positives: He cannot truly die unless ring of power is destroyed wich is very difficult to do anyway! So by doing this he got more powerful
Cons:He needs ring to exist some degree! BUT EVEN WITHOUT IT his pressence can effect or even kill people of middle earth!
The One Ring is a McGuffin? I reject that theory.
Well, it pretty much is, even though it plays heavily with the themes
Why would you disagree?
@@spinakker14 because its more than just a thing they need to take to the mountain. It interacts heavily with the characters.
@@spinakker14 The One Ring is definitely NOT a MacGuffin. People have pointed it already in the comments, but the video's description of McGuffins is shaky. McGuffin are supposed to be objects/things that you can literally switch with anything else without altering the rest of a story. The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is a great example of this : you can replace it by a lamp, a bike, a whale or the Eiffel Tower, the story will remain exactly the same. The briefcase is not supposed to be important and you're not supposed to know what's inside; it's just a tool to create interesting conflicts between the characters and thus, an interesting story.
The Ring, however, is vastly different. If you try to replace it with something, you will quickly realise that the story will stop making any sense. The real powers of the Ring remain pretty mysterious but it's still concretely tied to the plot, in a way that you can't just take it out and end up with the same story. Replace the Ring by a random umbrella and nothing would have ever happened at all, from Bilbo's adventures to Frodo's journey.
The Ring is also a trope, but is different from a McGuffin. It would be more like the Ancient Artefact trope, or something close to it, which is common in the fantasy genre.
@@citroncaviar ah, I see it now! Thanks for the explanation
@@spinakker14 No problem ! :)
Who else now wants to have a taste of macguffin
I'm bout to go get one right now.
Quality video as always, I've never really thought about this aspect of storytelling before but I have to agree most stories use it as a crutch. You're videos always seem to get me thinking critically and I love it.
I am a 20 year old college kid currently studying Accounting/Finance at a prestigious business school. Thats fine and all, I don't totally hate it, and it will most likely pay the bills later on. However, I have a deep passion for great movies and great television, and I can't ignore the fact that I would be so much happier doing something along those lines. I love shows and movies that are able to move people to such a degree that it makes them wish the characters are real. So good that they are endlessly re-watchable and just as satisfying through every re-watch. I would like nothing more than to be a part of what makes magic like that happen. I just have no idea where to begin. I feel like an average writer at best, but think I have some neat ideas that I would love to flesh out. Any advice from people who have faced similar situations? Thanks for your time if you had read this whole cry for help.
I think that you just need to start writing and worry about the quality later. Also, when you consume media, do it with an eye for what works and what doesn't. Use what works and improve upon what doesn't.
Like the title of this channel that uploaded this video: Just Write. Don't worry about quality. It's very rare for the first thing you write to be anywhere good. Even if you have a real talent for writing. It's like any skill. You got to get the hang of it and go from there. Now, the process will go a lot faster if you have any talent for writing and have really good storytelling instincts, but it STILL will take time.
I know this isn't something you probably don't want to hear. You want some magic pill that makes you good instantly and just get on writing. Life doesn't work that way. Anything worth doing takes time and will have its ups and downs.
As for the business thing, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do writing on the side as a hobby while going to school for business. If you ever go into writing and stuff, knowing business will help you a ton in the long run. I always say to mix something you love with something you're good at.
I'm in the same situation as you. I'm also studying accounting and like it, but am not passionate about it as much as writing. I wholeheartedly agree with the other comments. Just write. Write anything and write often.
There's a great Ira Glass quote (just google image "Ira Glass storytelling" and you should find it) that basically says, it's only through volume that you will get as good as you know you can be. If you have good instinct you'll know if something is not quite right and could be made better. Move on to another story and keep writing. Nothing is keeping you from coming back to the original story a couple of months or a year later, after you've developed your skills further.
Observe people, listen to them, try to figure out their real life motivations, so you can write believable and interesting characters. And most importantly, after you've written a bunch of stuff (here comes the hard part), have people read it. It'll be horrible the first couple of times, but after a while, the ego will disappear as your confidence sets in and you'll be able to not take every criticism personally.
I've just finished my first big writing project this year, while studying for my CPA license, and it's been an amazing feeling. Having the characters I've thought about for months finally live on paper. You can do it too! Just write!
Jigglypoop97 Practice makes perfect.
