Talk:List of films with unexposed contents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

[edit] Reservoir Dogs

• Reservoir Dogs (1992) The case of diamonds is never opened.

I removed this, as I don't think it fits the list, as it's more like a MacGuffin - it's existence is important to the plot, but the precise contents aren't - it could have been any kind of jewels, or money, or anything else worth stealing.

The difference with the other items on this list, is that we don't know what the contents of the cases are, and thus we don't know the motives of the characters for pursuing them. (Disclaimer: I never went to film school :) — sjorford (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm just sayin, yo

Tarantino's godawful briefcase shows up both here and on the MacGuffin page, despite the fact that we are listing them as mutually exclusive categories. Ethan Mitchell 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because different people place it in different categories. Some people (apparently including Tarantino himself) consider it a MacGuffin; others consider the unknown contents of the briefcase important. Though I agree it would be helpful if there were a cite to an expert defending the "yes the nature of the contents of the briefcase are important" position. Chuck 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the briefcase don't matter- it could be anything, all that matters is that Marsellus wants it. 69.81.50.252 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, I don't agree that "MacGuffin" and "unexposed contents" are mutually exclusive categories. Chuck 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)