The ACTUAL most iconic film MacGuffins of All Time

[j9ac9k]

"Men in Black" had that universe in marble thing

[Scott Taylor]

Norse mythology had the Rheingold. Achilles had his heel. Samson his hair. And, of course, the apple is the original MacGuffin!

For a seasonal one in film, the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan.

[Frobisher]

Not totally convinced that Achilles’s heel was an object that drove the story because everyone was trying to get hold of it. Maybe it is in the sequel...

[Scott Taylor]

Not totally convinced that Achilles’s heel was an object that drove the story because everyone was trying to get hold of it. Maybe it is in the sequel...

Sequel? Umm...well, I would tell you but ... spoilers.

Could have been his eyebrow instead of his heel. Or his little pinky, etc.

[K7P5V]

Hopefully this counts, but my all-time favorite is the Autobot Matrix of Leadership from Transformers: The Movie (1986)

[CliffHanger2]

Do the infinity stones count? If so they're up there.

[green_garnish]

A McGuffin is "In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself."

So things like the One Ring, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, don't reallly count as McGuffuins.

The falcon statuette from Malta is a McGuffin. The briefcase in Ronin is a McGuffin. The relevance or value of these things is never explained to the audience, and that is an absolute prerequisite.

[Gray Lensman]

Norse mythology had the Rheingold. Achilles had his heel. Samson his hair. And, of course, the apple is the original MacGuffin!

For a seasonal one in film, the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan.

Achilles' heel and Samson's hair are more akin to Chekov's guns than MacGuffins.

[DrNewGod]

A McGuffin is "In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself."

So things like the One Ring, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, don't reallly count as McGuffuins.

The falcon statuette from Malta is a McGuffin. The briefcase in Ronin is a McGuffin. The relevance or value of these things is never explained to the audience, and that is an absolute prerequisite.

The relevance and value of The Maltese Falcon is pointedly explained twice in the film. First, in a post-opening-titles screen-crawl, and then in a delightful scene featuring Greenstreet's Kasper Gutman stalling Bogart's Sam Spade.

[BeastieRunner]

A McGuffin is "In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself."

So things like the One Ring, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, don't reallly count as McGuffuins.

The falcon statuette from Malta is a McGuffin. The briefcase in Ronin is a McGuffin. The relevance or value of these things is never explained to the audience, and that is an absolute prerequisite.

If you remove the characters from the plot, does the ending still happen? Is it interchangeable? If the object that you are chasing could be changed to anything else and it would not change the story in any way, then you are chasing a MacGuffin. If it changes depending on who has it, then it is a plot device. If it actually effects the story outside of "I want this", it's no longer a MacGuffin. But then we get into the Lucas vs. Hitchcock view of MacGuffins, which to me they're not really THAT different to warrant over 40 years of debate ...

That is what I was taught about MacGuffins vs. Plot Devices.

If Indy's Ark and Grail get into the bad guy's hands or the good guys, the same events transpire.

If the Orb from GotGv1 or the One Ring from LotR get into the good or bad guy's hands, different things will happen.

If the Rebel's lose the Death Star Plans, the movie ending changes.

If Bond does or doesn't intercept the list, it still goes out.

Etc.

A MacGuffin is a type of plot device (like Red Herrings, Chekov's Guns, twists, cliff hangers, etc) but not all plot devices are MacGuffins.

That is my understanding at least.

Achilles' heel and Samson's hair are more akin to Chekov's guns than MacGuffins.

Yeah ... those are more akin to Chekov's Guns than a MacGuffin plot device.

They're still plot devices, just not MacGuffins.

[green_garnish]

If you remove the characters from the plot, does the ending still happen? Is it interchangeable? If the object that you are chasing could be changed to anything else and it would not change the story in any way, then you are chasing a MacGuffin. If it changes depending on who has it, then it is a plot device. If it actually effects the story outside of "I want this", it's no longer a MacGuffin. But then we get into the Lucas vs. Hitchcock view of MacGuffins, which to me they're not really THAT different to warrant over 40 years of debate ...

That is what I was taught about MacGuffins vs. Plot Devices.

If Indy's Ark and Grail get into the bad guy's hands or the good guys, the same events transpire.

If the Orb from GotGv1 or the One Ring from LotR get into the good or bad guy's hands, different things will happen.

If the Rebel's lose the Death Star Plans, the movie ending changes.

If Bond does or doesn't intercept the list, it still goes out.

Etc.

A MacGuffin is a type of plot device (like Red Herrings, Chekov's Guns, twists, cliff hangers, etc) but not all plot devices are MacGuffins.

That is my understanding at least.



Yeah ... those are more akin to Chekov's Guns than a MacGuffin plot device.

They're still plot devices, just not MacGuffins.

I largely agree with this. I would argue though that if the ark or grail fall into different hands, there are different resolutions. for one thing, the bad guys don't die.

[BeastieRunner]

I largely agree with this. I would argue though that if the ark or grail fall into different hands, there are different resolutions. for one thing, the bad guys don't die.

The Nazis are going to die whenever they open the Ark. The other Nazis are going to die if they try to either take the Grail from the Place of Power or when they drink from it.

The events might happen in different places or order, but they're still going to happen.

If the Rebel's lose the Death Star plans, Yavin 4 goes boom. If the Ring is not destroyed, Sauron comes back.

I think the subtle difference here is that one motivates the audience and characters while the others just motivate the characters.

Do you really care about Bond's list, what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, Rosebud or just what happens to the characters?

Whereas you really want the good guys to get the Orb, the Plans, and the Ring.

I just kind of think it is splitting hairs.

I often find that people get mad when they like a story and people point out the plot device, perceiving it as some insult to their sacred cow. Plot devices are normal and good for most stories ... I think criticizing bad Chekov's Guns or unused ones would be better debates.

[green_garnish]

The Nazi's are going to die whenever they open the Ark. The other Nazi's are going to die if they try to either take the Grail from the Place of Power or when they drink from it.

The events might happen in different places or order, but they're still going to happen.

.

The Nazis in either case won't die if they don't get the artifact.

[BeastieRunner]

The Nazis in either case won't die if they don't get the artifact.

True. Good point.

Would Indy get the artifact, though? He seems to get one-uped in all the movies.

[bob fett]

From Russia with Love had the Lektor.
Star Wars had the Death Star Plans.
National treasure had the Knights Templar treasure.