I have to tell you that after I watched some of your videos, I think that this channel is underrated in terms of viewings and suscribers. You people deserve more than that, your videos are great. make more videos please
I think education is a mcguffin for going to school. The most important thing that you learn in school is socialization. The education is mostly trivial.
This is the best video to describe a MacGuffin. It's such a simple concept and yet it's been bastardized and overcomplicated by various anal retentive internet bloggers that it's become a bone of contention now. Years ago Hitchcock described it plainly as "the thing that all the characters want." Later in a Dick Cavett interview he added, "but the audience doesn't care about." Somehow, somewhere, some knucklehead interpreted that as "and must not have any real significance." This restrictive, absolutist addendum was repeated on the internet and has now poisoned the term for all time. See: TV Tropes web site and their endless arguments. They are the main culprits. At it's purest it is simply,, "the thing that the characters want," That's it. That's all of it. I will say here that the difference between Lucas/Spielberg and Hitchcock is that George and Stephen were working in the era of High Concept film making and Hitchcock wasn't. Everything in a high concept film is more intense. There's some dope on the internet who thinks that every Hitchcock film must have a MacG and has listed them. He says the MacGuffin in Marnie is the color red. What a bunch of bullshit. That's how misunderstood the concept has become.
The first time I heard the term was "the glazed mcguffin affair" from Sam and Max, the entire episode is driven by it from the beginning, it's even on the title of the episode.
Thank you! As for Jimmy Stewart's fear of heights, we here do not believe it would qualify as a classic MacGuffin. While acrophobia certainly defines who Scottie is, it is not a major force that drives the plot forward. It is also far too important to be one, constantly hampering Scottie's progress, and cannot be readily replaced by another condition.
I feel like a mcguffin is a plot device that is uninteresting, or irrelevant. Basically, if the device is not compelling for some reason, like it's usefulness is unknown, it's a mcguffin. But if it's clear in it's significance or importance, it's simply a plot device, which is ok. Even if the significance isn't inherently understood from the beginning it's ok. The death star plans is a good example I think. The tesseract is maybe a bad example, because it's unrelatable, and therefore uninteresting. Really interesting subject, just in the comparative sense. It's also very nostalgic.
So does that mean that the "MacGuffin" in the other Harry Potter stories are the COS, the Prisoner, (well not the Goblet since it's not really a MacGuffin), and the Order of the Phoenix isn't a MacGuffin but the prophecy IS, the "Half-blood" prince and the titular Deathly Hallows (or the Horxcues)?
I think The One Ring is most definitely a MacGuffin. You could replace it with the One Amulet or the One Apple and it would be the same story. It's not as important as the characters' stories or the huge events surrounding it. I think because everyone wants it so bad makes it a SUPER MacGuffin if you ask me. Every so-called "MacGuffin" has some importance anyway (usually wealth or power), so I don't see how the One Ring is any different. It's an object that the characters desire because the author told you it's important, and that's all you need.
great video, but I feel it's important to note that Hitchcock did not coin the term MacGuffin. "The term was originated by Angus MacPhail for film, adopted by Alfred Hitchcock, and later extended to a similar device in other fiction."
I won't say that Hitchcock believed that the MacGuffin is something that is unimportant to the audience, but more so that, to the audience, the most important thing is the characters. We care about R2-D2 because R2-D2 is a character. In WW2 spy thrillers, we, as the audience, don't want the Nazis to win, but we get emotionally invested in people more so than in things. Who cares if The Birds attack if we don't like the characters. And this maybe a hill I fight and die alone on, but the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is not a MacGuffin. None of the onscreen main characters want the briefcase, it doesn't motivate any of the characters' actions other than it's their job to get it. Bruce Willis's watch is more of a MacGuffin than the briefcase. If Samuel L Jackson decided to turn his life around because of what was in the briefcase, or if John Travolta decided to betray his boss because of the briefcase, than maybe it would be a MacGuffin.
disagree with lucas. i dont think the audience cares about the death star plans, certainly not more than the characters involved. it really is just a plot device
And that plot device regarding something that is basically ignored or kept on the back burner, but yet IS the reason why the audience meets all these characters and go through all the scenes and situations is called a McGuffin.
