The Way of the MacGuffin

[Mad Humanist]

I just found I had a wikipedia tab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) open about MacGuffins for some reason (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24817875&postcount=339). I really need to close it before my machine crashes but I might as well read it first:



Usually, the MacGuffin is revealed in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance. It can reappear at the climax of the story but may actually be forgotten by the end of the story.

The Holy Grail of Arthurian legend has been cited as an early example of a MacGuffin. The Holy Grail is the desired object that is essential to initiate and advance the plot. The final disposition of the Grail is never revealed, suggesting that the object is not of significance in itself.

It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh, that's a MacGuffin'. The first one asks, 'What's a MacGuffin?' 'Well,' the other man says, 'it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers, 'Well then, that's no MacGuffin!' So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.


So the Giant has said that the Snarl is a MacGuffin not a character. (Citation needed, so who you're going to call?)

We have seen how (since being revealed) it's decline (though slight so far) has begun. The "new world" seen by Blackwing is one such indication. The possibilities opened up by Redcloak and the Dark One are another. So what are the chances that the Snarl will go the way of the MacGuffin and have diminished in significance to a mere ball (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1190.html) of yarn (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) by the end of the book?

[Riftwolf]

I just found I had a wikipedia tab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) open about MacGuffins for some reason (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24817875&postcount=339). I really need to close it before my machine crashes but I might as well read it first:



So the Giant has said that the Snarl is a MacGuffin not a character. (Citation needed, so who you're going to call?)

We have seen how (since being revealed) it's decline (though slight so far) has begun. The "new world" seen by Blackwing is one such indication. The possibilities opened up by Redcloak and the Dark One are another. So what are the chances that the Snarl will go the way of the MacGuffin and have diminished in significance to a mere ball (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1190.html) of yarn (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) by the end of the book?

I don't think the Snarl is a macguffin in the truest sense (the ice skate case from Ronin, or the Maltese Falcon), but more like a nuke. You don't fight the nuke, because you can't. You do your damnedest to disarm it, stop it being launched, or escape it. This doesn't mean the nuke becomes trivial to the plot. It's an unfought, unfightable menace. And it's importance hasn't diminished; this threat is the basis for the entire Godsmoot arc, where the Gods are so threatened by the nuke that they're willing to become nukes themselves (in Sunna's exact words).

[Peelee]

I just found I had a wikipedia tab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) open about MacGuffins for some reason (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24817875&postcount=339). I really need to close it before my machine crashes but I might as well read it first:



So the Giant has said that the Snarl is a MacGuffin not a character. (Citation needed, so who you're going to call?)

We have seen how (since being revealed) it's decline (though slight so far) has begun. The "new world" seen by Blackwing is one such indication. The possibilities opened up by Redcloak and the Dark One are another. So what are the chances that the Snarl will go the way of the MacGuffin and have diminished in significance to a mere ball (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1190.html) of yarn (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) by the end of the book?

I don't quite see how macgiffins decline in importance, but think about the MacGuffin more like the Death Star. It's nothing but a plot device, but it absolutely needs to be dealt with.

Also, when The Giant called the Snarl a macgiffin, he likened it to the Death Star, so that's a pretty apt analogy.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I'm no banana, but here's the post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?273656-The-current-main-plot-is-boring/page3&p=14813005#post14813005) where the Giant called the Snarl a MacGuffin. And I'll repeat my thoughts on that from another thread:

I know I'm a little late to the Snarl MacGuffin discussion, but that quote reads as though he's talking about the role the Snarl plays in that part of the story, during Book 5. I don't think we can conclude that the Snarl is confined to the role of MacGuffin for the rest of the story.

[Metastachydium]

I'm no banana, but here's the post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?273656-The-current-main-plot-is-boring/page3&p=14813005#post14813005) where the Giant called the Snarl a MacGuffin. And I'll repeat my thoughts on that from another thread:
I know I'm a little late to the Snarl MacGuffin discussion, but that quote reads as though he's talking about the role the Snarl plays in that part of the story, during Book 5. I don't think we can conclude that the Snarl is confined to the role of MacGuffin for the rest of the story.


