Am I The Only One Who Thinks The 3rd Godfather was The Best

In my opinion Pacino was at his best in this film and the edning on the stairs is one of the greatest scenes i've seen in a film. The only let down in this film was the performance of Coppola's daughter playing Maria i thought her range was weak and she really didn't bring enough skill to play such an important role

Believe me friend, you and me are among the select few intellegent enough to know that GF3 is by far the best of the triligy.

Welcome to the forums

thanks for the welcome and i'm glad that someone agrees with me

I've never understood the criticisms leveled at Coppola's daughter about her performance as Mary. What was the substantive difference between her and any 19 year old girl you know? The character she portrayed had the vulnerability, naivite, spontaneousness, sensuousness, and emotional honesty manifested by most of the 19 year olds I've ever encountered.

GFIII to me was the most powerful of the three films. The ending left me emotionally exhausted. the silent scream was one of the most dramatic scenes I've ever witnessed in cinematic history. Some of it was a reach, but that could be argued about the previous two films.

Yeah I'd say you're alone in your opinion that Godfater III was the best of the trilogy. Most will say it was Part II but for me nothing beats the original

I agree. Welcome Corleone Legend!

Youre wrong about that - most will say Part I was the best, not II.

It is the popular opinion to love the first movie the most, no matter how good De Niro or Pacino were in II, The Godfather for ppl always bring back memories of Vito-Marlon Brando,his voice and his lines - that was the main reason this movie got so popular till this very day. Of course everything else in the movie is classic,the music,the other actors,the horse etc, but Vito is the main reason why GF I is the best.
You say Godfather to ppl in the street and the first image they see is of Vito, not even Michael who starred in all 3 movies.

I hope you are alone. Something would be wrong with the world otherwise. I agree with Irish, that nothing can beat the original, especially if you consider the book as the original. In comparison with it all three films have weaknesses, but GF3 has the most. Its plot and character development cannot survive the most primitive analysis. Even Pacino's performance is worse than usual. No silent screams can save this giftless movie, none of us can help it, unfortunately.
Anyway, welcome!

Well from the consenus I've gathered around this board, most here say Part II

I think the original was the best, but that the 2nd film is usually regarded as most people's favorite on these boards. The second is more dynamic in its plot, especially with the two different story lines. But for me, the characters in the original are what sets it apart: Marlon Brando's portrayal of Vito, Sollozzo, Clemenza, Carlo, Sonny, Moe Green, and Tessio.

I like the third film if it were to stand on its own, but it has too much to live up to as a sequel and falls short because of a) Sophia Coppolla, b) the lack of Tom Hagen's character, and c) the lack of believability I have that Vincent could go from what he was at the beginning of III to the head of the Corleone's by the end.

When I first saw the trilogy, I thought that Part III was the best, but that's because I was so emotional after the ending... it's the one I reacted to the most and it shed a light on the previous movies. It was like the key to the trilogy for me. I thought the first two movies were excellent but never really got attached to them until Part III. I think it's because Michael is more human in Part III and you can relate with him more and what he goes through, especially at the end on the opera steps. When my parents die I probably won't cry as much as I did after Part III. That sounded really bad, but it's probably true. I cried like a freaking baby for like 3 hours.

However, after repeated viewings, Part III is flawed. No matter how many people will spin Sophia's Mary as being "real," as an actress, it was horrible. That said I think the lack of Robert Duvall in the movie did more to damage it than Sophia's acting.

However, I love all the films. Godfather is just a small step down from the others for me. That said, it's probably the one I get most excited to watch.

Not really, just checked the GF Ultimate Questionnaire - GF I got 7 votes, GF II only 4.
Heres the link:

http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005070

Another point that part I is rated as the 3rd best movie ever (AFI) while part II is in 32nd.
That was decided by a big number of voters - once again proves the majority feels the original is far superior. (3rd and 32nd are quite far from each other)

Ok well from the people on the board that I have heard from I have heard more people say they like Part II better than Part I, that's all I'm trying to get at. I don't agree with it and you might have heard differently. As for AFI, it's all opinionated. I'm sure LOTR is on the list in the top 10

I actually like to pretend a 3rd film was never made.

I'm glad to see that you all are expressing your opinions about GF3. Trust me on this; after 1 and 2, GF3 was a HUGE disappointment. The casting and performance of FFC's daughter as Mary has become a show biz legend as far as disasters go.
Not that 3 is a really bad movie but it didn't come close to living up to what was hoped for.