I contend that Marion is the MacGufffin, not the money. Her sister and lover aren't looking for the money they are looking for her. Norman isn't fixated on the money, he's fixated on her.
I believe the Iron Throne is a really good example of a MacGuffin. It's the thing that the characters want and that drives their actions. Ultimately, for the audience, it's a plot driver. While we do care somewhat about the throne -- and for that reason it fits more into George Lucas' definition rather than Hitchcock's because we have great investment in the Macguffin -- we care LESS about the throne itself than we do about our favorite characters succeeding & reaching their goals, whatever that goal might be. Crucially, as the video says, it can be replaced by another plot driver and still the result would be the same. So the throne could be a a crown or a piece of paper or a person, and it wouldn't change anything.
I see your point. But the really interesting thing is that the Iron throne is less a MacGuffin and more a red herring. Let me explain: How many main characters have displayed a stong desire for it ar primary motivation? 4 (Cersei, Daenerys, Renly, Stannis). And only Daenerys wanted it before King Robert died. All other charaters have completly different reasons. Take the Stark family for exemple. They act for three different reasons: 1. Duty (Eddard, Jon Snow), 2. Revenge (Robb, Arya), 3. Protecting the family (Catelyn) The Iron throne is meaningless for them. And the same goes for almost all other characters. Making the throne far less important then the titel of the series implies. It may be a MacGuffin, but only a weak one. By the way, the main motivation that started the story of was not bloodlust (joke on my part), but lust. Rhaegar Targaryen made Lyanna Stark the object of his longing and captured her, causing Roberts rebellion and setting up the Scene. Petyr Baelish had a crush on Catelyn, causind his affaire with her sister and the murder of Jon Arryn; which started the plot.
It's not the briefcase itself, it's what's IN the briefcase that is the MacGuffin. Hence, all the theories of what's in the case: Some say it's the soul of Marsellis Wallace stolen back from The Devil (which some people say explains the Band-Aid on the back of his neck), some say it's Elvis' Golden Jacket, etc.
The tesseract don't fades in importance in any of the all movies, So i don't think is a Real MacGuffin. And I don't really like the movies so much, not tryning to defends the movies. All of the "new" MacGuffin fail in the 1º principle of the OLD MacGuffin: The Audience don't care, only the characters.
The Tesseract and the Infinity Stones in general are the Lucas kind of Maguffins. They are items that the characters fight over. They go beyond that and show a lot of power. Loki used the tesseract to open a portal to another world and summon alien army. This makes it obvious that the tesseract is important and worth caring about. It is a really big deal. I am personally intrigued by the Infinity Stones. I think the Lucas way is the better way to go.
@@c.d.dailey8013 Hitchcock never said the Macguffin MUST be insignificant. He simply said the audience probably doesn't care about it. Some internet dickwad added the MUST BE INSIGNIFICANT AND INTERCHANGEABLE.. Not true.
@@MrsRosencranz1 Yeah you can get technical, and that is fine. Saying that the audience doesn't care is tricky to gage. It is all based on opinion. Having additional requirments of insignificant and interchangable makes things a lot more concrete. So it can be easier to wrap ones mind around it. If something is insignificant and interchangeable, there is a greater likelihood that the audience won't care. So it is more likely that the audience won't care. I know of examples. The ring from Lord of the Rings and the infinity stones from Marvel movies are Lucas Maguffins. I do care about these items. I do get invested. This is because they have a lot of magic power. If the big bad gets such power it would put the whole world at stake. I don't want that to happen. The money from Psycho and the necklace from Titanic are Hitchcock Maguffins. Heck the former movie was even directed from Hitcock. I don't care about these items at all. That is because they are so insignificant. They don't seem that important. They are valuble but that is about it. It is possible to remove the items without significantly changing the story. In Psycho, Marion could have gone out of town to see her boyfriend. She could still stop in the Bates Motel along the way. She could do it without stealing the money. In Titanic, the team could have studied Titanic, because it is an important historical site. They can explore the sunken ship and interview surviving former passengers. They could do it without looking for the necklace. Maybe the additional details to Hitcock Maguffins can just be suggestions instead of something set in stone.