Without knowing much more about your situation than what you've said here, I'd advise buying a screenplay book, or doing as much research as possible into the art of writing, specifically screenwriting, since it's a much different beast than novel or short story writing. Also look into the Reddit forum "Screenwriting". And of course, RUclips channels like this channel are not to be overlooked. These channels are immensely helpful tools. From there, just start writing and see if you think you love it enough to consider dropping everything you've built so far in your life, going 180 degrees, and start pursuing it as a full time career.
Yeah, they missed the part Hitchcock said "The audience don't care." - if your MacGuffin is your main plot, it's no MacGuffin.
It's like in Star Trek Generations they spend half the film sitting around talking about the nexus.
The Ring is not a mcguffin is it? It's its own character, and doesnt move the story forward for shits and giggles, it's quite interesting to see how the ring affects everyone around it.
"It would be boring if it was just about the Death Star plans"
Hey now, Rogue one was actually pretty good.
Hear hear brotha
Until they killed everyone in the whole movie! I did like the Darth Vader scene at the end, his character needed that reinforcement, as to why he was so feared. A few other small plot errors I noticed, the biggest one was the Chinese guy. Why would there be a Chinese guy in a galaxy far away and long ago? A total lack of understanding of the Star Wars universe, many other small references to things human, or Earthly. George was careful to stay away from Earthly things, notice that nothing has wheels, everything either flies or walks, in the original movies. They dropped the ball on that in all of the post Lucas movies. Lazy, complacent writing from people who didn’t do their homework on what is Star Wars.
@@alphagt62 he's not Chinese, he's just part of a human race that is present in both Earth and thw galaxy far far away
Darth Troller yes, complete with hairstyle, clothing, and Katana sword, definitely not oriental. It was lazy writing, having an oriental actor was not the issue, it’s the flat out rip off of oriental cultural items.
It's mediocre
Star Wars: The Rise of the McGuffins.
Beat me to it.
M Paulson McMuffins
One other thing that could be interesting is having a Macguffin actually be used for whatever it was intended for (good or bad) and let that shape the rest of the plot, now the characters are being driven by dealing with whatever consequences made the thing so important in the first place.
The One Ring isn't a McGuffing tho...
Thank you for pointing that out.
Yeah but it super is
@@notablegoat the one ring is a plot device, almost a character, but is far from a Macguffin. Even Wikipedia doesn't dare to list it on the macguffin article.
@@notablegoat It has an effect on the plot, and cannot be replaced by another arbitrary thing, so it is not a McGuffin
@@notablegoat Not at all though.
Some of those examples of macguffins are poor. The audience certainly cares about the one ring, and there the trigger to blow up gotham is.
this was really not a well done video- maggufins are fine in writing the main criticism for many supper hero movies is that the maggufins are not interesting.
That's because the thesis of the video fundamentally disagree with Hitchcock's definition. So yeah he kind of abuses it by not caring too much about it and instead focusing on changing the McGuffin into something enjoyable (which makes it not-a-McGuffin by the original definition) and useful for the construction of the movie. I don't think it's a bad approach, maybe a tad confusing if you took the original definition at heart.
You guys are taking Hitchcock's line way too seriously and too literally. He wasn't making up an exact rule of what it has to be in that moment, he was trying to explain it to someone. All of the things mentioned in the video are MacGuffins. Some you care about, some you don't. Still a MacGuffin.
I don't think the audience cares and if they do it doesn't matter, it's still a macguffin. It's an object other characters are after for whatever reason.
unknown unknown, No, just because it's an object the characters fight over, that doesn't make it a MacGuffin. That's too broad a definition. If the characters care about the item, *and it also has a specific function that gets used*, then it's not a MacGuffin. It's definitely not a MacGuffin if the object serves as a character. R2D2 is quite obviously a character. The One Ring is actually the antagonist in LotR Neither of those are MacGuffins. Money from a heist scene? Not a MacGuffin. Pulp Fiction and and Ronin (with Deniro) have actual MacGuffins.
Uses Alfred Hitchcocks definition of MacGuffin then proceeds to talk about items that do not fit that definition and yet still calls them MacGuffins. I.E The One Ring
Takes one man explaining it as a definition and then comments on video.
Did you not watch the entirety of the video-specifically the bit starting at around 5:43-before commenting?
