Pray tell, how can you agree with a point that was never made? Tanbarkie never argued it was a poor example; he was arguing it wasn’t an example of the term you wished to apply, period. The only use of the word “poor” that Tanbarkie exercised was in regards to your vocabulary.
You might want to double-check what you responded to then when you “conceded” the point. As a poster once said: You have to read ALL the words if you are going to respond.
Wow, you’re trying too hard.
Because I’m right.
I have to point out that Hitchcock’s actual description of the MacGuffin to Truffaut runs almost two pages in the book. Not having seen Batman Begins I can’t opine on the correctness of your arguments, but I do think (reading the interview) that the MacGuffin can be disposable during the movie, as long as it is what’s motivating the behavior of the individuals throughout.
Nor does it support your Pulp Fiction example, since none of the 3 primary stories have anything to do with the briefcase, and aside from it bookkending the film (opening shootout, closing face-off), has no dramatic purpose at all. If you’re going to use the term in situational examples, at least mine has more of an actual imminent effect on the story (and they do mention the missing technobob earlier in BB as well).
But I’m not denying that occasionally the McGuffin is not revealed. You were the one asserting that by definition it remains unrevealed. And that is simply inaccurate–not even “sometimes”, but “usually”.
Who are you addressing? My point about the bomb is that it wasn’t introduced until the end of the film. By Hitchcock’s definition it is introduced early and thrown away later.
That’s debatable because the story of Jules and (Can’t recall Travolta’s character’s name) starts off with them retrieving the case very early in the film. Wallace’s motivation throughout is to get that case. It motivates Jules’s epiphany, and it’s the one thing he refuses to give up in the diner the drama of which takes place over several scenes. It determines the action of Jules and Travolta for about half of the film.
Sure, and I was willing to back down on that point when you made your case. I’m just saying the bomb isn’t a good example because it’s not introduced until the very end. And the way McGuffin is described at least in the wikipedia article is that it has to be important to the action in the beginning, but not so much later. Whereas the bomb doesn’t even exist as far as we know for the first couple of acts and is introduced later on in the movie. That’s like saying the Kurgan’s Sword is a McGuffin because the Highlander is trying not to get killed by it. But the sword isn’t really an object that causes the action, it’s an extension of the character.
Ra’s Al Ghul’s secret society is more likely a McGuffin in Batman Begins as it drives much of the action, such as the training of Bruce Wayne, and later his battle against them to be a different kind of Ninja and save Gotham. 
Since I said I hadn’t seen the film, it’s pretty obvious that I don’t actually know who I’m addressing.
If it’s not driving most or all of the characters’ motivations, and isn’t introduced early, it isn’t really a MacGuffin, no.
Opening/WW
Jules’ epiphany comes at the very end and even though the episode with Butch features Wallace prominently, the case is never mentioned, so “throughout” is not really accurate. Even the Wolf episode barely mentions the case (if it’s so important, why don’t they make more of it’s significance during the clean-up?).
Like I said, the case bookends the movie but everything in between the apartment and the restaurant has nothing to do with it whatsoever. So while I’ll admit that the microwave-thingy is far from an ideal McGuffin, it still plays a more prominent role in the plot of the film (from the first time it’s first referenced as missing) than the case does. The briefcase may carry more thematic weight in the long run, but its impact on the actual stories told in the film is practically negligible.
While that’s true, I would remind you that the highest grossing film of all time was about 3 hours and 17 minutes long… and was directed by James Cameron.
Are you serious? I can assure you that both T2 and Aliens are available on DVD. I never got the chance to see Psycho in theaters; but if Hitchcock were alive today I’d be fairly eager to see his next film.
Congratulations, you are the exception. The Terminator, T2 and Aliens are less well known among the teenage moviegoers who would be off school during Avatar’s relese week. This is an indisputable fact. I didn’t say they were unavailable, I merely said that Cameron’s work (especially his action movies) does not carry the same weight with an entire generation of moviegoers as it does with those of us who lived it.
No, actually you said that his name has NO currency to the current generation. It seems clear to me, however that either
A) teenagers have seen Cameron’s action films and will see or not see Avatar based on how much they liked Aliens, T2, etc., or
B) any teenager who has so little grasp of film history prior to 2005 that they’ve never heard of Cameron is exactly the kind of kid who is likely to see Avatar based on the previews alone.
