MovieChat Forums > More American Graffiti (1979) Discussion > what a disgrace to the original!

what a disgrace to the original!


I just saw this film yesterday and wish I didn't. I knew it was bad, but I'm a huge fan of the first, so I wanted to see what happened to the characters the next few years. The worst thing is the framed-like picture they used (when the film was shrunk down and had up to 3 images on the screen..you know if you saw it)...atrocious! The following is spoilers, but the movie is so bad who cares...Second is I hated to find out "Little Joe", the leader of the Pharoahs in the first one, gets killed. He was cool. It was cool to find out Toad does live, after being declared M.I.A. and the beforehand explosion that happens. Third they don't even show John's death...it justs fades out.....If your a true fan of the original, do yourself a favor and don't see this one...I did and now can't take it back.

reply

Toad doesn't live. He walks into the jungle and is never seen again. The army just didn't know how he died.

reply

I have the script as book, which tells what happens, but would that be a spoiler?

reply

No, tell us.

reply

The split screen is cool and evocative of filmmaking of the era- compare "Grand Prix"
I think this is a great film- but it's anti-authoritarian so people have trouble with that- the same reason "American Dreams" was cancelled I believe-
There's still a lot of people who like to push other people around, as in this movie- and censorship of derpicting that still exists- it's just a little more tacit and discreet

The Vietnam stuff is a bit cartoonish- but so was that lengthy war- and it's an amusing alternative to the more serious Nam films of that era- I enjoyed it, but knew the serious moonlight would have trouble with it- compare Spielberg's "1941"- war is sacred to some people and it's a shame that so many others follow them

The hippie stuff is almost as cartoonish but brings back some good memories
The transformation of Steve and Lori is fairly acurate for a lot of people- who believed in the system until it got so outrageous- Now outrageousness seems to be rising again!

reply

[deleted]

The split screen was certainly novel to films like "Woodstock" and even "Airport."

The whole problem with "More American Graffiti" for me is not the fact that it advocates anti-authoritarianism. Instead it merely reminds me of how much I like the original and that I'd rather be watching that instead. Did we want to see the characters experience these changes and loose their innocence?? Do we want to see Debbie looking less like Sandra Dee and more like a Haight-Ashbury throwaway? Ron Howard turning into a pale Meathead Stevik (sp) charicature?

The whole allure of the original was precisely nostalgic; it's an aknowledgement that the country had lost a certain culture that existed before the 60s went wacko. It doesn't really take a stance on that, but instead presents it with the assumption that the audience feels the enormous contrast between the America of the early 70s and what had preceded only ten years prior. The postscripts at the end of the film remind us of the turmoil that was coming, and that such times no longer existed. The fact that a goofy character like Toad was killed in Vietnam is a huge wakeup call that the young people from those times would've likely related to, having too experienced the loss of such real-life beloved characters in their personal lives. The sequel, however, uses the Vietnam experience primarily as comic relief, which grossly cheapens the impact of the original's postscript. For those who looked upon their high school yearbooks each Spring in the 60s to find a list "in memoriam" of former students killed in Vietnam, or traced a friend's name at the Washington memorial, that emotion is sacred indeed. Taken together, very little in "More American Graffiti" serves the original's legacy as much as it undermines it.

reply

How do you know Terry Fields is dead at the end of the movie? I don't recall that ever being pointed out in the film.

reply

All you need to do is put two and two together. The end title card states "He went missing", and the last we see of him he walks off into the jungle with a Hawaain shirt, possible into enemy terrirtory.

reply

He could possibly be living in another country somewhere also. It is not depicted in the film that Terry Fields is dead. Debbie and Laurie refer to him as being dead, but they don't really know. No one does for sure.

reply

I haven't seen this movie in a long time (like 20 years or so) somy moemory may be a bit rusty, but as I remember it, Terry is last seen waling into the jungle. He was reported M.I.A. (missing in action) NOT dead. There could be 100s of M.I.A.s outthere still alive today. Who knows? I don't, nor do I think we will ever know.

My 2 cents on the movie if I may, I enjoyed for the fact we got to spend a little more time with the characters that we knew and loved in theoriginal. To me, MAG was an fair flick. It wasn't the best, but I would hardly say that I wasted my time watching it. I realize I'm in the monority here, but it's OK

reply

Yeah, Terry's not dead, just a deserter, and because of that, he probably just never went home again. He even discusses this with the other officer who helps him escape. He mentions how it will be unfortunate that his parents will think he's dead, as if he never intends to go back and correct the assumption. Which probably means no one else knows he's really alive too. I thought that was the clear intention at the end of the movie.

R.

reply

At the end of the film, it does show Milner's car going over the hill as another car's headlights approach. And we never see either car again. Then the words on the screen tell us about the drunk driver. Just a thought.

reply

No its not. It told in a different method. Just like "Godfather II" was told in a different style then "Godfather One".


The film is very good. Its enjoyable. Its never boring and the cast is first class. The Candy Clark scenes alone are worth the price of a DVD

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, it's really terrible in comparison to AG.

While I enjoyed it to some extent, I wouldn't recommend it to fans of the original either (the lucky ones who haven't seen MAG, that is). Really an unnecessary sequel.



Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

I saw it a few months ago right after I saw American Graffiti. More American Graffiti was/is on Netflix so I tried it. It is a totally unnecessary sequel since we already know the fates of the characters. There was no need to tell the story. I will say the whole year-by-year storytelling and mixing them up was daring and ambitious. However, it holds nothing to the original. I guess a better name for it would American Greed-fiti, since everyone (with the exception of Richard Dreyfuss) is back for the cash. Ron Howard and Cindy Williams had became household names on television, and the filmmakers were probably hoping that would draw people in. After watching this, I understood why this gets shown more on television than the original. It was a flop and cheaper to syndicate.

MM

reply