Thirith on 4/6/2008 at 08:15
Yeah... that Austrian guy in Germany in the '30s and '40s did a better job. :p
ChickenMcOwnage on 4/6/2008 at 08:15
Talk about nerd rage...
also, crusade > raiders. :angel:
Scots Taffer on 4/6/2008 at 08:22
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
Can we stop using MacGuffin incorrectly? It's starting to bug me.
Is that in reference to me?
All I ever see is:
Quote Posted by Wikipedia
Harrison Ford used the word “MacGuffin” on Late Night with David Letterman to refer to the plot devices in the Indiana Jones movies, specifically citing the Holy Grail from the third film.
Thirith on 4/6/2008 at 08:32
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) Yet another thing we can blame George Lucas for: :D
Quote:
On the commentary soundtrack to the 2004 DVD release of Star Wars, writer and director George Lucas describes R2-D2 as "the main driving force of the movie ... what you say in the movie business is the MacGuffin ... the object of everybody's search".[2] Where Hitchcock defined the MacGuffin in TV interviews as the object around which the plot revolves, and as to what that object specifically is, "The audience don't care!"[citation needed], Lucas believes that the "MacGuffin should be powerful and that the audience should care about it almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen."
rachel on 4/6/2008 at 11:35
I think the term McGuffin applies here.
McGuffin according to Hitchcock was the device that caused the action, but which nature was irrelevant. It could in theory be replaced with anything.
You can replace the Ark, Stones, Grail, and Aliens with any other artifact and the Indy plot still works.
Rogue Keeper on 4/6/2008 at 12:03
Spell it properly or else you start bugging Fafhrd. ;)
Thirith on 4/6/2008 at 12:33
Quote Posted by raph
You can replace the Ark, Stones, Grail, and Aliens with any other artifact and the Indy plot still works.
Someone earlier one mentioned though that the Ark almost was a character in its own right. It's much more specific than your usual McGuffin, and the way it's presented throughout the film is different from the Grail, which as an object is rather nothingy and as such fits the label of McGuffin much better IMO.
fett on 4/6/2008 at 14:37
I think it's obvious who changed the thread title. Especially after that long post. ;)
Though I totally agree.
Morte on 4/6/2008 at 16:28
I'm waiting with bated breath for the post after Scots sees it.
Quote Posted by Thirith
Someone earlier one mentioned though that the Ark almost was a character in its own right. It's much more specific than your usual McGuffin, and the way it's presented throughout the film is different from the Grail, which as an object is rather nothingy and as such fits the label of McGuffin much better IMO.
The Ark's hardly the Maltese Falcon in its presentation, but it's irrelevant to most of the plot, except for the fact that it's what everyone wants to get their hands on. It's most definitely a macguffin.
Thirith on 4/6/2008 at 17:25
It's a matter of degree, I'd say. The Ark is very different from the suitcase in Pulp Fiction, for instance; we know why the bad guys are looking for it, we know its function, we know that it could be used as a weapon, and the ironic twist at the end (bad guys succeed in getting the Ark, Ark bites their asses big time) depends on the Ark being defined to some extent.