I do not subscribe to your reading, mostly because of this bit:

The Snarl plot is part of the armature upon which I hang the characters' conflicts; it is not the whole of the story. The strip is titled The Order of the Stick, not The Chase for the Snarl or even Saving the World. Ultimately, it seems like you want the story to be about things it is not going to be about, so it's unlikely you are ever going to enjoy it.
I'd say it refers to the whole comic, rather than a single book (unless Blood Runs was briefly retitled The Order of the Stick in 2013).

[Dion]

I would avoid thinking too deeply about “which of the many possible meanings of Macguffin do other authors intend when they say Macguffin”, and think instead “what does the giant mean when he says Macguffin”.

A Macguffin can take a huge range of importance and power; you can’t look at just one example and say “this is the only meaning the giant is permitted to have”.

On one end of the spectrum is the classic Macguffin: the stolen $40,000 that drives Psycho. But wait, you might say... what $40k? Because by the end of the movie, you forgot it ever existed in the first place.

On the other end of the spectrum is the greatest Macguffin of all time: The Ark of the Covenant, in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It never diminishes in power through the film; and one point it is even takes on the important role of being the conduit through which god comes down on his wires.

I’m guessing that the Snarl is probably somewhere closer to the Ark side of the spectrum than the $40k side of the spectrum, but I may be proven wrong. We’ll see.

[skim172]

I think it's a MacGuffin in that it's a driver for the story, but plays little part in the plot itself. It serves as a basic premise for the main plot and the ostensible motivations for the main characters. But except in flashbacks and a single panel in Book 5, it hasn't actually appeared in the story or done anything. It has even less of a presence than the Death Star, which at least established itself as a credible danger.

I doubt, however, it'll end up being the type of MacGuffin that turns out mostly inconsequential at the end. At some point, it'll have to be addressed, likely at the climactic point of the plot.

[Peelee]

I think it's a MacGuffin in that it's a driver for the story, but plays little part in the plot itself. It serves as a basic premise for the main plot and the ostensible motivations for the main characters. But except in flashbacks and a single panel in Book 5, it hasn't actually appeared in the story or done anything. It has even less of a presence than the Death Star, which at least established itself as a credible danger.

I would argue that the Snarl has been established as a credible danger (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1139.html).

[Dion]

there are two things to think about:

first, the very first word of that Wikipedia entry is “usually”. There’s no hard and fast definition that applies universally to all MacGuffins.

Second, it’s interesting that giant compared the snarl to the Death Star, because the Death Star wasn't the Macguffin. The MacGuffin in Star Wars is the Death Star *plans*. It’s easy to overlook, but recovering the plans is the plot for the first 2/3rds of the movie! And the plans were so uninteresting that until Rogue One nobody ever spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the plans, and mostly in the context of “what exactly is are Bantha Spies supposed to be, anyhow?”

But the Giant didn’t compare The Snarl to the plans. The Giant compared The Snarl to The Death Star. Which makes me think that the Snarl might continue to be very important until nearly the end of the story.

[Mad Humanist]

there are two things to think about:

first, the very first word of that Wikipedia entry is “usually”. There’s no hard and fast definition that applies universally to all MacGuffins.

Second, it’s interesting that giant compared the snarl to the Death Star, because the Death Star wasn't the Macguffin. The “classic” MacGuffin in Star Wars are the Death Star *plans*. It’s easy to overlook, but recovering the plans is the plot for the first 2/3rds of the movie! And the plans were so unimportant that until Rogue One nobody ever spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the plans, and mostly in the context of “what exactly is a Bantha supposed to be, anyhow?”

But the Giant didn’t compare The Snarl to the plans. The Giant compared The Snarl to The Death Star. Which makes me think that the Snarl might continue to be very important until nearly the end of the story.

Well there goes my plan to tempt the forum away from talking about Star Wars incessantly.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I would argue that the Snarl has been established as a credible danger (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1139.html).

Too impersonal. This establishment (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html), I feel, is more immediate (especially as a counterpoint to RC's earlier defanging of the Snarl when he commented how passive he was above Gobbotopia).