I have to tell you that after I watched some of your videos, I think that this channel is underrated in terms of viewings and suscribers. You people deserve more than that, your videos are great. make more videos please
welp
Is a college diploma a MacGuffin for schooling?
Too real
@Joshua F. than its a macguffin in a macguffin. And a good test is a macguffin inside that.
the education system is macguffinception
@Joshua F. the original comment fits best
Exactly!!!
I think education is a mcguffin for going to school. The most important thing that you learn in school is socialization. The education is mostly trivial.
Or maybe the macguffin in life is the bigger picture. The goal you're reaching for, etc. And the things that matter are the small moments.
Yes, agreed!
I agree with this fully I was more concerned with the 40 grand in psycho more than anything else
This is the best video to describe a MacGuffin. It's such a simple concept and yet it's been bastardized and overcomplicated by various anal retentive internet bloggers that it's become a bone of contention now.
Years ago Hitchcock described it plainly as "the thing that all the characters want." Later in a Dick Cavett interview he added, "but the audience doesn't care about." Somehow, somewhere, some knucklehead interpreted that as "and must not have any real significance." This restrictive, absolutist addendum was repeated on the internet and has now poisoned the term for all time. See: TV Tropes web site and their endless arguments. They are the main culprits.
At it's purest it is simply,, "the thing that the characters want," That's it. That's all of it.
I will say here that the difference between Lucas/Spielberg and Hitchcock is that George and Stephen were working in the era of High Concept film making and Hitchcock wasn't. Everything in a high concept film is more intense.
There's some dope on the internet who thinks that every Hitchcock film must have a MacG and has listed them. He says the MacGuffin in Marnie is the color red. What a bunch of bullshit. That's how misunderstood the concept has become.
It was Angus MacPhail who coined the term. It was only made famous by Alfred Hitchcock.
Yes we saw the wiki.. lol
great video! subscribed!
Great video with great examples of MacGuffins. I subscribed.
two people who saw this prefer MacDonalds
4 people
5
I love Egg MacGuffins.
You mean Mcmuffin not McGuffin
If I understand correctly, a mcguffin is characterized by it being interchangeable and often vague.
The first time I heard the term was "the glazed mcguffin affair" from Sam and Max, the entire episode is driven by it from the beginning, it's even on the title of the episode.
Awesome stuff!
Thanks! We'd be very grateful if you'd spread the word about the video and our channel. More to come!
0:23 the term was NOT coined by Hitchcock but by Angus MacPhail
Hitchcock's jawline tho
Hitchcock was a genius
2:36 - :44 Right. Smart man. :D
Great video! In "Vertigo", would Jimmy Stewart's fear of heights be considered as a MacGuffin?
Thank you!
As for Jimmy Stewart's fear of heights, we here do not believe it would qualify as a classic MacGuffin. While acrophobia certainly defines who Scottie is, it is not a major force that drives the plot forward. It is also far too important to be one, constantly hampering Scottie's progress, and cannot be readily replaced by another condition.
@@thetake No there is no MacG in Vertigo. There is nothing that main characters seek.
Is money from "The Dark Knight" is MacGuffin?
So there is the classic or Hitchcock MacGuffin and the modern or Lucas MacGuffin. Kind of saw this but as usual you made it so clear.
I feel like a mcguffin is a plot device that is uninteresting, or irrelevant. Basically, if the device is not compelling for some reason, like it's usefulness is unknown, it's a mcguffin. But if it's clear in it's significance or importance, it's simply a plot device, which is ok. Even if the significance isn't inherently understood from the beginning it's ok. The death star plans is a good example I think. The tesseract is maybe a bad example, because it's unrelatable, and therefore uninteresting.
Really interesting subject, just in the comparative sense. It's also very nostalgic.