Nobody gives a shit what the ring really is for.
I want to make a parody called...
"Gary Stu and his magical macguffins."
Wouldn't an "anti" MacGuffin be something that the audience cares about but the characters don't?
Well, Just Write uploaded. Time to abandon all other secondary things...like life and stuff.
Lemifan Truly accurate
Same though
🤣🤣🤣 agree!
Just Write is life, Lemifan! :D
It's funny that in THE LEGO MOVIE playing with your toys how ever you want is a good thing, while in TOY STORY, a kid that does the same thing is considered the villain.
But the difference is that Sid doesn't really "play" with the toys. Hes not having fun along with his toys. It's like he is doing that just for torture, he doesn't really care about them.
Some of the toys are not even his... it's stolen from his sister just to harass her.
Plus: Andy plays with his toys however the fuck he wants... He puts a Cowboy, a Space Marine, Dinosaurs, Soldiers, a giant pig and a fucking POTATO HEAD all in the same universe, and it makes sense for him. Hahahaha.
Sid fixed his sister's doll, and Buzz, it's the rest of the toys he's bought or found, that he messes up.
also he had no idea they are alive, and he just likes to blow or burn objects becouse he is a bit of a pyromaniac.
Good one
@@sosig6445 actually other critics have wrote that Sid was very constructive and full of imagination.
Rise of Skywalker is the lamest McGuffin plot
What was that plot? I didn`t bother watching.
@@markant9534 They basically had to find a MacGuffin to find another MacGuffin to find out where Palpatine is.
The Rise of Skywalker's use of MacGuffins was so egregiously terrible. Abrams is such a hack.
that movie didnt just have a macguffin, it had a double egg mcguffin with cheese, and the guy who made it spat in it for you.
@@Reskov yea and that macguffin is destroyed one minute after it's found, and rey ends up using the macguffin from the opening of the movie lol. Waste of ONE HOUR.
Honestly I think a lot of the strategies you highlight to make macguffins good, disqualify objects from being macguffins. Like making them shrouded in mystery will make the audience care about it. But if the audience cares about it, which arguably they must for it to be good, it isn’t a macguffin. It’s just an object in the film that characters are trying to obtain.
"How the characters fight over it, and the decisions they make." BIGGEST TRUTH BOMB, you got it, JUST WRITE. (had to)
I'm sorry I just have to put this out there. The One Ring from Lord of the Rings is NOT a McGuffin. Here is the exact quote from TV Tropes.
"The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings (though commonly cited as an example) is explicitly NOT a MacGuffin, as its power to corrupt anyone who comes near it is a major driver of the plot, and it is arguably an independent character in its own right. For one thing, it got Boromir killed, and would have been impossible to destroy were it not for Gollum's intervention."
TV Tropes is wrong.
The Ring is a great use of a Macguffin.
It doens't matter how hard it is to destroy. The fact that the entire story centers around it.
Yeah but a macguffin is usually something you need to obtain and they have it from the start. The whole point is that they need to make it to mount doom without getting killed, which is a clear plot. Most macguffins don't provide a clear plot. Two sides need to get the macguffin because one side wants to use it for x and the other for y. There isn't really a struggle over the one ring, they have it and that's it. Also it's kind of an anti-macguffin considering the main characters want to destroy the thing. The only people who want it are the bad guys and the movie isn't about the.
TV Tropes is correct. An essential property of a MacGuffin is that its identity and properties are irrelevant to the story - what drives the story is that everyone wants it. The Maltese falcon or the contents of Marcellus' briefcase could be anything, it doesn't matter at all, all that matters is they're something people want enough to kill for. That's not true of the Ring at all, its unique essential nature is of crucial importance to the plot.
No, TV Tropes is spot on. Just Write's definition is so broad as to be meaningless. The Ring is the primary antagonist. It actively works against the protagonists (arguably as a stand-in or representative of Sauron's power), has a will of its own, drives the plot, *influences* the plot, and has power and functionality.
Even by the atrocious definition Just Writes uses, the One Ring is clearly NOt a MacGuffin. He could probably spend a little more time on TV Tropes to learn more.
If you can change the nature of the object without also changing the essential story then it's a MacGuffin. If not then it isn't.
Change the Pulp Fiction briefcase to a notebook. Does the essential story need to change to accommodate this? No? Then it's a MacGuffin.