Option A seems far more likely to me. Expecting today’s teenagers to have seen Cameron’s Sci-Fi work is hardly the same as expecting them to have seen Citizen Kane.
Sure, many if not most of today’s teenagers will have seen at least one of Cameron’s films other than “Titanic.” Unfortunately for Cameron, I would bet that 95% of them still have no idea who Cameron is. It’s a sad fact that most of the movie-going audience thinks of movies in terms of the actors starring in them, rather than in terms of the creative minds at the top (directors and, to a lesser extent, writers and producers). For example, among non-film geeks, “Terminator” is thought of as a “Schwarzenegger film.” The association between Cameron and “Aliens” suffers from a slightly different malady - “Aliens” is seen as “part 2 of the Alien series” rather than “a Jim Cameron film.”
This isn’t like George Lucas, who plastered his name over everything he did, and thus built a great deal of name recognition even before embarking on the Star Wars prequel trilogy. There are multiple generations of kids to whom “Lucasfilm” and “Lucasarts” are as familiar a name as “Pixar” or “Spielberg.” By contrast, Cameron hasn’t made anything in fifteen years, and his last big project is now generally considered the chick flick-iest chick flick of all time. The fact that he was originally known for action fare is irrelevant to today’s youth - even if they have seen his older action movies.
To sum up: Jim Cameron is not a selling point for the target audience of “Avatar” (i.e. 13-30 year old males), because the vast majority of them have no idea who he is, even if they love his previous work.
If Cameron had made an action adventure movie set in lush vistas and full of explosions, then yes. Unfortunately, what he actually made was an action adventure movie set in lush vistas and full of explosions starring giant, naked blue cats. I don’t know about you, but that description doesn’t exactly set my inner child on fire.
I disagree: if anything, “Alien” is seen as “part 0 of the Aliens series”. Aliens is still the one with the colonial marines, Ripley kicking ass and the power lifter.
To be fair, they’re giant, naked blue aliens. And if Mass Effect has taught me anything, it’s that naked blue alien women rock.
No beef in the Avatar fight… It may be a CGI fest, but camerons past works have shown he is a competent storyteller. Hell, he made a movie with the governator as the lead brilliant. I’ve faith that it won’t disappoint, but it won’t be Titanic popular.
On the topic of 3D, though, its easy to game the system. You just need to macgyver up your own special 3d glasses by taking two pair, and using both lenses from one side. Both eyes see the same picture, so no forced 3D, and no headaches. Obviously, it would be annoying to still have to wear the glasses, but at least its something.
but why?! 3D is not replacing 2D! there is no need to game anything. there is no reason to believe that it’ll be financially feasible to totally give up 2D for 3D.
this on the other hand, i can understand. like it or not, the fear that there will be more and more scenes shot solely for the 3D audience is a valid one. i’m just not sure if that will detract from the experience of the 2D audience. personally, i’ll be watching it on 2D first, then i might catch it again on 3D if it’s really good, to see the difference.
Hrm. That’s potentially problematical. How a script is acted and directed is going to do a lot to change the final product.
Okay, that’s somewhat helpful. Are these, like, “all-time favorites”? Dislikes would narrow it down more.
Ahahaha, I just brought it up yesterday at lunch.
Shot From Guns I asked her about the dislikes but she was feeling too relaxed to think about things she disliked.
She agrees with me that the Sam Raimi Spider-man movies are terrible, that Transformers is a schlockfest, she like most us was disappointed in X3 and Wolverine. Like most people she didn’t like the Matrix trilogy after the first one.
As for whether or not it will be good, or well acted or whatever. I think it will all be done competently, with shades of ‘done well, and fail’ being left to the watcher. I expect it to be at least as good as T2.
The main reason I am into Avatar is that it’s his baby. Which of course can go either way. Sometimes people love their baby so much that they coddle and spoil it. Othertimes the love and affection that they have for it creates a magnum opus. So I am willing to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt, and seeing what the quality of output will be when he finally gets to do what he really wants to, rather than rehashing other people’s concepts.
Now that’s the most persuasive thing you’ve said all thread.