So does that mean that the "MacGuffin" in the other Harry Potter stories are the COS, the Prisoner, (well not the Goblet since it's not really a MacGuffin), and the Order of the Phoenix isn't a MacGuffin but the prophecy IS, the "Half-blood" prince and the titular Deathly Hallows (or the Horxcues)?
Is the accused in 12 Angry Men a MacGuffin?
I think The One Ring is most definitely a MacGuffin. You could replace it with the One Amulet or the One Apple and it would be the same story. It's not as important as the characters' stories or the huge events surrounding it. I think because everyone wants it so bad makes it a SUPER MacGuffin if you ask me. Every so-called "MacGuffin" has some importance anyway (usually wealth or power), so I don't see how the One Ring is any different. It's an object that the characters desire because the author told you it's important, and that's all you need.
I don't get the lions thing...
great video, but I feel it's important to note that Hitchcock did not coin the term MacGuffin. "The term was originated by Angus MacPhail for film, adopted by Alfred Hitchcock, and later extended to a similar device in other fiction."
So basically Peach is the McGuffin in every Mario game, right?
I won't say that Hitchcock believed that the MacGuffin is something that is unimportant to the audience, but more so that, to the audience, the most important thing is the characters. We care about R2-D2 because R2-D2 is a character. In WW2 spy thrillers, we, as the audience, don't want the Nazis to win, but we get emotionally invested in people more so than in things. Who cares if The Birds attack if we don't like the characters. And this maybe a hill I fight and die alone on, but the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is not a MacGuffin. None of the onscreen main characters want the briefcase, it doesn't motivate any of the characters' actions other than it's their job to get it. Bruce Willis's watch is more of a MacGuffin than the briefcase. If Samuel L Jackson decided to turn his life around because of what was in the briefcase, or if John Travolta decided to betray his boss because of the briefcase, than maybe it would be a MacGuffin.
I thought the macguffin of star wars was the death star plans.
Would these count as McGuffins?
The stamps in Charade
The Alethiometer in The Golden Compass
The Forsythia in Contagion
The weapons stash in Hot Fuzz
you forgot the titanic motif with the diamond which has a Macguffin
and the greatest MacGuffin of all time... the continuum transfunctioner
Dude, what does mine say?
now i know the plot of big lebowski
disagree with lucas. i dont think the audience cares about the death star plans, certainly not more than the characters involved. it really is just a plot device
And that plot device regarding something that is basically ignored or kept on the back burner, but yet IS the reason why the audience meets all these characters and go through all the scenes and situations is called a McGuffin.
In Rpuge One, The McGuffin IS the Star.
So using a MacGuffin is like "Maybe the real treasure wasn't in the chest. Maybe it was the friends we made along the way".
Quick video, yes?
I contend that Marion is the MacGufffin, not the money. Her sister and lover aren't looking for the money they are looking for her. Norman isn't fixated on the money, he's fixated on her.
4:08
The iron throne is not the MacGuffin in Game of Thrones. The bloodlust is...
I believe the Iron Throne is a really good example of a MacGuffin. It's the thing that the characters want and that drives their actions. Ultimately, for the audience, it's a plot driver. While we do care somewhat about the throne -- and for that reason it fits more into George Lucas' definition rather than Hitchcock's because we have great investment in the Macguffin -- we care LESS about the throne itself than we do about our favorite characters succeeding & reaching their goals, whatever that goal might be. Crucially, as the video says, it can be replaced by another plot driver and still the result would be the same. So the throne could be a a crown or a piece of paper or a person, and it wouldn't change anything.
I see your point. But the really interesting thing is that the Iron throne is less a MacGuffin and more a red herring. Let me explain:
How many main characters have displayed a stong desire for it ar primary motivation? 4 (Cersei, Daenerys, Renly, Stannis). And only Daenerys wanted it before King Robert died.