Having said all that, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that's what this thing is for.

I think that it was virtually impossible to ever hope for III to be as good, or better, than the 1st two. The bar was set way too high and III just had too many negative things going for it. Most people on this board don't have any major criticisms of the first two films, just nitpicking kind of stuff (myself included).

I ALSO love the 3rd part the best ending ever
in movie history imo

Having not been attached to The Godfather, this movie would be much more loved and heralded than it is now.

I rank the quality of the three films in exactly the order they were made. I do think GFIII gets an unfair bad rap, and have posted on this extensively elsewhere.

You have to be joking right? Part III the best?! I know its a matter of opinion, but come on, which one does Geoff prefer? Anyone know?

I believe also that The Godfather Part III is the best throughout the trilogy. But, you see the thing is, its not much of a Mob movie.

Don't get me wrong, anything with The Godfather in front of it can be considered an essential Mafia item (minus The Godfather Returns), but its much more of a story of a man trying to redeem himself after a lifetime of sins. And with a subplot that involves such men as the Pope and other high ranking officials in the Italian government, it is definately one of my favorite movies period.

The only thing, that i can relate to that many see as a weakness in the Godfather III is that it is not set up like the other two movies. It is, indeed, a bit complex, and confusing on the first few viewings, but I find that, once you understand the movie in full, you can realize that it was essential to complete The Godfather legacy in its current state.

With all the newcomers to this board and all the talk about which GF movie is the best, It may be time to do another poll. I am going to post a poll in this thread. Cast your votes!


Don Cardi

I always hesitate before I vote on this particular question. While I definitely agree, the first is the original, a classic, a perfect masterpiece, I can't help but be drawn to GFII, so that's what I voted for.

I guess, for me anyway, I loved the flashback scenes and the early days of Vito. I liked the to see the characters evolve; the way Michael became a cold hearted killer; Kay finally having enough and getting an abortion (unheard of and unacceptable at that time); Connie going from shy/timid punching bag, to leaving her kids and traveling the world with strange men...and poor Fredo being booted from the family (and later killed) by his little brother. Heck, the first two are both "great", but I had to pick one, so I went with GFII.

As far as GFIII goes, it's the least likeable of the three, but on it's own it isn't a bad movie, no match for the first two, but not a bad movie. I found the whole Vatican storyline confusing and a little boring. I didn't like the Vincent character popping up...I do agree that the ending scene was powerful, and as usual Pacino was his usual best.

TIS

Kay didn't have an abortion, remember? In TGR we learn that she just said that to Michael to make him mad.

There must be a lot of new people on the board because I remember when I first joined the subject of the quality of GFIII was discussed. I offered my opinion that to me GFIII was just an expensive soap opera. The plot was absolutely not even ridiculous--it was downright stupid. The actors, especially Pacino, were (again, in my opinion) terrible--all of them. Eli Wallach was laughable--a real clown in my opinion. I watched it again just recently because a Canadian channel plays the GF Trilogy periodically all the way though. I watched about an hour of it and I couldn't watch anymore, it was that boring to me. Even Andy Garcia (with whom I hope I am in the shower with!) was TERRIBLE...and he is a fairly good actor.

In the original post months ago about this same subject, I believe the general consensus was that GFIII was an embarassment for most people. To hear now that people think it was the BEST of all three, is truly surprising to me. It is clear that there are lots of new people on the board!

Please know that I am not criticizing anyone for their opinions--just noting the vast difference is all. I still hold to my original opinion on GFIII. Sorry!

I totally disagree with you. I love Part III even with its flaws.

I think Part 1 was definatly the best and I too liked part 3 a lot I thought it was good and it did pull the other 2 parts together and the ending left you thinking about the lives of the Corleone's..

I agree with Goombah, but I think you can add some more to that cast that makes it really stand out.

To me, if you wanted to make the third one, Coppolla and Puzo could have reached back into the original book and pull out the Maranzalla war. With this, you have the reason others feared Luca Brasi, the potential rise of Sonny, the reason Carlo was "kept in the dark" and more relevance for the consigliere role with the contrast of Hagen (and I mean, the third would have to have Duvall) and Genco.

You could have kept some of the plot from 3 and include these bits, rather than rely on the name of the actors, the director and the writer of the screenplay.

