From Gamespot.com

Godfather film director whacks Godfather game

Francis Ford Coppola is none too pleased with Electronic Arts' adaptation of his classic mob movie.

When Electronic Arts announced it was adapting The Godfather last year, many cinephiles wondered how the operatic mafia drama would translate into a game. Then this year, it was revealed that Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the late Marlon Brando had all recorded voice-overs for it. The involvement of the stars gave the project a big boost in the credibility department, raising hopes for the game.

Now, however, the man primarily responsible for The Godfather film is speaking out against the Godfather game. According to several wire services, writer-director Francis Ford Coppola expressed his displeasure with Paramount Pictures for selling off the game rights on the American Movie Classics cable network show Sunday Morning ShootOut.

"I knew nothing about it. They never asked me if I thought it was a good idea," he reportedly said. His ire was further riled when he was given a preview build of the game by EA. "They use the characters everyone knows, and then for the next hour they shoot and kill each other. I had absolutely nothing to do with the game, and I disapprove," he was quoted as saying.

The Godfather game is slated for a fourth quarter 2005 release for the PC, PSP, Xbox, and PlayStation 2. EA, its developer and publisher, has said it will be rated "M" for Mature. GameSpot's previous coverage has more information on the film adaptation.

Great.....juuuuuust great...

There was going to have to be a time when this game was made. Hopefully it's alright.

WoW

I don't understand why he disapproves. Is it cuz they didn't ask his permission or something? I think it is great. I can't wait for it to come out.

He disapproves because he always tried to make the trilogy more about the characters and less about the killing and sex.

This game, from beginning to end is all about gaining respect for killing people and Coppola probably thinks that EA is destroying The Godfather.

It's a video game of course theres only gunna be action but its not from beginning to end about about gaining respect from killing people. From what I read you gain respect from the decisions you make not always involving murder. Coppola is probably mad because he won't get any money for the game.

well, I'm sure he is a little mad because he didn't get any money, but he is always disappointed when people look at The Godfatehr as just another action movie.

You can go through the entire game shooting people, and that is not what The Godfather is all about, at least in Coppola's eyes.

I'm very excited about the game. EA knows how to make good games (see Medal of Honor, any sports game) and if they've hired the original actors for the game then it gets my seal of approval. I'm sure FFC has an agenda here since he wasn't involved and didn't get any money from it.

That said, if FFC is upset about it, then he needs to make a Part IV and show us all what The Godfather franchise is about!

That's a good point, DBC. We can only hope that this will motivate Coppola to make another Godfather. I am sure Paramount would love to-what with all the publicity The Godfather is getting, it will make money. And, where there's money, there's studio executives...

Most all movie-themed games suck. I'm not really expecting much out of this one, and I'll probably be as disgruntled as Coppola if I rent it.

I saw something about this on "Celebrity Justice". It said that EA doesn't even need his permission because it wasn't in his contract or something. I am kind of excited for it to come out. I don't think that the movies would be ruined because of a game. Why should I let a game change my opinion on a movie?

Maybe the rest of the world dissaproves of Godfather Part III when it was only made purely for financial reasons - eh Francis?

He's got a right to an opinion but he's got to remember his past actions.

Ding Ding Ding..... I think we have a winner!

Ding Ding Ding..... I think we have a winner! [/b][/quote]NO sorry, I don't buy that for one moment.

For a director like Francis Ford Coppola it isn't about the money. It is about taking something that he worked hard on and fought tooth and nail to make in his own way, sold off to be used in a way that Coppola doesn't care for.


Like any writer, that sells their novel to a studio and then doesn't like the changes that that the studio may take once they take charge.

Francis Ford Coppola is the father as far as I am concern. They are his children. So when the studio took the money it was like selling his children into prostitution. Much like Vito said to Michael, I never wanted this for you. I say Coppola never wanted to see his worked made into this.

After all, if you listen to the DVD and hear him talk, he has included so much of his own family ways into the picture.

It is not the money for Francis Ford Coppola, It is personal this time.

Yeah, sure, just like GF III was made for his personal satisfaction.

Like I'm gonna argue this point with someone who has Coppola as his avatar. :rolleyes:

If Mario Puzo was here today, he would reserve the right to be more angry if he dissaproved.

Yeah, sure, just like GF III was made for his personal satisfaction.

Like I'm gonna argue this point with someone who has Coppola as his avatar. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Argue, why must it be in the form of an arguement?

In a soft tone:

Sure, maybe GF-III was made for the money. But who really knows if it was forced by the studio back then. I don't remember hearing anywhere that it was Coppola who begged to make the film, or that he needed the money. In fact I thought it was Paramount who twisted his arm to make it because they needed the film.