All other charaters have completly different reasons. Take the Stark family for exemple. They act for three different reasons: 1. Duty (Eddard, Jon Snow), 2. Revenge (Robb, Arya), 3. Protecting the family (Catelyn)
The Iron throne is meaningless for them. And the same goes for almost all other characters. Making the throne far less important then the titel of the series implies.
It may be a MacGuffin, but only a weak one.
By the way, the main motivation that started the story of was not bloodlust (joke on my part), but lust. Rhaegar Targaryen made Lyanna Stark the object of his longing and captured her, causing Roberts rebellion and setting up the Scene.
Petyr Baelish had a crush on Catelyn, causind his affaire with her sister and the murder of Jon Arryn; which started the plot.
Wow mind blown💪💪
In GOT Rhaegar is the biggest McGuffin. His actions triggered everything yet we know almost nothing about him
NO. MACGUFFIN, something the characters want or seek. No one is seeking Rheagar.
I can't see the briefcase in "Pulp Fiction" as a MacGuffin. Instead I think it's a plot point that binds the movie's segments together.
It's not the briefcase itself, it's what's IN the briefcase that is the MacGuffin. Hence, all the theories of what's in the case: Some say it's the soul of Marsellis Wallace stolen back from The Devil (which some people say explains the Band-Aid on the back of his neck), some say it's Elvis' Golden Jacket, etc.
A jaguar shark is one of my favourite macguffins!
Takeaway: we spend too much time worrying about things that aren’t inherently important
if Hitchcock recorded his voice for the Bible...id be so religious :)
Alin belennnnnnNNNN!
What’s the Macguffin in “Rear Window”
A person - Mrs Thorwald- her murder drives the plot but she then fades from importance
BB8 is a MacGuffin
Ah yes, the Objet petit a
Leave it to George Lucas to try and fix what ain't broken.
I still don’t understand what a macguffin is but ok
Like if anybody come here from Wikipedia or anything after " Stop friendly fire" 😅🤘👍
The tesseract don't fades in importance in any of the all movies, So i don't think is a Real MacGuffin.
And I don't really like the movies so much, not tryning to defends the movies.
All of the "new" MacGuffin fail in the 1º principle of the OLD MacGuffin: The Audience don't care, only the characters.
The Tesseract and the Infinity Stones in general are the Lucas kind of Maguffins. They are items that the characters fight over. They go beyond that and show a lot of power. Loki used the tesseract to open a portal to another world and summon alien army. This makes it obvious that the tesseract is important and worth caring about. It is a really big deal. I am personally intrigued by the Infinity Stones. I think the Lucas way is the better way to go.
@@c.d.dailey8013 Hitchcock never said the Macguffin MUST be insignificant. He simply said the audience probably doesn't care about it. Some internet dickwad added the MUST BE INSIGNIFICANT AND INTERCHANGEABLE.. Not true.
@@MrsRosencranz1 Yeah you can get technical, and that is fine. Saying that the audience doesn't care is tricky to gage. It is all based on opinion. Having additional requirments of insignificant and interchangable makes things a lot more concrete. So it can be easier to wrap ones mind around it. If something is insignificant and interchangeable, there is a greater likelihood that the audience won't care. So it is more likely that the audience won't care. I know of examples. The ring from Lord of the Rings and the infinity stones from Marvel movies are Lucas Maguffins. I do care about these items. I do get invested. This is because they have a lot of magic power. If the big bad gets such power it would put the whole world at stake. I don't want that to happen. The money from Psycho and the necklace from Titanic are Hitchcock Maguffins. Heck the former movie was even directed from Hitcock. I don't care about these items at all. That is because they are so insignificant. They don't seem that important. They are valuble but that is about it. It is possible to remove the items without significantly changing the story. In Psycho, Marion could have gone out of town to see her boyfriend. She could still stop in the Bates Motel along the way. She could do it without stealing the money. In Titanic, the team could have studied Titanic, because it is an important historical site. They can explore the sunken ship and interview surviving former passengers. They could do it without looking for the necklace. Maybe the additional details to Hitcock Maguffins can just be suggestions instead of something set in stone.
Terrible video!! Every frame a painting. Not this!!