My (humble) opinion.

You got her name wrong . It's Mary.

Anywho, Part III was a descent movie; deffinatly not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. If it were not for the success and greatness of the first two films, this film would have gotten at least three stars... But the fact of the matter is, the first two are classics. They completely blew this one out of the water, and it's hard for both fans and critics alike to look past that.

With the passing of the Pope and a new one in office I will have to watch GF3 again.

To answer the original question of this threat the answer is yes.

To go back to the name of the topic...yea, you're probably the only one, but that doesn't make you a bad person.

The Godfather trilogy, is IMO, the greatest trilogy of films ever made. The first one was classic, and flawless in my eyes. Same with Part II. Then, there's Part III. I found the story interesting, and taken as a seperate, individual film, with no name to live up to, it's still a flawed movie. But it's still a good film, and definitely one of the better films to be released in 1990.

LIKES:
1) The story (though the plot has more gaps than a Tony Hawk game)
2) Pacino and Keaton

Dislikes:
1) The rest of the characters (Mary, Vincent, Anthony, Don Altobello, B.J. Harrision, etc.)
2) Sofia Coppola, in general. Thank God she's a decent director.
3) No Tom Hagen
4) a castrated Michael Corleone. Pacino played the role well, but I don't care how many times someone says "It shows a different side of Mike", blah blah blah, no one wants to see Michael Corleone without a set of balls.

I always thought they just forgot what it was all about and played their own story at the moment.

I disagree. A Part III where Michael Corleone acts like had in the first two movies wouldn't have been an end to the trilogy. It's like Darth Vader never turning good at the end of ROTJ. His character comes full circle. He learns to repent his mistakes. It makes for such a more powerful ending to a trilogy.

For example, what ending is stronger...

The ending to Scarface where Tony Montana plugs along, never changes, and eventually dies having learned nothing thus causing no emotion from the audience. A cool ending, but really, what's the point?

Or the ending to The Godfather Part III where a character who had been ruthless before, comes to terms with his life, tries to change, and ultimately fails, resulting in one of the emotional endings to a movie, period.

Which one is better and more powerful?

I don't even think we need an aswer to that question.

Very well said DBC.

I guess, to answer the question, no your not alone, but you are rare. I guess us Godfather III likers have to stick together.

I can understand how some people LIKE GFIII even though many do not.

But to consider it the BEST of the three Godfather films is something I'm finding difficult to fathom.

Even with it's numerous flaws that are discussed at length here on the Gangster BB...in terms of storytelling and complexity GFII is by far the best of all of them.

AppleOnYa

Apple, I could be way off here, but there is someone on this board who hasn't even seen GF3 before... is that you? And if so, how would you know that is impossible to fathom?

As for the people who think it's the best, I can understand why they would. It's the one people can relate to the best. Michael Corleone actually has a heart in this one. He tries to do good. And it has way more of an emotional payoff than the previous two movies.

Plus it's the last one. And more modern.

So like Johnny Fontane sang at the beginning of Part III, "To each his own." If someone thinks Part III is the best, it's fine with me. I consider all these movies to be one movie anyway, so I can't really pick favorites.

I've seen parts of GFIII and once even got through about the first 40 minutes before I had to change the channel just to stay awake. But you are partially correct, I've never seen the entire film straight through.

However the numerous parts I have seen, plus the infinite discussion about it here on the BB Board, plus the fact that many of those who DO happen to like it have made it clear that they don't consider it equal to the quality of the previous two....THAT is what makes it impossible for me to fathom how anyone can consider it the BEST of the Trilogy. The simple miscasting of both S. Coppola and G. Hamilton already bring it down a level from the almost perfect casting of the others.

Another mystery is how anyone can consider Pacino's cardboard cutout performance in GFIII to be better than those of the first two. I agree his silent scream at the end is one of the finest acting moments in cinema history; but overall, his portrayal of Michael Corleone in GF and GFII are far superior to that of GFIII.

AppleOnYa

Overlooked is the horrid performance of Eli Wallach as Don Altobello. Supposedly he is a long time friend of the Corleones...he is even Godfather to Connie. His connection to the family is never clear, however. I have argued as best I can for the performance of Sofia Coppola, which while nothing great, is not as bad IMO as some have ranted. George Hamilton is a total distraction, and much as I love Diane Keaton, even she mailed it in. I can never bring myself to dislike any of Pacino's work, but he didn't get any deeper in this role than he did in The Devil's Advocate...which is no Godfather picture.

