Talk:List of films with unexposed contents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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. NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority 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.

Contents 1 Reservoir Dogs 2 Articles for Deletion debate 3 I'm just sayin, yo 4 Mulholland Drive 5 Killer Joke 6 Lost in Translation 7 Raiders of the Lost Ark? 8 The Departed

[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)

The characters in Reservoir Dogs have been betrayed from inside their group. The MacGuffin is the identity of that person. He wants to stay secret, everyone else wants to sniff him out. MMetro (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (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)

I think that MacGuffin and unexposed contents are more-or-less mutually exclusive. 'Unexposed contents' is sort of the post-modern version of a throw-away gag or a repudiation of Chekhov's rule, something that is not integral to the plot in any way, but added for character development (the object in Pedro de Ursa's fist), scene exposition (the secret compartment in Last Tango), or just to create a sense of mystery and confusion. Arguably, information that is never revealed to the audience such as muffled dialogue also counts as 'unexposed contents'. But if the object has a *narrative* purpose, then it's really a MacGuffin and doesn't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.111.149 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mulholland Drive

I don't think the key and the box from Mulholland Drive belong on this list - they are not physical objects, but metaphorical references to the fact that the entire sequence in which the box features is false. In which case, the content of the box is 'the truth' or 'reality' or 'the end of dreaming' or whichever metaphysical name you want to give it. Either way, I think it is a stretch for it to fit into the rest of the list - otherwise, you could populate the list with all sorts of metaphorical and imaginary items whose contents are unknown. Divinedegenerate 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, in many cases, unknowable... Divinedegenerate 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Joke

Isn't the "killer joke" in Monty Python actually related in full in German? --Zagrebo 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in Translation

Would the unrevealed whisper at the end of Lost in Translation qualify as an unexposed container? Hoof Hearted 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raiders of the Lost Ark?

The Ark Of Covenant as depicted in Raiders of the Lost Ark might classify. Although it is known to contain a "power" which takes many forms (stone tablets, sand, spirits), its true contents and purpose remain unknown. xlynx (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I say no because there is a clear shot in the film showing the cloudy, murky contents of the ark. The supernatural energies inside are shown to melt the faces of all eye witnesses. Thus the contents are liteally exposed in the film and therefore do not fit the definition of this list. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Departed

I don't really think The Departed belongs on this list because, as the article itself states, it's fairly obvious what the letter contains. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)