How MacGuffins Can Ruin Movies 

it was a food in an episode of sam and max:freelance police ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4I0tKuzYP1o.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?

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.

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

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!

JJ is a fucking hack.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

+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.

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.

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.

True, I suppose the point is that a lot of recent blockbusters seem to use macguffins lazily so it's a current issue.

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.

I'm bout to go get one right now.

Ya, I stopped believing in this examination there too.

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.

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

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 ! :)

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

What is a WMD?

@@invisibleghost3820 Weapon of Mass Destruction

Beat me to it.

M Paulson McMuffins

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.

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!

Hitchcock coined the term. I think he knows what he's talking about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's like in Star Trek Generations they spend half the film sitting around talking about the nexus.

Lemifan Truly accurate

Same though

🤣🤣🤣 agree!

Just Write is life, Lemifan! :D

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.

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!

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.

That's not the sam 'care', bro. You want to know the answer to the mistery, but you are indifferent to its fate in the end.

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.

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.

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

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

Between Channels like these and K.M. Wiland, I feel pretty much set!

ru-vid.com/show-UC3ogrx6d9oohf6D42G44j1A

Icarus, then don't take this guy's definition of MacGuffin to heart. TV Tropes would probably help you more.

He isn't one, neither is Data from Star Trek. They are sentient artificial life form characters that interact with the world around them of their own accord and get into trouble. This video essayist is talking out of his ass and should watch Star Trek Next Generations "The Measure of a Man" to get his bigotry in check.

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!

Well, the SFX are nice... ..and that's about it. Everything else is either mediocre (acting, pacing, music) or absolute shit (plot, plot, characters, plot and the plot...). Did I mention the plot? Cause that is the reason I watch movies, to get a good story being told, but it seems most of the Episode7-9 fans are loving it entirely because of the SFX and who cares about a plot... :-(

Yes, whether I badly wanted it to end for two hours or two hours forty.

3:48 He knew what he was doing 😆

Was too.

There is not a single McGuffin in the new Star Wars films.

@Anthony Cameron Najera The Sith dagger and the two Wayfinders are MacGuffins

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!).

WarlockX4 we neEd to Go tO thE thinG to GeT thE ThinG To GeT ThE ThiNg

Shit, BJ episode? Talk about a turndown when I've seen what this really meant.

CanheTV Haha I guess I wasn't thinking. The episode is called "BJ and the AC", meaning Baby Jesus and the Antichrist.

I did watch The Leftovers too, but i found that episode a bit annoying. I think no one would have cared about "rescuing" the baby in the first place. The mayor told Kevin to buy a new one in secret, but...realistically speaking, I think it would have been replaced with no shame about it. I found the BJ to be a weak plot device, symbolism apart. It's one of the few episodes that seemed like a waste of time, at least in my opinion.

I believe you're correct