Whenever his role is mentioned, the scene where zasa leaves the don's meeting angrily comes to my mind. Altobello promises that he would pacify zasa and bring him back. Absolutely hilarious scene.

I know I'am off topic here but can anyone else believe that Vincent in GF3 did not know what Michaels daughter Mary looked like? In the movie Vincent does not know who she is at the party that they are having in honor of Michael. Vincent hung around and knew Michael and Michael even said that he had offered Vincent jobs in the past. I cannot believe that Vincent did not know who she was. He had to of seen a picture of her somewhere. Even if he didn't it is Michaels daughter, the Godfathers daughter. He had to of known who she was.

Still though...the implication from Michael's letter to his children at the beginning of the film was that when older, they were taken care of by their mother, who oversaw their education. From this one might assume that Michael and Kay did try to keep them (or at least Mary) sheltered from Family Business. So it could be that bastard cousin Vincent (another GFIII fabrication I won't even bother to go into) did not see Mary for many years prior to their 'bumping' into each other at that opening party. It would make sense that he didn't recognize the adult Mary after so many years.

Apple

Very true but I cannot believe that Michael did not have pictures of his "older" children around the house or in his office. Vincent hung around michael he must have seen them.

Yes, there are pictures in the office, and you will recall Kay is looking at them right before the scene where she asks Michael to let Anthony be an opera singer.

There is a line in GF III however where Mary says to Vinny that the last time they saw each other was when she was 8 years old, so even if her picture was on the wall it is likely Vinnie paid no mind to it.

Although I don't dislike GFIII as much as most people, the film is filled with weak acting performances, and a weak storyline. Even on its own and not comparing it to Parts I and II, it will never be a great movie. The first 2 Godfather movies, from the direction, to the acting, to the storyline, to the score, are two of the greatest movies ever made.

Why do people insist on ranking the GF films, as if they are in competition? I thought that all three of the films complement each other. They all tell different parts of the same story, which surely should be judged as a whole?

Overall, the Godfather trilogy is a Rise and Fall story. Each part is like an act of a play rather than an individual work in itself (which may explain why Copolla lobbied for GFIII to be titled "The Death of Micheal Corleone"). For me, GFIII was the least enjoyable because it was upsetting to see the "hero" of the piece in decline-- the strong, infalliable Don in the autumn years of his life, spending his time funding foundations instead of whacking his enemies, making business deals rather than plotting bloody revenge.

But to have done otherwise would have been inconsistent with what I feel was the overriding theme of Micheal's command of the Family: the move toward legitimacy. It was inevitable that, by a third installment of the saga, the Don that had committed himself to legitimizing the business at a very early stage (and setting himself an unrealistic five-year timetable) would look more like a businessman. Of course it is disappointing to see Micheal shorn of his quiet danger, his silent menace. But the story could not be told otherwise. Whereas GFI and GFII impart excitement and awe, GFIII produces sadness and reflection.

For me, the only "objective" weakness of GFIII was the non-appearence of Tom Hagen. Clemenza's replacement in GFII was a stroke of (comic) genius; Hagen's replacement with that grey-haired guy was flat and dissappointing. Otherwise, GFIII was a well-done finale to (cliche alert): an epic saga.

Doc Box, that was the most intelligent thing I have ever heard or read on the subject.

I can't argue with you there, and especially agree about the gap left by Tom Hagen. However...to be completely consistent with Michael's quest for legitimacy, one can wonder why he would even give the time of day to his dead brother's ILLEGITIMATE son...or even not react more passionately to his daughter's love affair with a man everyone knows is her cousin.

The omission of Connie's children was a huge mistake. If FFC wanted to bring some family drama into the story to weave into the Family Business end...then he could've come up with far more creative ways than the fabrication of a bastard nephew and an incestuous love affair.

And THAT is how GFIII can be compared the other two...shoddy storytelling from which it cannot escape when put up against GF and GFII. While in some small ways it does 'compliment' the others, in other aspects it is somewhat of a letdown.

And it really didn't have to be.

Apple

I cannot agree more. I am sure that after the phenomenonal success of the first 2 parts, there would have been a lot of great scripts in contention for part 3. But somehow copolla made some very bad choices and what we have is this...