GW

[Goblin_Priest]

Well there goes my plan to tempt the forum away from talking about Star Wars incessantly.

The best you can do is steer star wars discussions to where they properly belong: the main comic thread.

[CriticalFailure]

The point of that quote was to tell people that the focus of the story was on the characters' actions and motivations rather than the physical aspects of the plot. It doesn't mean that the snarl won't be important, it just means that the way that the characters deal with the threat it poses and the choices that they make will be what defines the story, rather than any details about the snarl.

The statement seems to indicate that the snarl won't really function as a character or get much of its own characterization. However, I have wondered if there was some foreshadowing that it might have just a touch of it. iirc 1190 has Belkar wondering aloud how Mr Scruffy manages to not get bored playing with string again and again - perhaps even beings of pure chaos grow bored with the same old and try the novelty of something ordered?

[Casta]

Second, it’s interesting that giant compared the snarl to the Death Star, because the Death Star wasn't the Macguffin. The MacGuffin in Star Wars is the Death Star *plans*. It’s easy to overlook, but recovering the plans is the plot for the first 2/3rds of the movie! And the plans were so uninteresting that until Rogue One nobody ever spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the plans, and mostly in the context of “what exactly is are Bantha Spies supposed to be, anyhow?”

*Bothan* spies. A bantha is non-sentient quadruped.

[Peelee]

Also, what? The heroes have the plans throughout the entire movie.

[Kantaki]

*Bothan* spies. A bantha is non-sentient quadruped.

Everyone thinks that.
And that's why they're the perfect spies.
I mean, if you found a cow inside some top-secret facility, would you suspect it's a spy?
Or would you ask "Who left the barn door open?"?
See? Perfect. Spies.:smalltongue:

[Casta]

This is a logical and eloquently stated case and I have no counter-argument. Bantha spies it is.

[Dion]

Also, what? The heroes have the plans throughout the entire movie.

Sure, but I argue the plans are still the reason anyone does anything in the movie

(Of course, I also argued that the Ark was the Macguffin. So it’s not like you can accuse me of any kind of consistency)

Edit: (and I also thought there was some sort of bovine based espionage involved, so perhaps my knowledge of Star Wars is hazy at best)

Double edit: I’m mostly just saying that the Macguffin usually diminishes in importance to the story, but that doesn’t mean it has to diminish in power or danger. We don’t care about Marcellus Wallace's soul by the end of the movie. We don’t care about The Dudes rug that really ties the room together. We really don’t care about the $40k in Psycho, or the uranium in Notorious, or the microfilm in North by North West, or the Death Star plans in Star Wars. And clearly nobody cared about the Ark enough to keep it out of that warehouse.

The Macguffin is often an object that retains every measure of its immense value and power! They are not diminished in power simply because they are forgotten in the story.

[Fish]

Edit: (and I also thought there was some sort of bovine based espionage involved, so perhaps my knowledge of Star Wars is hazy at best)

I couldn't say. Bovine espionage is top secret.

I know a little German. He's sitting over there.

[Oxenstierna]

My first exposure to the MacGuffin concept was with the earlier, Hitchcock, definition, so I'm probably anchored to that a bit.

There it was literally nothing to the story, like in 39 Steps the plans for a 'silent plane' from the Air Ministry. They never go near an airfield in the movie! Let alone use the design or plans in any useful way. It's just a 'nothing' so the spies have 'something' to drive their actions.

Later it seems directors like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took the concept to be any sort of final plot driver. The 'Death Star plans' in Star Wars are an example given by Lucas, but they aren't quite 'nothing'. If the story stopped with the escape from the Death Star, sure, but then there's a Rebel briefing based on their acquisition of the plans, with an attack planned where the plans are used to identify a critical weakness. The Arc of the Covenant is a Spielberg one, but again, the Arc actually functions in the story: by blasting the Nazis, as Indy survives through his superior knowledge of the item.

Given their power and influence, I'd expect the Lucas / Spielberg definition to be the dominant one today (and who am I to argue over film terms with those guys!), with a 'MacGuffin' being something driving the plot on towards the end, but possibly with a story function or a significant role in the conclusion. So I expect the Snarl will not be disappearing in a puff of 'quiddity'. I actually expect it will be responsible for the death of one or more major characters (good and/or evil), but my crystal-ball skills are not renowned, so I wouldn't put money on it.

