Discussion Main / MacGuffin

This might fall under No Macguffin No Winner

Makes me think if The Cake Is a Lie

I don't know. I've seen various MacGuffin sub tropes in the trope repair shop many times, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the most misused trope behind Eldritch Abomination right now.

I honestly don't get how this kind of thing happens. We have pages more in the realm of common language like "Plot Device" or "Starfish Aliens", which seems to be what everyone is looking for but its the obscure language terms that haven't been common English for decades that end up with a thousand wicks (that are usually wrong, surprise!).

I agree. If the Holy Grail, right there in the main picture, were, say, Excalibur, then they wouldn't have been able to save Henry with it. It clearly does something, and it does it in the course of the movie, so it does not fit the description of what makes something a MacGuffin. I think the problem is actually in the description of what makes it a MacGuffin. If it did not include the bit about it not doing anything in the story, or at least toned it down to not doing anything crucial in the story, it would make a lot more of these fit. Still wouldn't get the Ark from Raiders to fit, and probably not the Crystal Skull, but the stones and the Grail do minor enough things that they would still work.

A MacGuffin.

A plot device or plot coupon if it does something but is not actually wanted for what it does.

I'd say there's no reason an item can't be both. Whether the Grail has supernatural powers or not is irrelevant to its plot-driving MacGuffin nature.

I think there are a few examples that work like this- the device is mostly a macguffin as usual until the end when it does something that helps end the story. Maybe that should become a spin off trope. All of the items in Indiana Jones do it- The ark kills the Nazis and Belloq, the stones turn really hot and burn the villain thus giving Indy the chance to kill him, the Grail and its fakes cause the death of the major villain, heal his dad and destroy the location; the crystal skull + aliens kill that movies villain.

Actually, if I have several examples but they are from the same creators, does that count for the Three Rules Of Three?

I did not understand posing the Grial of Indiana Jones either. According to the very deffinition in the page, "It actually serves no further purpose" and "it won't actually do anything". I cannot see how this can be applied to an artifact which saves one of the protagonists. Applied Phlebotynum or not - this item simply does not match the definition provided.

Here is a possible rewrite:

• Indiana Jones is an aversion; each artifact is NOT a MacGuffin! The artifacts are the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark; the Sankara stones in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; the Crystal Skull in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. George Lucas and Harrison Ford have said that the items are MacGuffins, and that the stories could be told with almost anything else in their place. The items may have started as MacGuffins, just random artifacts that Indiana Jones and the villain both want. The aversion happens in scenes where the artifacts invoke their powers. The Ark provides an unexpected Deus ex Machina, the stones do something, the Holy Grail heals someone, and the Crystal Skull communicates by telepathy. Thus, each artifact is no longer interchangeable, and can no longer be a MacGuffin; it is a mere Plot Devices.

Problem: I do not recall if the Sankara stones do anything to disqualify themselves as MacGuffins. I would probably need to watch the movie again to check if the Sankara stones are MacGuffins or not.

When Indy and Mola Ram are hanging on the bridge, Indy causes the stones to burn a hole in his satchel, burn Mola Ram's hand, and fall down (somehow). This wouldn't happen if they were, for instance, secret apple pie recipes.

At the same time, it is interesting that the Fifth Element review veers off into the same discussion we had on the forums a while back...

At the same time, it is interesting that the Fifth Element review veers off into the same discussion we had on the forums a while back...

Spice is also not a Macguffin. It has qualities that affect the plot other than its desirability (Such as its addictive nature confining people to Arrakis), when the entire definition of the Macguffin is that it must be desirable without any other plot-affecting qualities.

I thought the same thing, but then realised that though it looks like the Crystal Shard, I don't think it is, it's not purpleish in anyway, and it's lying on a completely plain table, which after recently watching the movie, I can tell you it never appears sitting on a table. I think its just intended to be a crystal of no importance, as crystals tend to be fancy "important" items that don't actually matter at all.

I'll link in here this minor discussion since it touches on the recurring issue with this trope and this discussion entries.