Pros and cons of GFIII has been discussed many times, these are the conclusions that I have come to.

-By it self it would have a been a decent film, but in the shawdows of I & II, its hardly worth seeing.

-Many of I & II's story line is used in III

-I believe that FFC admitted he really didn't want to make a third, but did it for the money.

-The story line was just too hard to follow with just one viewing.

-Yes Pacino was great, but everyone else seemed to just being going through the motions, and at best doing parodies of their characters. The brought no realism to their characters such as Brando, DeNiro and Pacino did previously.

Because it's not a whole. 1 part is arguably the best because it's based on the original novel, and for me its only faults are the few things from novel that FFC changed for no good reason.
GF2 is partly...er...legitimate , but the rest is composed as a sequel, and as every sequel, is not equal... Forgive me the rhyme...
GF3 has nothing at all in common with the original except the names of characters, on which it speculates for the sake of money, let us be honest.
Personally, I never consider even the "modern" parts of GF2 as a part of the original story.
Why should I grant such elevation to FFC's illegitimate offspring from raping Puzo?

I like Part I and II the best. Part III is OK.

Michael and his transformation in the first movie is very interesting. First he doesn't want to be like his father. "That's my family, Kay. Not me". But later in the film, when the Don is shot and injuried he becomes more and more involved in the family.

A scene in Part I I really like is when Carlo is dead and you see Michael walk along the road. Al Pacino said that this is how he sees "Michael Corleone" in his head.

Al.Neri, do you have any links for this interview?

While I can't argue that all movies are made with box office takings in mind, I would say that GFIII can be properly regarded as part of the saga, not merely tacked on. The foundations for it are laid in GFI, when Micheal tells Kay that "in five years time, the Corleone Family will be entiely legitimate". If GFIII had not been made, then we would all be left asking: so, did Micheal succeed in making the family legitimate? If so, how? And GFIII answers this question in an inevitable but satisfying way: Micheal gets legitimacy, but at a terrible price: senile diabetes and the death of his annoying daughter.

While it certainly is 'part' of the saga which is now known as 'The Godfather Trilogy'...it is in many ways also 'tacked on'.

The many winks and nods in GFIII to the loyal fans, have been discussed here in detail. There are several scenes, and conversations, including Michael's sobbing confession...which are there in most part to satisfy a thirst for closure or justification to things that happened or were said in GF or GFIII. There are certain words/phrases used that were obviously put there to ring a bell and remind us of the SAME words spoken in GF or GFII. Even though part of the story...hose incidents are most definitely 'tacked on'.

Apple

But not always considerations of art and sense are sacrificed to it.
I would say that this scene is the weakest one in the movie. Not acting, the way it's written. Read again that place in the book, if you don't remember. It's very important for our right perception of Michael's character that he did not seek a meeting and reunion with her, and never would. It couldn't be otherwise, it's absolutely unnatural. And he wouldn't persist on marriage, on the contrary, saying that he's a gangster and it's dangerous, and she must think everything over again and consult with her parents. And he doesn't give any promises, he says:“If everything goes right, Corleone Family will be completely legitimate in about five years. Some very tricky things have to be done to make that possible.” And he didn’t say that it was the chief aim of his life, and he would be very much upset if everything didn’t go right and it wouldn’t be possible. He was not being so naïve…
And the last moment: he tells that when she had already stated that she didn't care if he was a gangster, because she loves him.
The scene that was fabricated for the movie is unbearably direct and primitive for both characters. It's like they had some 100 seconds to patch the hole in the storytelling...
Why there should be a question? It's answered in the end of the book/1 movie: Corleones are completely legit after their move to Vegas. There's no question whatever. If FFC wished him back to make sequel, it's not poor Mike's fault, really.
It's strange that you find it eiter inevitable or satisfying, I'd say neither, absolutely unnatural. But of course, you're entitled to your own opinion.

I always thought that the haunting, solitary shot of Michael at the end of GFII...preceded by that ingenious flashback...really was the perfect ending to the saga. None other was needed. Yes, Part III did serve to answer some lagging questions and even though it was destined to be made...in reality there would have been nothing wrong with us being left with only GF and GFII. Many films have ended with unanswered questions such as 'what happened to...' or 'what if...'; it served as part of the entertainment, the mystique.