[Peelee]

My first exposure to the MacGuffin concept was with the earlier, Hitchcock, definition, so I'm probably anchored to that a bit.

There it was literally nothing to the story, like in 39 Steps the plans for a 'silent plane' from the Air Ministry. They never go near an airfield in the movie! Let alone use the design or plans in any useful way. It's just a 'nothing' so the spies have 'something' to drive their actions.

Later it seems directors like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took the concept to be any sort of final plot driver. The 'Death Star plans' in Star Wars are an example given by Lucas, but they aren't quite 'nothing'. If the story stopped with the escape from the Death Star, sure, but then there's a Rebel briefing based on their acquisition of the plans, with an attack planned where the plans are used to identify a critical weakness. The Arc of the Covenant is a Spielberg one, but again, the Arc actually functions in the story: by blasting the Nazis, as Indy survives through his superior knowledge of the item.

Given their power and influence, I'd expect the Lucas / Spielberg definition to be the dominant one today (and who am I to argue over film terms with those guys!), with a 'MacGuffin' being something driving the plot on towards the end, but possibly with a story function or a significant role in the conclusion. So I expect the Snarl will not be disappearing in a puff of 'quiddity'. I actually expect it will be responsible for the death of one or more major characters (good and/or evil), but my crystal-ball skills are not renowned, so I wouldn't put money on it.

Both the Death Star plans and the Ark were established very early on to have the powers/abilities they had (potential to give info on destroying the Death Star and the capability to destroy entire armies and level mountains for the Ark). I haven't seen a lot of Hitchcock, but did none of his macguffins have any sort of power established for them which they then fulfilled in the end?

[locksmith of lo]

(Citation needed, so who you're going to call?)

ghostbusters? :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I haven't seen a lot of Hitchcock, but did none of his macguffins have any sort of power established for them which they then fulfilled in the end?

I can't categorically say none of them do, but generally, no, they don't. They are a platonic form of inciting object that drives the plot without really being part of the plot. In some ways, it can leave the audience wanting (if nothing else in a "that sounded cool, why don't we get to see that?" kind of way), which is why in current times, they are more likely to have the macguffin at least make a token participation at the end (although that comes with the danger of it being a Deus Ex Machina solution like in Raiders, which has its own issues).

Grey Wolf

[Goblin_Priest]

(although that comes with the danger of it being a Deus Ex Machina solution like in Raiders, which has its own issues).


In a literal way, too!

[Peelee]

I can't categorically say none of them do, but generally, no, they don't. They are a platonic form of inciting object that drives the plot without really being part of the plot. In some ways, it can leave the audience wanting (if nothing else in a "that sounded cool, why don't we get to see that?" kind of way), which is why in current times, they are more likely to have the macguffin at least make a token participation at the end (although that comes with the danger of it being a Deus Ex Machina solution like in Raiders, which has its own issues).

Grey Wolf

I disagree with characterizing the Ark as a DEM when it is expliciitly foreshadowed early in the movie. Deleting the scene where Indy foreshadows knowledge on how to save himself and Marion wasn't the best, but still doesn't make for DEM.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I disagree with characterizing the Ark as a DEM when it is expliciitly foreshadowed early in the movie. Deleting the scene where Indy foreshadows knowledge on how to save himself and Marion wasn't the best, but still doesn't make for DEM.

Foreshadowed or not, it robs the characters of agency, which is what bothers me, and if that is not a god stepping out from a machine to resolve the plot, I'm not sure what could be. I should clarify, though, that I meant DEM in the classic sense, as in the expectation of Greek theatre goers that the plot could be resolved by a god stepping in and righting everything that was wrong, rather than the modern hybrid meaning of "asspull" and "insufficiently telegraphed plot development". Which, fair enough, that's my bad.

