# Predicting Cameron's Avatar: Waterworld or Titanic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 1, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638 "2009-12-01T23:29:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/141 "2009-12-03T22:38:02Z")
It’s ironic that the only guy harping on “narrative” here is apparently someone who has no idea what it means. Here’s a hint: scientific accuracy != narrative. Are the good people of the Dope generally familiar with the concept that microwaves work by heating water, and therefore a giant microwave pulse should theoretically boil everyone in Gotham City alive? Certainly. Did that reduce the enjoyment of “Batman Begins” for some Dopers? Absolutely. Was that loss of enjoyment due to problems with the narrative? Abso-fucking-lutely _not_. Here’s the definition of “narrative” from the American Heritage Dictionary: > [@](#): > > a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious. Traditionally, what makes up a good narrative is elements like pacing, character, internal consistency, thematic depth, etc. Notice that nowhere in that list is scientific accuracy mentioned. IOW, a story can have terrible science but still be a good narrative. For example: “Star Wars” is a great story despite the fact that it features laser beams traveling slower than light, sound in space, spaceships banking as if they were in an atmosphere, and human beings capable of moving things with their minds. Every single one of those things flies in the face of everything we know about basic physics, and indeed some people find them to impair their enjoyment of “Star Wars.” Does that mean the narrative is bad? Hell no. It just means that George Lucas knows about as much about science as Isaac Newton knew about visual effects. So criticize “Batman Begins” for its plot holes, inconsistent characterizations, Katie Holmes’ piss-poor acting, or whatever. But it’s flat out _wrong_ to say that the microwave weapon destroys the narrative, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the narrative. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/142 "2009-12-03T22:38:53Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > It’s a discussion of whether we think the movie is going to succeed or not. If you want to just talk about what you think and then not have anyone respond to it, get a blog. (And disable commenting.) LOL > [@](#): > > Let’s go back to what you did say: > [@](#): > > Now, I personally am of the opinion, from my admittedly limited exposure to the movie in the form of the trailer, that the story is trite to the extent that it will make the movie unwatchable for me. You, however, believe that the story will be enjoyable, based on your wife’s opinion of it. So, I’m trying to ascertain whether or not your wife’s tastes and mine match up, so I know whether or not to bother with the film. I believe that it will be at least as good as say a Die Hard movie or Iron Man. Right, but my wife’s judgment of it is based off of criteria that might be separate from the criteria you would judge it by. So basically what I need is for YOU to tell me what YOU like. Because it’s not a matter of my wife’s taste, as she is judging it by her reading of the script and thinking it doesn’t suck as a script. The point I am getting at is that we judge things differently based on the context in which we do the judging. She also liked Shaun of the Dead. > [@](#): > > ETA: Yeah, **MostlyClueless** , but **mswas** ’s wife \*\*has \*\*seen it. Which means that I can get a much better idea of whether or not I should bother with it… \*if \*I can get mswas to give me the slightest indication of his wife’s taste in films. She hasn’t seen it, she’s read the script. I am trying to grill her about these things and she tells me that she has compartmentalized her tastes and hermetically sealed off her mind so that she may get through the Twilight series for some market research she was doing. 😉 She’s finally answering: (this is for personal preference not judgment of narrative quality) Likes: Brotherhood of the Wolf Watchmen 300 (more struck by how gorgeous it was than for the story) Princess Mononoke Kingdom of Heaven (Director’s Cut) addendum: She asked me to specify that production design is an important part of the realization of a movie. (Theatrical Design Major) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/143 "2009-12-03T22:43:00Z")