GFIII in a way destroyed the mystique of GF and GFII. Because we now know what happened to Michael, Kay and the rest of them all those years years later. Because of popular demand, FFC had to make up a story to tell us what happened.

Some were satisfied with the outcome, some were not.

Apple

Apple is correct, and I would add that many great books and movies purposefully leave you guessing and wondering. The author of the play "Doubt" which is now playing on Broadway suggests that the final act of the play is supposed to take place when the members of the audience disperse and go to dinner or whatever to discuss what they just saw. More to the point is Kafka's The Castle, which literally ends in mid sentence. The bottom line is GFIII, while not a horrible movie by any stretch, is not necessary to the telling of the Corleone saga.

I agree that it was kind of unnecessary to make Vincent Sonny's illegitimate son. Why couldn't they have used one of Sonny's real sons? Or one of Connie's?

Well, maybe Michael would have objected to his sibling's "real" children being involved with the family business, and it was OK for Vincent to get involved because he wasn't a real Corleone. Who knows, but I agree, it wasn't explained well enough.

As for the end of GFII being a good ending to the Godfather saga, I agree. It is implied that Michael is alone and regretful for his actions. But The Godfather Saga begged to be a trilogy, and it allowed fans to go back into that Corleone universe once more, which I am thankful for.

And although there are a few things in GFIII that are recycled from Parts I & II, that's what a Part III does in a trilogy. It brings everything to a close while going through the first 2 movies and bringing back various themes and imagery. Here I think Part III does a good job in that regard.

Sure Part III is clumsy, especially in the beginning, but once it gets moving in the final act, it can't be stopped. It's ambitious and at times, just as good as the earlier movies. And it definitely has the best ending, IMO.

That is something that always makes me mad!!! I understand that it may be more fascinating to leave it to the audience's imagination, but when it happens I somehow feel frustrated. Give me a plot, not a riddle!!!!

With a good plot to draw upon in the first place, a 'riddle' at the end is sometimes best.

For years after Gone With the Wind was made, fans all over speculated as to whether Scarlett really did get Rhett back...as she vowed to do at the end. Vivien Leigh was even asked what she thought about it.

Well, some woman was hired during the 1980's to write a sequel, which was made into a miniseries called, 'Scarlett'. She did in the end get Rhett back. And the overwhelming response was a rousing...'so what'.

For those with imagination, the open ended finish is sometimes far more interesting than having everything wrapped up like a gift box with a tidy little ribbon.

Apple

This is perhaps the most frustrating example you could choose. I love GWTW and there's nothing I would not do to actually know how it really ended (in Margaret Mitchell's mind)! I do not consider the sequel, that was rubbish at the pure state.


Believe me, I got plenty of imagination, but I use it so much in real life that I prefer the gift box with a tidy little ribbon, at least when it comes to movies!

I remember, and I recall finding (as usual) the book much more satisfying than the movie in that respect. It is a more detailed, more nuanced account of the exchange between Micheal and Kay and must go down as one of the most un-romantic marriage proposals in history! It's true that the legitimization of the Family business appears to be more of a priority in the movie than in the book.

Not completely, they still had connections to the old Family business in New York. And there was the little matter of Fredo's murder, and its implications on the "small-f" family. To have left the saga with GFII would have been to end it too abruptly. The audience has to see Micheal, the Senecan tragic anti-hero, answer for his deeds. This is portrayed in several powerful scenes, most notably the confessions to Lamberto and Don Tomassimo's corpse. Imagine watching MacBeth of King Lear without the final act.

"Satisfying" in the sense that it completes the story of Micheal's character: rise, decline and fall. GF is ultimately a tragedy--the Tragedy of Micheal Corleone--and GFIII "satisfies" the need for a proper conclusion.

"Inevitable" in the sense that the downfull of any tragic (anti-)hero is inevitable in literature. Hamlet, Richard III.

This sort of contradicts your preceding statement.

You get mad & frustrated when what happens after a film ends is left to the audience's imagination...yet in the case of GWTW you were uhappy when an answer you didn't care for was ultimately provided (which I agree was rubbish).

So this was apparently a 'frustrating' example since it's a conclusion thought up by someone other than the original author, which you DIDN'T like.

Yet in all other cases...