GW

[Peelee]

Foreshadowed or not, it robs the characters of agency, which is what bothers me, and if that is not a god stepping out from a machine to resolve the plot, I'm not sure what could be. I should clarify, though, that I meant DEM in the classic sense, as in the expectation of Greek theatre goers that the plot could be resolved by a god stepping in and righting everything that was wrong, rather than the modern hybrid meaning of "asspull" and "insufficiently telegraphed plot development". Which, fair enough, that's my bad.

GW

Imean, that's exactly why the Naxis want it, though. It's power is the driving force behind why its desirable to start with. If the Greeks wrote a bizarrely accurate play about Peelee, God of directed explosions, who created a device called a gun and dropped it to earth, then it should not be an issue when the antagonist gets shot at the end.

Imdy used his agency to trick them into opening the Ark on the island, which saved himself and Marion. The Ark didn't rob them of agency any more than a gun robbed anyone of agency. It was a tool and Indy knew how to use it effectively.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Imean, that's exactly why the Naxis want it, though. It's power is the driving force behind why its desirable to start with. If the Greeks wrote a bizarrely accurate play about Peelee, God of directed explosions, who created a device called a gun and dropped it to earth, then it should not be an issue when the antagonist gets shot at the end.

All that is fine, except for the glaring problem with that play: you say antagonist... but that's not correct. That's the main character(s). The problem with that plot is that there is no space for Indiana Jones in it. It is a parable about the folly of man and thinking themselves equal to the gods and being brought down by their own folly, which is very Greek tragedy, I'll grant you. But you don't really need a whip-wielding archeologist in it. That's kinda the issue.

ETA to the ETA: I haven't watched the film in decades now, so I don't remember how Indy tricked them but at least the impression I got was that the Nazis were going to end up with their faces melted regardless. The details might have been altered slightly by Indy, but at the end of the day, it was the Nazis agains the ark, and there was clearly only one way that would end.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

All that is fine, except for the glaring problem with that play: you say antagonist... but that's not correct. That's the main character(s). The problem with that plot is that there is no space for Indiana Jones in it. It is a parable about the folly of man and thinking themselves equal to the gods and being brought down by their own folly, which is very Greek tragedy, I'll grant you. But you don't really need a whip-wielding archeologist in it. That's kinda the issue.

Grey Wolf

I edited in a bit I think after you started the quote reply, but this is more detailed.

The story was about Indiana Jones. He's the entire focus. We follow him and only him. It happens to include a parable about the folly of man and yadda yadda, but it is about Indiana Jones and the time he fought the Nazis. The story needed a whip-wielding archeologist because there is no story without the whip-wielding archeologist. The movie is not titled How the Nazis Got the Ark with No Problems And Killed Hitler.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I edited in a bit I think after you started the quote reply, but this is more detailed.

The story was about Indiana Jones. He's the entire focus. We follow him and only him. It happens to include a parable about the folly of man and yadda yadda, but it is about Indiana Jones and the time he fought the Nazis. The story needed a whip-wielding archeologist because there is no story without the whip-wielding archeologist. The movie is not titled How the Nazis Got the Ark with No Problems And Killed Hitler.

Yes, but the ending is How the Nazis Got the Ark And Killed Themselves, despite the fact that until then it was Indiana Jones the whip-wielding archeologist. It's that disconnect between who was the main character and what resolved the plot that is the issue.

ETA: compare it to the re-do film, Last Crusade: here, sure, the magical artefact kills an antagonist (and greed for it kills another), but Indy is making decisions all the way to the end - decisions involving archeological knowledge, to boot - and in doing so, is part of the resolution to the end.

GW

[Dion]

The movie is not titled How the Nazis Got the Ark with No Problems And Killed Hitler.

That is the movie we need right now.

Indy gets run over by the giant boulder at the beginning of the movie, and the rest of the movie is just the Nazis finding the Ark and accidentally melting Hitler’s face.

Edit: And I sort of agree; the ark was both as close to the literal meaning of Deus ex Machina as you can get, and also as close to the figurative meaning as you can get.

I mean, the box even puts its own lid back on at the end as some sort of nodding wink to how ridiculous it was. I think if he could have tied it up with a bow, Spielberg would have done that too.

Still a great movie, though.