> [@Tanbarkie](#): > > It’s ironic that the only guy harping on “narrative” here is apparently someone who has no idea what it means. > > Here’s a hint: scientific accuracy != narrative. Except when they stipulate that it’s a bomb that will vaporize water. You have to read ALL the words if you are going to respond. You can’t pick and choose and then pretend like you are disagreeing with me. They didn’t just violate scientific accuracy, they EXPLAINED HOW IT WORKED and then violated that. And that’s narrative. It superheats and boils water. That it was selective ONLY to the water in the mains, is what makes it a stupid plot device. > [@](#): > > Are the good people of the Dope generally familiar with the concept that microwaves work by heating water, and therefore a giant microwave pulse should theoretically boil everyone in Gotham City alive? Certainly. Did that reduce the enjoyment of “Batman Begins” for some Dopers? Absolutely. Yes. > [@](#): > > Was that loss of enjoyment due to problems with the narrative? Abso-fucking-lutely _not_. It does when you explain what that particular function does, and then don’t apply it broadly. > [@](#): > > Traditionally, what makes up a good narrative is elements like pacing, character, internal consistency, thematic depth, etc. Notice that nowhere in that list is scientific accuracy mentioned. I am not talking about scientific accuracy, I am talking about internal consistency. Like I said, READ ALL THE WORDS. > [@](#): > > IOW, a story can have terrible science but still be a good narrative. If they don’t try to explain how a machine works, then yes. It’s the Hard Sci Fi vs Soft Sci Fi paradigm. Don’t explain shit if you don’t want to have to deal with the consequences of consistency. > [@](#): > > For example: “Star Wars” is a great story despite the fact that it features laser beams traveling slower than light, sound in space, spaceships banking as if they were in an atmosphere, and human beings capable of moving things with their minds. Every single one of those things flies in the face of everything we know about basic physics, and indeed some people find them to impair their enjoyment of “Star Wars.” Does that mean the narrative is bad? Hell no. It just means that George Lucas knows about as much about science as Isaac Newton knew about visual effects. Star Wars doesn’t explain how anything works. It’s soft sci fi. > [@](#): > > So criticize “Batman Begins” for its plot holes, inconsistent characterizations, Katie Holmes’ piss-poor acting, or whatever. But it’s flat out _wrong_ to say that the microwave weapon destroys the narrative, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the narrative. It does, because INTERNAL CONSISTENCY is an important part of narrative. Glad I could clear that up for you. Next time, ALL THE WORDS. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/144 "2009-12-03T22:45:09Z")
In the Dark Knight the equivalent to that tech was the cell phone spy machine. It was junk science, but it didn’t explain how it worked, and it didn’t have an inconsistency in its application. There wasn’t for instance some phone line that was immune to it for some unexplainable reason. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/145 "2009-12-03T22:46:51Z")
**Shot From Guns** : She says, “How could I have forgotten _Ravenous_? It’s like my favorite movie.” ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/146 "2009-12-03T23:08:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > She says, “How could I have forgotten _Ravenous_? It’s like my favorite movie.” Christ… Watchmen. Brotherhood of the Wolf? _Ravenous?!?_ I think we’ve established that your wife’s tastes are a horrible predictor of box office success (which is the whole point of this thread) and that she seems fascinated by movies that are pretty to look at, but also pretty hollow. So going by that metric, Avatar will make about $1.53 at the box office. Finally, you and I did this in the last Avatar thread, but I just thought I’d mention again that December is a horrible time to expect an action blockbuster to become a mega-blockbuster… King Kong (2005): $218 million Apocalypto (2006): $50 million Eragon (2006): $75 million I Am Legend (2007): $256 million The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008): $79 million If Avatar matches I Am Legend (the biggest December action movie in the last five years), it’ll just barely miss being called a flop. And between Princess and the Frog, Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 and Sherlock Holmes (or seeing New Moon for the 20th time), there will be plenty for the all ages set to push Avatar to the side. ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/147 "2009-12-03T23:08:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except when they stipulate that it’s a bomb that will vaporize water. You have to read ALL the words if you are going to respond. You can’t pick and choose and then pretend like you are disagreeing with me. They didn’t just violate scientific accuracy, they EXPLAINED HOW IT WORKED and then violated that. And that’s narrative. It superheats and boils water. That it was selective ONLY to the water in the mains, is what makes it a stupid plot device. Nobody’s disputing that it was a stupid plot device. But it’s not inconsistent, because they never specifically point out that humans are full of water. An obvious fact, you say? Well, not for most of the movie-going audience (especially mid-movie). Certainly not any more immediately obvious than “you need air to bank” or “a ten-story tall lizard with human proportioned legs should collapse under its own weight.” Regardless, inconsistency is when two things a movie mentions disagree with each other. In this case, the movie only expounds on one thing - the inconsistency comes only from how that one thing disagrees with our knowledge of reality. Therefore, if you’re going to bitch about