AppleOnYa

ps - it was either Margaret Mitchell or Vivien Leigh who eventually did answer that Scarlett would be ultimately unsuccessful in her attempt to win Rhett back. I'll have to go look that up tonight in my prized posession, 'GWTW - The Making of Gone With The Wind'.

It is not a contradiction, IMO. I simply don't consider the sequel. As for me, GWTW ended with Scarlett saying into tears "After all tomorrow is another day"! You should agree that we can't compare GF2 or even GF3 with GWTW sequel! In those cases we had Puzo himself writing the script!

I do not agree. Whether well written or badly written, by original author or someone else, a sequel is a sequel and will always be compared to the original.

Yes, Puzo co-wrote both GFII and GFIII. But it is also documented that by this time, anything beyond what was in the original novel was more of FFC's creation. I think it's been discussed here that among other things, Puzo strongly objected to the killing of Fredo (which of course Fredo didn't see coming ), but there it is anyway in GFII.

Apple

Influence, yes. Being directly mixed - no.

You know, Fredo's murder is what enraged Puzo most of all FFC did. He thought it to be impossible, inconsistent with Michael's character. I agree.
I don't see a single powerful scene in GF3, only pretentious.
And I don't see GF as a tragedy. All attempts to persuade me failed . I see it as a stretch on nature of things in this life. It's a book filled with cynical realism, and to make a snotty imitation of McBeth from it - rediculous.
I posted a long essay on subj, if you want to read, I'll link you.
Actually, the fact of its inconsistency with Michael's character is what makes this "tragical story" so unacceptable for me.

Yes. Bravo. So I feel about everything composed in addition, or changed, in GF novel. As if it never happened.

Me too. According to IMDB, Puzo only assented to it provided that Micheal waited until after their mother's funeral. This is a key element that makes the movie different from the book. I'm with Puzo and yourself on that one.

Please don't misunderstand me--I too regard the book and the movie as being completely different in nature. The book was great as a brilliantly attentive and nuanced account of the lives of the Don, Hagen and Micheal (and a little too much on Fontane, that drunk guy and the surgeon who is my namesake). It was certainly not a set-piece tragedy as the trilogy is. The movies, taken together, are less in-depth but this is true of all movies based upon books. And they are also a different creature: more of a typical tragedy than an exploration of human character. It does not entirely eschew the character elements of the book; it simply prioritizes them less.

Yes please

If this is the case, then the death of Mama must have been written into the script specifically to make way for the murder of Fredo. Interesting.

I'm just curious if anyone knows...was Puzo equally enraged at the prospect of Fredo betraying Michael by secretly working with Roth? And if not...did he consider banishment from the family and Michael's life appropriate punishment for this betrayal?

Suppose that had been the conclusion of the Michael/Fredo relationship. Would we as the viewers be satisfied with the 'You're not my brother...' boathouse scene being the end of it? No mother's wake...no plea from Connie...no embrace and recomcilliation...no gunshot on the lake. Fredo's just banished, we see him no more.

I guess we'd still be wondering today 'what ever happened to Fredo...did he & Michael ever reconcile?'

But of course...that question would've (somehow) been ultimately answered in GFIII !!!

Apple

Not wanting to get too off-topic, but I would have preferred it if Micheal had simply banished Fredo. Then in GFIII, Fredo would come in right at the end. He would arrive at the opera house, hanging around for the end of the show in a bid to get Micheal's forgiveness. He sees Micheal and family walking down the steps. Then he sees the assassin draw his gun. In a final act of filial loyalty, he takes the bullet intended for his brother. Vincent shoots the assassin, and Micheal holds his dying brother's head.

FREDO: "Forgive me... Mikey..."

MICHEAL: "I forgive you... brother..."

Fredo dies.

That's a good scenario, Dr. who fixed Lucy...

Except that since the John Cazale had been dead many years by the time GFIII was made, there could have been no such scene.

If Fredo HAD simply been banished in Part II, then I'm sure they would have inserted some bit of dialogue explaining how he and Michael somehow reconciled prior to Fredo's untimely demise at the hands of..... .

While of course, stepping in to take a bullet meant for Michael.

Apple

No, he says this in one of the "behind the scenes" from the DVD collection. It's the one where you see old casting tryouts with Al, Jimmy and everyone

Well... If the movie has no priority for it's main characters... Is it a good movie?

Here it is - two posts in a row. First contains a link to a good thread, that must be also very interesting for you. web page

You may also check this thread.