Talk:American Graffiti/Archive 1

budget

In the summary box to the right of the article the budget is stated to have been $777,777.77 - a curious amount, is it correct ?

Corrected to $750,000 --MrArt 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

middle america

How are the teenagers 'middle american'? I find this confusing.

probably should be "middle-class American" --Ed Poor

---

The article reads like the blurb from the DVD I watched last month: paean, etc. Can we copy stuff like that, unattributed? --Ed Poor

---

This sentence doesn't seem correct:

a group of small-town middle-American California teenagers who are scheduled to leave their town for college, and spend one last night together.

1. Only 2 of the teenagers in the group are leaving town for college: the Richard Dreyfuss character, and the Ron Howard character
2. They don't spend the night together: they all go their separate ways during the night.

--Ed Poor

I wrote the blurb myself from memory, I didn't copy it from anything. Change it as needed. And in my mind, middle America means small-town. It doesn't mean middle class, because middle class can be any city. And it doesn't mean midwestern, that's a specific location. -- Zoe

Zoe: I wasn't sure if you meant middle-class, Midwestern, or W.A.S.P.. Thanks for the clarification. 206.15.46.129 (The poster of the original comment.)

---

Wolfman Jack's Radio Station

Tim Horrigan: If I recall correctly, Wolfman Jack's character in the movie works out of a studio in his station's transmitter shack, somewhere on the outskirts of the fictional California town in the film. And the town is several hundred miles north of Mexico.

Trivia

If anyone cares, the plate #of the Deuce was THX1138. (Very cute...) Trekphiler 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was THX138. Midwinter 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange Occurence at the Beginning

At the very beginning, when you see the Universal log, you hear a short burst of voices before it goes to the opening. I haven't seen this film is ages, but the video, which has the short burst of noise, says 1985 on it.

This is the random sounds of a radio tuning, before they dial hits the opening song of the movie, Bill Haley and the Comets' Rock Around the Clock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.166.84 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits?

I regret I haven't seen this film, but I recall an instance of George Lucas saying it was one of the first to have long-form credits (listing the entire production crew) at the end of the film, the current standard; this was a change from the old style of the opening credits listing the department heads, and next to no end credits. Is there any way to back this up? Radagast 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken for Star Wars. Wildroot 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Sources: the books by Marcus Hearn & Dale Pollock

This article makes extensive use of Marcus Hearn's 2005 book The Cinema of George Lucas. I haven't read this book, but it appears to be an "authorized" biography of Lucas' filmmaking; see the press release from Lucasfilm that accompanied the book's publication. There is an earlier, unauthorized book by Dale Pollock that covers some of the same material; it is very briefly cited in the article. Pollock is presently the Dean of the film school at the North Carolina School of the Arts. To the extent that these two sources disagree, and I suspect that they do disagree on some issues, I feel that this article should ultimately discuss the divergences. Easchiff 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That sucks, because I don't have Pollock's book, I only have Hearns. I think the Pollock reference came from someone else or something. Wiildroot (Talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I wasn't trying to be misleading. I added the Pollock reference a while back, and before you'd done most of your very good work on this article. I've been working on the Verna Fields article for the last couple of months, and I'd found the Pollock book only because a preview is available at books.google.com. At the time I added the reference to the American Graffiti article, I wasn't paying any particular attention to the Hearns book. As I get time, I'll try to take a look at the Hearns book to see how well it agrees with what I've learned from working on the Fields article. Cheers, Easchiff 04:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I still have yet to add info from the documentary The Making of American Graffiti. Wildroot (Talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold comments

• The article is in need of a thorough copy edit/format run-through. Here are some pervasive issues (illustrated with single examples) that may help guide you:
• "…1,000-2,000 powered volt light bulbs to the lamps…"—en dashes, not hyphens, should be used in number ranges.
  • Lucas'—even though his name ends with an S, the second S after the apostrophe is still needed.
  • Per the MoS, full dates should be linked. This occurs some, but not all, of the time here.
  • Some of the prose (especially in the lead) reads quite awkwardly. I picked a couple phrases (and one sentence) to show what I mean:
    • "While the audience overly liked it…"
    • "The film includes a mostly young cast (filled with then unknown actors at the time)…"
    • "American Graffiti is a 1973 period vignette coming of age dramedy film directed by George Lucas, with writing credentials belonging to Lucas, Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck."
• References should be formatted in a standard fashion, and once again en dashes should be used for page ranges.
• It looks like you forgot to complete this portion: "…in the small, but pivotal role of Himself: "

Other than that, I got a whole lot of information out of the article. Tell me if you have questions and when you're done. Kakofonous (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Still could use some editing for clarity, but those are minor problems.