that, you can hardly let the same thing go in other movies. And regardless, calling it “inconsistency” is factually incorrect. > [@](#): > > If they don’t try to explain how a machine works, then yes. It’s the Hard Sci Fi vs Soft Sci Fi paradigm. Don’t explain shit if you don’t want to have to deal with the consequences of consistency. Hammond and Co. try explaining how they made dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park.” Does the fact that their cloning technology makes no actual sense make “Jurassic Park” a bad movie? Or let’s get back to Star Wars - the Rebel pilots explicitly chatter about “locking their S-foils in attack position,” following which their fighters’ wings open up. There’s no damn air for those S-foils to interact with. Even ignoring the question of why they have wings at all, why the hell would moving them into an “X” shape have any effect on their combat effectiveness? > [@](#): > > It does, because INTERNAL CONSISTENCY is an important part of narrative. It _is_ internally consistent. Just because it’s stupid doesn’t make it inconsistent. And using all caps doesn’t make your stunningly poor vocabulary accurate. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/148 "2009-12-03T23:35:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except when they stipulate that it’s a bomb that will vaporize water. You have to read ALL the words if you are going to respond. You can’t pick and choose and then pretend like you are disagreeing with me. They didn’t just violate scientific accuracy, they EXPLAINED HOW IT WORKED and then violated that. And that’s narrative. It superheats and boils water. That it was selective ONLY to the water in the mains, is what makes it a stupid plot device. No, that’s what makes it a McGuffin. Yes, perhaps it broke the suspension of disbelief for some people, but it’s not something that was ever meant to hold up to much scrutiny. I like both Bale Batmans, but to allege that the second one (and the absurd contortions the Joker’s plot takes every step of its narrative) is somehow more credible (ooh, sorry–“internally consistent”) is splitting the most narrow of hairs. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/149 "2009-12-03T23:39:57Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > If Avatar matches I Am Legend (the biggest December action movie in the last five years), it’ll just barely miss being called a flop. Another problem is that _Avatar_ runs almost an hour longer than _Legend_, so while the 3D price premium will make up some of that slack, it’s still going to take a hit by having fewer shows per screen (2- & 3-D) than the Will Smith flick could manage. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/150 "2009-12-03T23:43:27Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Christ… > > Watchmen. Brotherhood of the Wolf? _Ravenous?!?_ > > I think we’ve established that your wife’s tastes are a horrible predictor of box office success (which is the whole point of this thread) and that she seems fascinated by movies that are pretty to look at, but also pretty hollow. So going by that metric, Avatar will make about $1.53 at the box office. Wow, you didn’t even follow the context did you. This is precisely why I was vacillating on giving examples. **Shot From Guns** asked specifically for her TASTE in movies, not her prediction for box office gold. > [@](#): > > Finally, you and I did this in the last Avatar thread, but I just thought I’d mention again that December is a horrible time to expect an action blockbuster to become a mega-blockbuster… That’s one of the better arguments. > [@](#): > > King Kong (2005): $218 million > Apocalypto (2006): $50 million > Eragon (2006): $75 million > I Am Legend (2007): $256 million > The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008): $79 million I expect it to compete with I am Legend. $ 256 million is respectable. And yes, I know that Hollywood’s expectations are totally out of proportion and ridiculous, and that they will say it flops if it does that well. > [@](#): > > If Avatar matches I Am Legend (the biggest December action movie in the last five years), it’ll just barely miss being called a flop. And between Princess and the Frog, Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 and Sherlock Holmes (or seeing New Moon for the 20th time), there will be plenty for the all ages set to push Avatar to the side. Sherlock Holmes is probably its primary competitor. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/151 "2009-12-03T23:47:09Z")
> [@Tanbarkie](#): > > Nobody’s disputing that it was a stupid plot device. But it’s not inconsistent, because they never specifically point out that humans are full of water. An obvious fact, you say? Well, not for most of the movie-going audience (especially mid-movie). Certainly not any more immediately obvious than “you need air to bank” or “a ten-story tall lizard with human proportioned legs should collapse under its own weight.” > > Regardless, inconsistency is when two things a movie mentions disagree with each other. In this case, the movie only expounds on one thing - the inconsistency comes only from how that one thing disagrees with our knowledge of reality. Therefore, if you’re going to bitch about that, you can hardly let the same thing go in other movies. And regardless, calling it “inconsistency” is factually incorrect. Alright, I’ll concede that point, though I think it’s more obvious that a human is 80% water, and giant lizards and banking are grandfathered in. But I’ll concede your point. But my primary complaint isn’t even the inconsistency. My primary complaint is that Katie Holmes didn’t splode. I would’ve been fine if she sploded and no one else did. 