Change the One Ring to a wand that controls the weather. Does the essential story need to change to accommodate this? Yes? Then it's NOT a MacGuffin.
Can I just say, I love this video. Starts off right into the topic, informs the viewers, presents examples, explains examples, and wraps it up, then at the end, ad.
Beautiful.
By adding hash browns and a coffee you can make it a meal and save $0.89!
I'M LOVIN' IT!
In what SHOULD have been the last Indiana Jones movie, The Last Crusade, the 'holy grail' worked wonderfully as a McGuffin in many ways. It focused the opposing values of the characters who wanted it (Prof Jones for its religious and archeological reasons) and the American )for the selfish promise of eternal life) for different reasons. Plus it was symbolic of the TRUE holy grail for Indy and his father - the love bond they came to share, which was dramatized beautifully when Indy took his father's advice to 'let it go' and to his hand instead.
It's also important that he called him by his real name at this point, rather than 'Junior' as he had been calling him for the rest of the film.
You predicted Rise of Skywalker SO HARD
I would say Private Ryan was a Macguffin done well. Not only did the characters not care about him, but constantly objected to having to find him.
I was always amazed at how MacGuffin could fix anything with a paperclip and bubble gum. no...wait....
I feel like the one ring from LoTR is more than a macguffin, right?
its a macguffin. there is nothing wrong with maguffins. The problem is lazy writers who don't use the maguffin as more than a thing the characters need to get. a good maguffin will help with the story while a bad one is just a thing that the characters need to get
I think the idea that the audience normally doesn't care about a Macguffin doesn't apply to the ring in LOTR. The audience has reason to care about the ring as much as the characters do.
Good MacGuffins are still MacGuffins. Some of the logic in these comments trying to make a MacGuffin not a MacGuffin hurts my head. MacGuffin is not an insult, it's just a term for a plot device.
The one ring is not a bad macguffin because it is also used to develop the characters, like showing how Aragorn can overcome it's pull unlike his ancestor Isildur (sorry if it's misspelled). It also drives Frodo's character arc from the beginning of the first movie to the end of the third (he gets more and more corrupted by the ring).
That's because the Ring is a character. Think Genie from Aladdin, or Chuckie from Childs Play. It communicates with the wearer. It is corrupt and controls armies, It is Sauron in a different form. No man can control it.
“It’s comical to look at the many similarities between Justice League and Avengers...” pun intended? :D
I was going to ask if the MacGuffin can be a character, but you answered that!
Yes, whether I badly wanted it to end for two hours or two hours forty.
3:48 He knew what he was doing 😆
One way I've found to make a MacGuffin interesting is making it do things. Even if it's magical, as long as it has a consistent function. Man of Steel, for example, would have been a lot more interesting of the Codex kept turning people into Kryptonians or churning out new ones throughout, and the Avengers would have been a lot more fun if the Tesseract just started vomiting up random portals at the worst possible moments, and imagine if the Crystal Skull was somehow psychic and had a mind of its own.
I think this is part of the reason that the Ring and R2D2 make such good MacGuffins: they actually have an influence on the story beyond being the thing that everyone fights over.
"Bad Times At The El Royale" has an interesting version. The movie has 3 McGuffins, which at the start on 1 or two of the characters know or care about. The conflict arises from when the characters, in their pursuit of their goal, becomes aware of/interferes with the other characters goals.
NandoVMovies recently did a great video diving into what a MacGuffin is, and how George Lucas redefined it. To Hitchcock, a MacGuffin was something that could easily be swapped for a different object without re-writing the story.
Please make a video about character goals in genereal and discuss the pitfalls and tips.
There was a blog post I read about distinguishing goals from motivation I found helpful. I'll probably mention it when eventually get to character arcs. Would you want a link to it?
Exploring Stories sure!
Here you go: ellenbrockediting.com/tag/character/
Exploring Stories thx very much.
Sure thing!
Already subscribed. Comprehensive, informative and straightforward. Great video. Keep up the good work!
Great stuff. Really enjoyed this reflection on a sunny Sunday morning. I appreciate the idea...I was not even aware that I was aware of such a thing..
I’m a young writer, and your videos help so much! Thanks! 😄
Between Channels like these and K.M. Wiland, I feel pretty much set!
ruclips.net/channel/UC3ogrx6d9oohf6D42G44j1A
Icarus, then don't take this guy's definition of MacGuffin to heart. TV Tropes would probably help you more.