2. Factually accurate?: Well referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Fairly stable.

6. Images?: Good images with appropriate fair use rationales.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Radioland Murders

I have considered listing Radioland Murders in the "preceded by" section of the infobox. George Lucas considers Radioland Murders as a prequel to American Graffiti and More American Graffiti. However, I think this will confuse the average joe who would visit this article. What do you guys think? Wildroot (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I always thought the "preceded by"/"followed by" sections were based on real-life production dates (Though there are certain circumstances where in-universe chronology has been used to avoid confusion (as with the Star Wars films). Additionally, although they are connected, I think the relationship between American Graffiti and Radioland Murders isn't significant enough to warrant a place in the infobox. The two films have a relationship similar to Return of the Jedi and Caravan of Courage or Blade Runner and Soldier. The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, lets leave this issue alone. Wildroot (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The white Thunderbird at the end?

The last line of the plot discussion is currently

As the plane takes off, he gazes out of the window at the town and the life he is leaving behind.

I just happened to catch the last 20-30 minutes again this evening and as Curt gazes out the window, isn't that supposed to be the white Thunderbird, that lone car curiously keeping pace with the airplane on the highway below? After all, when the T-bird girl and Curt talked on the phone, she said "of course" she knew who he was. Isn't she seeing him off in her own mysterious way? AldenGray (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird sentence

"The Mel's Drive-In seen in Graffiti was and the production crew flipped it." Huh? Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications

Here are some questions arising from copy editing.

1. In the Lead it says that the "film was originally to be funded by United Artists, but after creative differences Lucas decided to work with Universal Studios." The supporting material in the Development section mentions Lucas's disappointment with Walter's script (I'm assuming this was the "creative difference"). However, the Lead creates the impression that the "differences" were between Lucas and UA, and there's no explanation as to why Lucas went to Universal. I don't have access to the source material; can someone expand on this?
2. In Production the first two sentences are incomplete/confusing/vague: "Although the story is set in Modesto, California, George Lucas felt the city had changed over the course of 10 years.[21] San Rafael was originally chosen, and production got underway on June 26, 1972 under a limited 30-day shooting schedule." What is the implication of Lucas's feeling the city had changed? What is the connection between Modesto and San Rafael?
3. In the Production section's last paragraph it says, "Lucas found CinemaScope still too expensive,[23] and insisted with a "urban documentary style", proposing the use of Techniscope. This would add features of a 16-mm camera in a widescreen frame, which Lucas felt set the boundaries between a feature length and documentary film." What does "insisted with a (sic) 'urban documentary style'" mean? What does "add features of a 16-mm camera in a widescreen frame" mean? The wording is awkward and the sentences are too technical. Clarification and context are needed.
4. In Post-production: "The studio personally suggested hiring an orchestra to re-record the songs. In turn, Universal proposed a deal that offered every music publisher the same amount of money." Huh? Isn't Universal the studio?
5. In Development (Universal Studios): "THX 1138 had brought him an unwelcome notoriety..." What was the unwelcome notoriety?

More later.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To your answer for #1. The "creative differences with United Artists" are in the article. Here it is "The cost of licensing the 75 songs that Lucas wanted contributed to United Artist's rejection of the script, calling it "a musical montage with no characters". Simply the film got to Universal. Lucas probably pitched. Here's a quote from the article (by producer Gary Kurtz) "Universal was [still] being run by Lew Wasserman. He had very eccentric tastes, and he made a lot of very, very commercial movies. They did all this low-budget stuff as well. The low-budget program at Universal was based on this concept that if they liked the script, and the elements were okay with them, they in effect wrote you a check and told you to go away and come back with a finished movie. They never bothered you at all." —Wildroot (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer for #2. Lucas felt the city of Modesto (where the film is set) had changed in terms of architecture and scenery, etc. Therefore Modesto in 1972 (when filming began) was different than in 1962. Therefore Lucas originally choose San Rafael.—Wildroot (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Was the "limited 30-day shooting schedule" imposed by San Rafael? Is it because Lucas exceeded it that they were booted?
Jim Dunning | talk 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it says in the article that San Rafael felt the production crew was disrupting local businesses.—Wildroot (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because the article says, "Filming was interrupted by fixing camera mounts to cars and the city of San Rafael decided to kick out the cast and crew because production was disrupting local businesses", which gives the impression that the camera mounts caused the production to exceed its schedule, which in turn disrupted local businesses. If the camera issue and disruption are unrelated, then perhaps they should not be in the same sentence; however, then the mention of the camera issue appears trivial. Is there more import to the camera mount difficulty?
Jim Dunning | talk 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your answer for #3. I wouldn't know what it means. Only George Lucas would because he's the one who said that weird quote. I guess he was trying to say that CinemaScope (which was the most used camera for films back then) was too expensive for this film. He got the Techniscope camera because it looked grainy, dirty, constructive, independent, hard-broiled, etc. Coincidentally Lucas used to direct documentaries.—Wildroot (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cast: Toad