[Peelee]

Yes, but the ending is How the Nazis Got the Ark And Killed Themselves, despite the fact that until then it was Indiana Jones the whip-wielding archeologist. It's that disconnect between who was the main character and what resolved the plot that is the issue.

GW

It's not, though. The ending is How Indiana Rescued Marion And Tricked the Nazis Into Killing Themselves Because He Was Better Than Belloq. Indy was absolutely instrumental in the faces getting melted. Wouldn't have happened without him. Heck, it's not even guaranteed to have happened with Hitler or anyone else had Indy not maneuvered them into doing it on the island. He was the direct mechanism of his own triumph. The Ark was a tool and he knew how to use that tool better than the others.

[urbanwolf]

The bothans/batha spies stole the second Deathstar plans, and that is all the movie says about them.
The first Deathstar plans are an important plot point.
The second deathstar plans are a throw away line.

[Dion]

Wouldn't have happened without him.

I’m going to have to watch that movie again. Because Belloq seemed like the kind of tool that was going to open it no matter what...

And anyhow, every movie needs a whip wielding archeologist. So I don’t see what this argument is really about.

[Peelee]

I’m going to have to watch that movie again. Because Belloq seemed like the kind of tool that was going to open it no matter what...

I'd argue that he seemed like the kind of tool to not care so long as he believed he was right. He certainly didn't seem to have any desire to do so until Indy talked them into it.

[Dion]

He certainly didn't seem to have any desire to do so until Indy talked them into it.

Ok, I can agree with that.

On a side note, there’s an amazing scene in Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” where he films it as if Rebecca were there, walking around and doing things. But of course there’s no actor there, because the title character of the movie isn’t actually in the movie. So it’s just an empty frame.

I wonder how much of Indiana Jones would have worked that way, with all those scenes without a whip wielding archeologist. And maybe Belloq decides to open the box anyhow.

[Oxenstierna]

Both the Death Star plans and the Ark were established very early on to have the powers/abilities they had (potential to give info on destroying the Death Star and the capability to destroy entire armies and level mountains for the Ark). I haven't seen a lot of Hitchcock, but did none of his macguffins have any sort of power established for them which they then fulfilled in the end?

As far as I am aware Hitchcock remained more specific, so where there is such a thing, he wouldn't have called it a MacGuffin (which in his definition was a 'something' that was a 'nothing').
There are things in his movies that might be termed a MacGuffin under the more loose Lucas / Spielberg definition as 'plot driver'. Someone mentioned the film 'Rebecca', and the dead wife Rebecca might be termed a MacGuffin, but is pretty integral to the plot. I don't think Hitchcock himself ever referred to Rebecca as a MacGuffin. I'm no film student, so happy to be proved wrong if someone has an actual interview or record of him widening the term in that way.

[Peelee]

As far as I am aware Hitchcock remained more specific, so where there is such a thing, he wouldn't have called it a MacGuffin (which in his definition was a 'something' that was a 'nothing').
There are things in his movies that might be termed a MacGuffin under the more loose Lucas / Spielberg definition as 'plot driver'. Someone mentioned the film 'Rebecca', and the dead wife Rebecca might be termed a MacGuffin, but is pretty integral to the plot. I don't think Hitchcock himself ever referred to Rebecca as a MacGuffin. I'm no film student, so happy to be proved wrong if someone has an actual interview or record of him widening the term in that way.

Actually I like the term "plot driver". I'm going to try to use that instead of "macguffin", if only for the fact that it's more intuitive.

[The Pilgrim]

Yes, but the ending is How the Nazis Got the Ark And Killed Themselves, despite the fact that until then it was Indiana Jones the whip-wielding archeologist. It's that disconnect between who was the main character and what resolved the plot that is the issue.

ETA: compare it to the re-do film, Last Crusade: here, sure, the magical artefact kills an antagonist (and greed for it kills another), but Indy is making decisions all the way to the end - decisions involving archeological knowledge, to boot - and in doing so, is part of the resolution to the end.

GW

Still, Last Crusade ends exactly like Raiders: The bad guy wins, and kills himself when tapping on the power of the MacGuffin. I haven't watched Cystal Skull, but my understanding is that it ends exactly the same, too.