There's one more thing I'd add.
Have the macguffins interact with or challenge the characters. The one ring is a good example, Frodo is constantly being tempted by it and turns at the end. We see at the start now it affected bilbo and gollum so it sets stakes for frodo not getting to mount doom before it turns him. It's an ever present threat.
This is actually really really good. It's original, witty, informative content I had stopped expecting from this platform. I think this is the first time I've liked a video in over 2 years
In Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) three parties are chasing the MacGuffin throuout the entire movie for three different reasons; Money, Life, and Relationship. Have you seen the movie? What did you think of that MacGuffin?
I thought about using a macguffin for one of my stories, except I wanted it to ultimately mean nothing by the end, (basically the inverse of that TV show with the baby Jesus). Everyone obsesses over this thing and is willing to give their life for it and fight over it, but it just turns out to be another thing the bad guys use to control and manipulate the main characters, taking advantage of their desire for an easy solution. It was never about the stupid macguffin. It was about getting them to look the other way, while all along the really bad shit was going on without most of them even realizing it.
...or something like that.
I think the new Aladdin film suffers from this a bit, especially in the second half of the film. While it's definitely present in the animated version, this one there's too many cries for "The lamp!" as it's being passed from Aladdin to Jafar to Jasmine to Jafar to Aladdin etc. By the end, you're wondering why they haven't used a wish for a lock on the lamp or a satchel with zippers.
(Also, because they establish early in the movie that both Aladdin and Jafar are good at slight-of-hand thievery, all the more baffling why they're constantly surprised the other can take the lamp unnoticed)
Though Quentin Tarantino explained what was with the briefcase. It was a cut or unshot scene showing the diamonds from reservoir dogs. Travolta was the person who was supposed to keep them safe.
I think part of the reason the macguffin is so useful is that in a movie, character goals need to be SPECIFIC and VISUAL. We need to be able to SEE what accomplishing (or failing to accomplish) a given goal looks like. Sometimes the best way to do that is with a macguffin. It's just a trope. Only a bad craftsman blames his tools.
I feel like McGuffin is one of those terms that has lost a lot of meaning from being tossed around so much. Hitchcock's use implied that it was a device that didn't really serve a purpose other than motivating characters. At this point I feel most things that people refer to as a 'McGuffin' (the One Ring being a good example) don't fit the trope as he laid it down.
As a complete aside I find it very, very strange so many people have called Rogue One a boring movie. Maybe it's just the awkward first 20-odd minutes that cut from scene to scene non-stop and prevent us getting to know any of the characters until about 40 minutes in? But once I passed that hurdle I was totally engaged.
SPOILERS FOR ROGUE ONE
I became completely disengaged when Galen Erso died. The last 40 minutes or however long was left after that, I was just waiting for the movie to end. His characyer was so mishandled I'm amazed the higher ups ok'd it.
Pretty much...nowadays "McGuffin" is used way too freely. Let's take the tesseract for example. The first time it turns up (in The First Avenger) it is NOT the McGuffin of the story. It is a tool Red Scull intends to use, but at no point the fight is actually about it, it is about stopping a dangerous ideology. Steve has no interest at all in the tesseract, he only cares about defeating the Red Scull. And in the Avenger, the Tesseract isn't the McGuffin either. If it were the McGuffin, the movie would be about Loki trying to get to it and the heroes trying to prevent him from getting to it. But Loki gets to in within the first five minutes of the movie and the rest of the story is about the Avengers trying to stop whatever Loki's plan is, while the Tesseract and the Scepter are both just tools Loki happens to use. All the infinity stones become a McGuffin though in the larger context of the universe, meaning Thanos trying to get his hand on all of them, but so far only two have actually played the role of the McGuffin in a movie - the aether in Thor The Dark World (which didn't really work) and the power stone in GotG (which worked great!).
Do not underestimate the power of cubes. The only thing more powerful than a cube, is a triangle.
Yet he who possesses all the cubes, controls the triangle!
Even worse when you have a chain of them, they have to find the first MacGuffin to find the second MacGuffin to find the third.. as in a recent film that has already been cited here many times.
Thank you for talking about the Leftovers. I implore anyone who liked Lost but felt cheated by the ending to watch this show. So satisfying, so mysterious and completly hearbreaking at times.