I'm doing a copy-edit of the Cast section and had a question about Toad. Did he borrow Steve's car specifically to meet Debbie, or just to cruise for girls in general? This makes a difference in the wording, and I don't have a copy of the movie at hand. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, since Steve was planning to go to college somewhere, he let Toad borrow his car until Steve returned for Christmas. Always glad to help.—Wildroot (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot: Curt's change of mind

I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't remember exactly when Curt's change of heart about going away to college occurs, but we need it in there. Steve's is mentioned, but Curt's needs to be similarly described for balance. Anyone know when it happens (if I recall, it has something to do with the Wolfman, doesn't it)? We get to the end of the Plot section and he's off to the East as if he never had any hesitation.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After Curt and the Pharaohs bust up the cop car, Curt is told Wolfman broadcasts outside of town. He goes there and gets some advice.—Wildroot (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucas' income for Lady Ice

At the moment, the text says that Lucas turned down money and a "large percentage of the profits of the box office gross". Profits and gross are two different things, aren't they? We probably should nail this down one way or the other. --AnnaFrance (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it was profits of the box office gross. For example if an actor says he wants 10% of the profits of the box office gross (and lets say the profit was $25 million), then the actor would get $2.5 million. I hope that makes sense. Anyway it doesn't say how much money or the percentage Lucas turned down in the book.—Wildroot (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You sure we don't mean net or gross profits, but actually profits of the gross? I have never heard of that. A Google search doesn't return even one example of the phrase "profits of the gross", and this article is the only example of "profits of the box office gross". Perhaps the book meant "gross profits". --AnnaFrance (talk)

"gross profits" are probably the same thing. It's just the fact that nobody who is familiar with filmmaking terms wouldn't know what "gross profits" are. We could just wikilink gross to box office.—Wildroot (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing citation

That must have been me. I will have to be more careful about that. Sorry everybody. --AnnaFrance (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Curt's father

"...stealing money from the local shop where Curt's father works..." I've never been under the impression that the man in the store was Curt's father. Curt and Laurie's parents don't appear until the end of the film and I don't remember any resemblance to the guy in the store. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest Cost-To-Profit Success in Film History

What about Blair Witch Project? The Pollack reference, what is the date on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.62.169 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement that American Graffiti is the "highest cost-to-profit success in film history" is not strictly true. Gerard Damiano's 1972 film "Deep Throat" is widely believed to be the most profitable film ever. It cost just $26,000 to make – less than a fifth of the budget of "American Graffiti" (as stated here) – and is reckoned to have grossed anywhere from $30-300 million. The receipts are obviously unverifiable because of the nature in which the film was distributed, largely by organised crime figures. The upper figure also factors in video sales. But even taking the lowest of estimates, the profitability of "Deep Throat" far surpasses Lucas' film.

Algork (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Spacing

The extra lines of spacing which I've added to the lede paragraph, which User:Wildroot has been removing, is necessary because under Internet Explorer, without the extra lines the end of the lede section butts up right against the table of contents. This is not only difficult to read, but looks unsightly.

Please note that this effect is not seen under Safari or Firefox, because they render the page differently.

For those who'd like to point out that I can change my CSS settings in some way to make this problem go away, I understand that to be the case, however, my overriding concern is for the casual user who drops by Wikipedia to get some information. He or she has no account, and has no specific settings, and his or her Internet Express is probably right out of the box. It is this person, and the millions like them, that we have to appeal to, if we are going to reach the goal of making Wikipedia people's first thought for quick information, and because of this, every article needs to look good for this customer. I keep my settings unadorned for this very reason, so that what I see is what they see, and what I see looks sloppy and is difficult to read without the spacing.

I'd appreciate it if it would be left in. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. That's there problem if they don't know how to read. Why don't they get Firefox like real people and start having some real fun. Internet Explorer my ass. Explore this! —Wildroot (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)