Hitchcocks' McGuffin vs George Lucas's McGuffin

senor incognito

Are they any different?
And if they are, does that mean George was using a term he didn't really understand?

Sad Professor

My take is that, yes, they are different, but closely related. When Lucas talks about the McGuffin he means any motivating plot device; where as when Hitchcock talked about the McGuffin he meant a meaningless and interchangeable motivating plot device.

So yeah, Lucas probably doesn't fully understand the term as Hitchcock defined it. However, as far as I'm concerned a McGuffin is just an underdeveloped plot device. Hitchcock popularised leaving it underdeveloped because (as he saw it) most of the time the audience doesn't really care anyway.

Is the ring in LOTR a McGuffin? Technically, no. But according to Lucas's definition, Tolkien and Hitchcock both started from the same place, but Tolkien spent more time developing the ring into something that was more than just a plot device.

PunkFreud

I won't bother explaining, since wikipedia can do it for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffin

Personally, I'd take Hitchcock's definition of it, since he basically made up the concept. Lucas can say good luck to himself. I would't trust Lucas to organise my socks. I always felt he just got lucky with star wars and indiana jones (the original ones).Don't like him at all. Anyways, you could argue that the term has developed over the years, and Lucas was just adapting the definition, but many films since star wars have used a mcguffin (its original use), like pulp fiction and no country for old men.

In summary, I don't like or trust George Lucas, but do like and trust Alfred Hitchcock

PunkFreud

Sad Professor wrote: »

My take is that, yes, they are different, but closely related. When Lucas talks about the McGuffin he means the motivating plot device; where as when Hitchcock talked about the McGuffin he meant the motivating plot device which is meaningless and interchangeable.

So yeah, Lucas probably doesn't fully understand the term as Hitchcock defined it. However, as far as I'm concerned a McGuffin is just an underdeveloped plot device. Hitchcock popularised leaving it underdeveloped because (as he saw it) most of the time the audience doesn't really care anyway.

Is the ring in LOTR a McGuffin? Technically, no. But according to Lucas's definition, Tolkien and Hitchcock both started from the same place, but Tolkien spent more time developing in the ring into something that was more than just a plot device.

Beaten by a minute. DAMN YOU!

senor incognito

I reckon Sad Professor is right on the money, but in reference to Punkfreuds' link: how can there be two separate meanings for something invented by one person in this century when the second one is less specific than the first? If it is not a simple case of Lucas misunderstanding the idea
and , what with him being George Lucas : popular culture accommodating a mistake as 'an alternative explanation'?

Nolanger

Who cares what Lucas says? He's a film producer not director.

senor incognito

I was silly enough to point out to someone that I thought they were using this word incorrectly: and they replied that they had 'studied film' ...and george f**king lucas agreed with them so they must be right.
I looked it up and true enough, it doesn't mean the same thing anymore...I'm a bit horrified by this.