Hmm, I could really go for a McMuffin right now.
well for me, Star Wars • Rouge One was not boring and much more complex and interesting than just a "get the MacGuffin" plot.
LONDON MACE Can someone please spell ROGUE properly for once?? Please? Anyone?
@@j.a.weishaupt1748 - Moulin Rogue
*Rogue. The film is not about make-up.
Childhood Trauma, sorry to hear that. For me I was very angry that Daisy Ridley had three SW films while Felicity Jones just one. Maybe the sequel trilogy would have been passable if they traded actresses.
LONDON MACE more "complex"? You sound like the people who say the prequels are great movies
"Every element should, ideally, [tie into] the theme of the story." I think this sentence expresses exactly why I always agree so much with your videos. I'm always ecstatic when a movie is able to tie its theme into its A, B, and C plots, its design etc. It's also why I feel so meh about some entertaining movies, like How to Train Your Dragon 2. The characters can be interesting and the setting too, but the ones that really stick are the ones where the world of the movie is perfectly thematically fitted to tell that story.
whats the background music that goes from 1:34-1:48? I remember a friend singing/rapping over that sample back in like 2006 lol
_Strife: Quest for the Sigil_ literally had a minor, info-giving NPC named, "MacGuffin." 😛
At that point you're just thinking... 'Mauler was right'...
Oh my god, for the first time EVER someone referenced The Leftovers! I follow so many channels and you were the first one to ever mention it. That show is so goddamn jawdropping.
Another popular maguffin is from A Series of Unfortunate Events, the sugar bowl and what made this one effective in the book series is that we never know why it's significant or what is inside
The one ring is not a macguffin.
It is. A very good one that has been well involved, well written and that has history. But it still absolutely is. The entire story revolves around the object that would have no signifigance in itself in the middle of nowhere. It sets the whole thing in motion.
Calling it a MacGuffin isn't an insult. So you LoTR fans can stop being so defensive now :>
Sarcasm I’m not being defensive and I don’t see the title of macguffin as an insult. I’m just saying it’s not a macguffin. It has a corrupting influence on the person that bears it and it has a will of its own. It has a function in the story other than to be pursued and owned and so it’s not a macguffin.
Edie &Andy stop whining.
Amd Ulkoinen no u
Great video!
And you really should do one on the leftovers! Maybe even video per season! It is one of the greatest tv shows i've ever seen, and no one knows about it!
CRAZYDESIGNER YLR Season 2's penultimate episode is so fucking amazing
I haven't watch it, but crazy that HBO production nobody watches. I guess like deadwood more so than pop hits GoT or even Westworld
I know I'm commenting on this years after the fact but IJ & The Last Crusade actually has three MacGuffins in it and I think its actually one of the best uses of MacGuffins. You have 'the Grail' the thing everyone is after an ancient and Holy Relic. You have 'The Grail Journal" the villains want it because Indy's dad says he can't find 'the Grail' without it. Then the third MacGuffin is actually Henry Sr who Indy wants to save and then must protect because he wants to protect The Grail. The let it go scene is great because it contradicts a line that Indy says when they first find the Grail Journal about his father caring more about it than Indy.
LOVED UR video. PLEASE do another on how MacGuffins were used or misused in Rise of Skywalker.
It is very hard for any writers to write any fantasy-action movie could be written without any MacGuffin in the plot.
Not really. Just make it character driven. Like the Last Jedi.
I liked this video, but i feel you didn't say Macguffin enough times.
The best MacGuffin is The Suitcase in Pulp Fiction, also because the content is not revealed
We recently got a MacGuffin in Murder Drones episode 7
I've always thought of a MacGuffin being something the audience doesn't care about, and has either vague or no origin. ie. The One Ring was never a MacGuffin in my eyes. Only now do I realise that's just the definition of a poor MacGuffin, and that when there is much more meaning on the object like R2D2 and the One Ring, it is a good MacGuffin. Very interesting and informative video.
Wow. The new Star Wars is just mcguffins
There is not a single McGuffin in the new Star Wars films.
@Anthony Cameron Najera The Sith dagger and the two Wayfinders are MacGuffins
Thanks for including video of master horror and drama producer Alfered Hitchcock
Don't ruin your movie like the rise of Skywalker with Mc Muffins