MovieChat Forums > Missing in Action 2: The Beginning (1985) Discussion > What's the timeline?

What's the timeline?

posted 17 years ago by re_zuleta
8 replies | jump to latest

I apologize in advance if this question and topic has already been posted, but what is the official (canon) timeline between all the "MISSING IN ACTION" (movie series)?
I used to think "Part 2"(1985) took place following the conclusion of "Part 1"(1984) and in which Braddock went back to 'Nam to rescue more P.O.W's; but after rewatching it, and analyzing the title it sounds more like a prequel than sequel. Yet, the story in the sequel doesn't really fit into continuity, or relives/revisits the same P.O.W. compound in which Braddock appeared to have been kept (back in 'Nam), as depicted in "Part 1" flashbacks.
Then came "Part 3"(1988)- 4 years after Prt.1 - which has a brief prologue from the Fall of Saigon (1975) and in which Braddock loses track of his 1st wife and son. I assume this takes place prior to the events depicted at the begining of Part 2, which takes place in Vietnam '72 not '75 (prior to Braddock crashlanding his chopper behind enemy lines and being held captive, as a P.O.W, for over 10 years.

I guess in the end, regardless of how hard one may try it maybe better to just accept each one of this films not as sequels or prequels but as individual-independent storys. Each taking place in a similar environment, borrowing the same lead protagonist but not really carrying on the same story from the previous film.

REzuleta

[–] rseibert78 17 years ago

Okay-

Part 2 (my favorite of the three) take splace in 1972 to an unspecified date where they escape-at least two years.

The prologue of part 3 occurs in 1975 b(the fall of Saigon) and then Missing In Action 1 take splace between the prologue and the rest of part 3.

Part 3 is a second mission Braddock takes part in-the first one rescues our brave POWs and invades the news conference. The second mission ends with Braddock finding his son and the orphans.

Hope this helps.

[–] wallacesawyer 16 years ago

Part 2 (my favorite of the three) take splace in 1972 to an unspecified date where they escape-at least two years.

The prologue of part 3 occurs in 1975 b(the fall of Saigon) and then Missing In Action 1 take splace between the prologue and the rest of part 3.

Wasn't he POW 8 month, MIA for several years ats the first explains? The second film mentions his wife remarrying, and then in 1975 during the prologue shows him with a his Asian wife. Remarried himself before even leaving the country?

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

exactly part 2 is a lot better than part 1. part 1 is boring, while part 2 is never boring and has a better story and more good performances than part 1. and you actually care about the characters in part 2 while you only care about braddock in part 1.

[–] Director-21 16 years ago

Part 3 disregards the continuity of the first two films and does it's own thing with stuff that flattly contradicts the first two.

The first two don't seem to fit perfectly together either.

According to Wikipedia:

Missing in Action 2 was filmed back to back with Missing in Action, and was actually set to be released first before the producers changed their minds. This explains crediting writers who created an original character for a film in the supposed first entry.

I don't exactly buy that, them being shot at the same time or this film being planned to be released first. If that was the case why would part 1 feature flashbacks to stuff that wasn't in the prequel, in a different camp set and featuring Braddock running into a man from the camp who's not even in the prequel. If they shot it at the same time wouldn't they have been able to use footage from the "prequel" and actually had everything match up with him running into a guy who really was in the prequel. Personally I think that part 2 was written first, but than the producers took the character, the back story and wrote another film that became part 1. After part 1 was completed they decided to do the prequel based on the original script and obviously chose to change some things.

[–] Thunder_Dome 13 years ago

I just watched the first two back-to-back the other night and honestly you can make it work.

You can think of the flashbacks in the first film as when Braddock first gets caught after his chopper goes down and then him and his men are transported to the prison camp that we see in Part II: The Beginning.

Think about it, the events that we see in The Beginning are resolved by the end. So when Braddock goes to the press conference in the original he sees the guy that first captured and tortured him and takes revenge. There's no need for flashbacks to The Beginning because that was completely resolved by blowing up the camp and killing the bad guys involved.

[–] Cletus_Yokel 12 years ago

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

Here is the timeline order for the events in all 3 films:

Missing in Action 2: The Beginning
- Prologue takes place in Vietnam 1972
- After the prologue the film takes place in Vietnam circa 1973-74

Braddock: Missing in Action III
- Prologue takes place in Saigon 1975

Missing in Action
- The entire film takes place in 1984

Braddock: Missing in Action III
- After the prologue the film takes place in 1988

A couple things to note which causes the confusion of the timeline to begin with:

In MIA 2, after the 1972 prologue, the film flash forwards to real footage of Ronald Reagan giving a Memorial Day speech circa 1984. Then the film comes back to Vietnam but doesn't say what year it is so one would think it's the 1980's because of the Reagan speech, but it's not, it's back in the 1970's.

Because Braddock is in Saigon 1975 during the prologue of MIA 3, it means the events of MIA 2 finish sometime before that. After the Paris Peace Accords were signed in Jan 1973, the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam and in March 1973 all the U.S. POW's were supposedly released by North Vietnam, the POW camp scenes in MIA 2 take place after that because Braddock and our heroes are now MIA and being secretly held.

Also in MIA 1, Miss Fitzgerald the hot State Dept official, tells Braddock at the party that he's 38 years old and was a POW for 8 months and then MIA for 7 years until escaping last year. Braddock tells her, "Like I said, you don't know anything about me." This is done tongue in cheek by Braddock making it seem like she does know a lot about him but because MIA 3 shows that he was in Saigon in 1975 it now literally means what he says and she actually doesn't know everything and has been given misinformation.

By Fitzgerald's account, the events of MIA 2 would've occurred in 1972-1980 and MIA 1 would be set in 1981. If MIA 3 didn't exist this could've been correct, but it's not since MIA 3 is canon and does exist. Also the theatrical trailer and one-sheet poster for MIA 1 both state it's Vietnam 1984, so Miss Fitzgerald facts are not correct.

I recently just watched the films in this timeline order and they sync really well knowing the above.

[–] UntamedRomance 8 years ago

The way I see it, Missing in Action 1 and 2 are canon. Missing in Action 3 isn't, as it contradicts events surrounding the first two, as Braddock was mentioned having a wife back in the states. This is probably why Joseph Zito, the director of the first film, pulled out of 3 because of creative differences with Chuck Norris. The flashbacks of the first film were probably set in a different camp, as the Vietnamese probably rotated their prisoners around.