😉 > [@](#): > > Hammond and Co. try explaining how they made dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park.” Does the fact that their cloning technology makes no actual sense make “Jurassic Park” a bad movie? Umm, it diminishes it for sure. > [@](#): > > Or let’s get back to Star Wars - the Rebel pilots explicitly chatter about “locking their S-foils in attack position,” following which their fighters’ wings open up. There’s no damn air for those S-foils to interact with. Even ignoring the question of why they have wings at all, why the hell would moving them into an “X” shape have any effect on their combat effectiveness? Point taken. > [@](#): > > It _is_ internally consistent. Just because it’s stupid doesn’t make it inconsistent. And using all caps doesn’t make your stunningly poor vocabulary accurate. Stunningly poor vocabulary. :rolleyes: I was using the term correctly. I just came up with a poor example. There is a difference. As someone who has superior vocabulary to myself, you should understand that distinction. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/152 "2009-12-03T23:50:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I was using the term correctly. Actually, you weren’t, as you conceded above. I would also note your usage of “narrative” as a synonym for story has been dubious at best. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/153 "2009-12-03T23:51:43Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > No, that’s what makes it a McGuffin. Yes, perhaps it broke the suspension of disbelief for some people, but it’s not something that was ever meant to hold up to much scrutiny. I like both Bale Batmans, but to allege that the second one (and the absurd contortions the Joker’s plot takes every step of its narrative) is somehow more credible (ooh, sorry–“internally consistent”) is splitting the most narrow of hairs. That’s not what a McGuffin is. A McGuffin is something that is used as a plot device and it is never revealed as to what it is. Like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction or Serena’s Father Dr. VanDerMcGuffin in Gossip Girl. Something that remains off-screen around which the plot revolves but is never revealed. A microwave pulse bomb that is described and shown on screen is NOT a McGuffin. > **[MacGuffin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin)** > > 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. The term was originated by Angus MacPhail for film, adopted by Alfred Hitchcock, and later extended to a similar device in other fiction. > The MacGuffin technique is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually, the MacGuffin is revealed in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance. It ... The plot did not revolve around the microwave pulse. The closest thing to a McGuffin in Batman Begins would be the motivation of Ra’s al Ghul’s organization. The ‘why’ of their destruction of cities is never explained more than ‘purifying decadence’. They never explain why this is important or desirable, it’s very important in the beginning of the movie and is all but forgotten by the end. And that’s using ‘McGuffin’ loosely. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/154 "2009-12-03T23:55:42Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Actually, you weren’t, as you conceded above. No, I was using the term correctly, I used a poor example of it, as I pointed out above. 😉 If you’re going to glom onto someone who has the skills to call my example into question, at least don’t push it. > [@](#): > > I would also note your usage of “narrative” as a synonym for story has been dubious at best. Wow you’re dense. I guess you didn’t understand the part where I used the McGuffin of the thesaurus entry for _perfect_ when I corrected you before. Look up narrative in the thesaurus, one of the most prominent synonyms it gives is ‘story’. [http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/narrative](http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/narrative) > [@](#): > > Main Entry: narrative > Part of Speech: noun > Definition: story, tale > Synonyms: > account, anecdote, book, chronicle, chronology, description, detail, fiction, history, line, long and short of it, narration, plot, potboiler, recount, report, statement, version, yarn It’s amusing that you would push this line of reasoning. Narrative and story are not synonyms. I’ll be using that one against you again. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/155 "2009-12-03T23:56:31Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That’s not what a McGuffin is. A McGuffin is something that is used as a plot device and it is never revealed as to what it is. Like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction or Serena’s Father Dr. VanDerMcGuffin in Gossip Girl. Something that remains off-screen around which the plot revolves but is never revealed. Absolutely ridiculous–the McGuffin is the engine that drives a character’s motivations, even if the actual significance is somewhat irrelevant (or muted). The secret name of the organization. The uranium in the wine bottles. The microfilm in the statue. These are all “revealed” McGuffins by the Master himself. To state that the McGuffin isn’t revealed shows a phenomenally poor understanding of the history of the term. In the case of Batman, the gizmo-whatchamahoozit must not reach the thingamabob in time or else everything will go terribly bad. That’s the engine that Ra wants to achieve and Batman tries to prevent. A McGuffin. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/156 "2009-12-03T23:56:43Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Another problem is that _Avatar_ runs almost an hour longer than _Legend_, so while the 3D price premium will make up some of that slack, it’s still going to take a hit by having fewer shows per screen (2- & 3-D) than the Will Smith flick could manage. This is also one of the more credible arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/157 "2009-12-04T00:03:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, I was using the term correctly, I used a poor example of it, as I pointed out above. 😉 \*\*Tanbarkie \*\* stated in the portion you quoted: _“And regardless, calling it “inconsistency” is factually incorrect.”_ You responded: “Alright, I’ll concede that point.” To clarify, since you somehow missed it, you conceded that you used term incorrectly. That is not compatible with your current stance that you have. > [@mswas](#): > > Narrative and story are not synonyms. So we’re agreed? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/158 "2009-12-04T00:03:24Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Absolutely ridiculous–the McGuffin is the engine that drives a character’s motivations, even if the actual significance is somewhat irrelevant (or muted). Right, and the microwave bomb doesn’t qualify. > [@](#): > > The secret name of the organization. The uranium in the wine bottles. The microfilm in the statue. These are all “revealed” McGuffins by the Master himself. To state that the McGuffin isn’t revealed shows a phenomenally poor understanding of the history of the term. I quoted you the wikipedia article where it says: > [@](#): > > A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is “a plot element that catches the viewers’ attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction.”[1] > > Sometimes, the specific nature of the MacGuffin is not important to the plot such that anything that serves as a motivation serves its purpose. The MacGuffin can sometimes be ambiguous, completely undefined, generic or left open to interpretation. > [@](#): > > In the case of Batman, the gizmo-whatchamahoozit must not reach the thingamabob in time or else everything will go terribly bad. That’s the engine that Ra wants to achieve and Batman tries to prevent. A McGuffin. But it’s not the engine of the plot, it’s the engine of one act. The wikipedia article doesn’t support your overly broad usage of the term. So you can say that my definition is overly narrow, and so you’d have a point, but if you are using this as your foil for one-upsmanship you’re not doing a very good job. A better example of a revealed McGuffin would be the nuclear bomb in Broken Arrow. So I’ll grant that a McGuffin is sometimes revealed, as Lucas uses R2-D2 as a McGuffin in his commentary to Star Wars. But the bomb is not a McGuffin in that it’s only introduced at the climax and did not drive the plot throughout the entire movie. It might be representative of the McGuffin, which is the organization’s plot. But it’s merely the weapon that they use. To be a McGuffin based on the usage in the wikipedia article it would have to be introduced earlier in the film. That’s my take on it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/159 "2009-12-04T00:05:05Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > \*\*Tanbarkie \*\* stated in the portion you quoted: _“And regardless, calling it “inconsistency” is factually incorrect.”_ > > You responded: “Alright, I’ll concede that point.” I agreed that it was a poor example of the point I was making. > [@](#): > > To clarify, since you somehow missed it, you conceded that you used term incorrectly. That is not compatible with your current stance that you have. No, I didn’t concede that at all. I used the term correctly and chose a poor example to make my case. > [@](#): > > So we’re agreed? No, I agree with the thesaurus, not with you. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638/160 "2009-12-04T00:06:06Z")
Unless you mean I used the term, ‘inconsistency’, poorly. Then sure. I’ll grant that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predicting-camerons-avatar-waterworld-or-titanic/519638.md?page=9)