That makes Tempe of Doom the sole Indiana Jones movie in which Indy actually matters.

[Peelee]

Still, Last Crusade ends exactly like Raiders: The bad guy wins, and kills himself when tapping on the power of the MacGuffin. I haven't watched Cystal Skull, but my understanding is that it ends exactly the same, too.

That makes Tempe of Doom the sole Indiana Jones movie in which Indy actually matters.

Indy matters in all the movies. In RotLA, the Nazis would have gotten the ark immediately and there is no guarantee they would have ever opened it. In Last Crusade, his father would have died in Nazi custody.

What Indy cares about and what you care about do not seem to be the same thing. Indy matters a great deal to his stories.

[The Pilgrim]

It's not, though. The ending is How Indiana Rescued Marion And Tricked the Nazis Into Killing Themselves Because He Was Better Than Belloq. Indy was absolutely instrumental in the faces getting melted. Wouldn't have happened without him. Heck, it's not even guaranteed to have happened with Hitler or anyone else had Indy not maneuvered them into doing it on the island. He was the direct mechanism of his own triumph. The Ark was a tool and he knew how to use that tool better than the others.

When did Indy trick the Nazis into opening the Ark? There is no such scene in the whole movie.

The closest scene in the movie about Indy trying to manipulate the Nazis is when he points an anachronistic panzerfaust* at the Ark and threatens to blow it up. And Belloq calls the bluff.

*Actually, it was a custom-made weapon made by the movie crew, based on a chinese RPG model that was a copy of a soviet RPG model, mocked up to look like a Panzerfaust.


Indy matters in all the movies. In RotLA, the Nazis would have gotten the ark immediately and there is no guarantee they would have ever opened it.

Why wouldn't them have opened it? Belloq did tell Indy back in Cairo that Hitler would only get the Ark after he had finished with it himself. He was never going to hand it over to the bohemian caporal without tapping on his powers first.


In Last Crusade, his father would have died in Nazi custody.

Without Indy, the nazis would have either never found the Grail, and thus kept Henry alive because he was potentially useful for them, or found the Grail anyway and got killed between the three traps, the fake grails, and the crumbling temple (as it actually happened in the movie). Then, with his captors dead, Henry would have been free to go (as it actually happened in the movie).


What Indy cares about and what you care about do not seem to be the same thing. Indy matters a great deal to his stories.

You don't know what I care about. The point is, the MacGuffin is so irrelevant in the Indiana Jones Movies that even the actions of the hero are irrelevant for their ultimate outcome. It's the adventure itself what matters. In Hitchcock's movies the actions of the protagonist at least are relevant to the outcome of the MacGuffin (in 39 Steps and in North by Northwest, at least).

Temple of Doom is different. Indy isn't motivated here to go on the adventure to help his ex or his father, neither for the quest for hidden knlowledge or to stop an overarching scheme to take over the world. He goes there just to save some random children from a random village from slavery, making it the most pure and unselfish of all his adventures, and the only one were his actions are actually meaningful for a community of people not directly related to him.

[Peelee]

When did Indy trick the Nazis into opening the Ark? There is no such scene in the whole movie.

Why wouldn't them have opened it?
That's fair. I misremembered that Indy was the one who argued to open it before they delivered it to Berlin, but you're right, that was Belloq.


Without Indy, the nazis would have either never found the Grail, and thus keep Henry alive because he was potentially useful for them, or found the grain anyway and got killed between the three traps, the fake grails, and the crumbling temple (as it actually happened in the movie). Then Henry would have been free to go.
Donovan was not going to enter right off the bat; he would send other men in, as evidenced by him doing exactly that when he was there. Assuming he used senior instead of junior to lead the way, on senior's return, he would have come out to... the Nazis. With fully manned tanks outside the temple.

And that's assuming senior broke, which we have no indication he would have. Most likely, he would have died under torture, or been killed for honestly not remembering.

I don't see any possible ending in which Henry Jones, Sr. would have been free to go.

Further, as I said earlier, what Indy cares about and what you care about are not the same thing. You care about the treasure. Indy does not. He openly states this: "All I want is the girl." This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieQG-HJxZZA&feature=youtu.be&t=137) does a great job explaining it (amusingly, I found it while looking up the script so I could double check about whose idea it was to open the Ark). The movie isn't about Indiana Jones getting the Ark. None of them are about Indiana Jones getting the macguffin. Every Indiana Jones movie is about Indy coming to terms with what he believes. The macguffin is necessary for him to get there, but it's neither the journey nor the destination. It ultimately doesn't matter. The movies are not about what you want them to be about. That's not a problem with the movies. That's a problem with your expectations.

[The Pilgrim]

Further, as I said earlier, what Indy cares about and what you care about are not the same thing. You care about the treasure. Indy does not. He openly states this: "All I want is the girl." This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieQG-HJxZZA&feature=youtu.be&t=137) does a great job explaining it (amusingly, I found it while looking up the script so I could double check about whose idea it was to open the Ark). The movie isn't about Indiana Jones getting the Ark. None of them are about Indiana Jones getting the macguffin. Every Indiana Jones movie is about Indy coming to terms with what he believes. The macguffin is necessary for him to get there, but it's neither the journey nor the destination. It ultimately doesn't matter. The movies are not about what you want them to be about. That's not a problem with the movies. That's a problem with your expectations.

You don't know what my expectations are, and I never said there was any problem with those moves as they are. You shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about otther people then throw punches at your strawman.

[Peelee]

You don't know what my expectations are, and I never said there was any problem with those moves as they are.

From everything I've seen so far, what your expectations are is "the Ark/Grail/Crystal Skull is the point of the movies and if the actions of Indy do not affect the Ark/Grail/Skull then Indy is irrelevant to his own movie."

If these are not your expectations, then I apologize, but then I am also confused as to what exactly your point is. Because Indiana Jones is absolutely relevant to all Indiana Jones movies, regardless of the magical item that also appears in the movie.

[The Pilgrim]

From everything I've seen so far, what your expectations are is "the Ark/Grail/Crystal Skull is the point of the movies and if the actions of Indy do not affect the Ark/Grail/Skull then Indy is irrelevant to his own movie."

If these are not your expectations, then I apologize, but then I am also confused as to what exactly your point is. Because Indiana Jones is absolutely relevant to all Indiana Jones movies, regardless of the magical item that also appears in the movie.

I'll concede that I have overstretched Indy's uselessness in the movies by expanding it to the outcome of the characters. His actions are certainly relevant to save Marion in Raiders (she would have been killed by the nazis in Nepal), and in Last Crusade he either saved his father's life or at the very least saved him a lot of years under nazi custody.

Indy's actions are irrelevant for the outcome of the MacGuffin, though. But as you correcly pointed out, Indy is not specially motivated to go after the MacGuffin. The American Army Intelligence hook him for the quest in Raiders by mentioning Ravenwood, and Donovan enlists him by mentioning his father in Last Crusade. In fact, in Last Crusade Indy is very eager to bail out after rescuing his father, it's Henry who forces him to stay in the race for the MacGuffin because the Quest for the Grail is so mystically important and stuff.

Now, the point for this thread is, there is certain debate out there about Hitchcock's take on the MacGuffin, and Lucas/Spielberg's. While the MacGuffin is more relevant in the latter's movies, the fact that Indy's actions are irrelevant for the outcome of the MacGuffin (the bad guys grab it anyway in the end and get karmic death because of their thrist for power) means the Lucas/Spielberg take on the trope is as valid as Hitchcock's (the latter's characters are usually not very interested in the MacGuffin either).

Temple of Doom is a more straightforward take at the MacGuffin's Trope in Hitchock's terms, and the Stones are pretty irrelevant there. If you ask someone what Raiders is about, he'll probably answer "Indy and the nazis race to find the Ark of the Covenant". If you ask about Last Crusade, "Indy and the nazis race to find the Holy Grail". If you ask about Temple of Doom, it's "Indy goes on to free some children enslaved by a local underground death cult. Stones? what Stones? I missed that part".