Coppola's arm was twisted by Paramount to make The Godfather III, and yes, it was made almost completely for financial reasons, but Coppola still put every ounce of himself into the film. He and Puzo wrote the Corleones in the direction that they wanted. If they were going to write the movie just to be assured a big income, they would have had a lot more sex and violence.

Same with the previous two. Coppola never conformed to "what America wants". He always did what he felt was suitable. He is only mad, and rightfully so, that this movie is being taken to a place that Coppola, the living creative genious of The Godfather (the dead one beiong Puzo), doesn't want.

While I will be buying the video game, and am excited about it, I do feel for Coppola, and understand his anger. I mean, I don't know if they tried, but it would have been great to have Coppola as a consultant on the game, rather then Winegardner.

Great words, SC. (As always.) How can he complain that somebody's ruining the Godfather for money, when GF3 cries to heaven!
Money rules this world, and just wait, as GFR was published, the GF4 will be filmed. And Antony will be bisexual, and Fredo's illegitimate daughter will be in love with him...
Optimism, actually, is the lack of information...

The worst thing about GF2 and 3 is that he was caring too much for "what America wants", instead of caring for the characters.
And he made GF3 because his own "American Zoetrope" was near bankruptcy.

Well, JustMe, that is your opinion. He at least claims that he wrote the screenplays because he felt that it was best, and I believe him.

But, just because he made the film because he was running out of cash, doesn't mean that he wrote the story just to make money. Again, if he was doing this, there would be MUCH more sex and violence. The Godfather III is very un-Hollywood; it was what Coppola and Puzo wanted.

This is not my opinion, it's well known... I could provide you links to the discussions of this subj, but I'm sure you're sick from my links already and don't read them. :p
They never wanted to make this movie, and when they were forced to, they didn't know what to squeeze out of themselves.
Actually, I don't care for it's being Hollywood or un-Hollywood, I'm not sure that either is a measure of quality. I care for it's being un-Godfather.
Again, I don't care for the quantity of sex and violence, but i'd appreciate if there were less of incest and general stupidity. Sex and violence, if well made, would be much more appropriate.
But anyway, this debate takes us nowhere, I think, because we've agreed already that we disagree completely.

JustMe, this is hardly a discussion as to how good The Godfather III was. This is about Coppola and whether or not he made this specific story just to make the money.

Yes, he did make the movie just because he was in need of money. But, out of all the roads he could have taken with the Corleones, he chose what he thought was best. He could have killed off Michael right at the beginning and see how the Family copes afterwards. He could have made another assasination attempt on Michael and spend the movie acting on revenge. He could have made it a family movie and throw in a few Disney characters.

But he didn't.

He chose what he chose because he saw that it best fit the trilogy. Now, whether or not you disagree with him is a differnt story. But I don't see how you can say that Coppola chose the content of the screenplay just because of his money problems.

I am not sure if you are understanding this part, so I will try to be more clear. There are many formulas out there that both movie executives and some directors believe in, that are "guarenteed" to pull in a lot of customers. Most of these formulas include a lot of sex and a lot of violence. None of these, I believe, have anything to do with your main character being repentful and forming an alliance with high ranking officials in the Italian government. I am not saying that Coppola made a good choice in writing The Godfather III the way he did. All I am saying is, he could have written it to be "guarenteed" a bigger income, but he didn't. He wrote, along with Puzo, the entire trilogy because he felt that it was where the movie should go, even if he didn't want the movie to go anywhere at all at times.

And, P.S., I often enjoy your links, as they only help me to understand the board and the subject better.

justme...they weren't forced to do anything..and ffc wasn't drained of money the way you think he was...bare in mind that a year later he would release dracula. and remember that he was gonna let marty scorcease direct it.

Remind me when this classified as an "action" movie. We are speaking of the film in which the studio almost brought in a second director, because the film did not have enough action in it, are we not?

There was occasional action, a minimal amount for a crime-drama, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I mean, they loaded Scarface with action to make it hold the attention of its viewers (whom must've all been diganosed with adult ADD), and as an end result, it sucked.

I don't think, I read it, I believe in several different places. And they were forced by studio. They hated the idea.
Where did I say that?
I don't say that he chose the screenplay because of money. I said that the movie was made because of money, othervise he'd never consent to return to the franchise. He had many versions of the script. He planned that Mike and Kay will have sex. (what's with that poor guy her husband? ) And there was a funeral of Michael even filmed already. And in the beginning, when they simply didn't know what to write, they had a version where Antony would take over the corleone Family, will be recruited by FBI and will fight some Latino-American dictator...
When Pacino asked too much, FFC said he'll just begin the movie with Michael's funeral.
So it was of no importance for him what it will be all about. Sure he did not do it in a way attractive to the audience, but then, it didn't attract. Compare its boxoffice success. Would you pay to see incest and someone repenting something endlessly? I wouldn't. And I'm not alone.

Remind me when this classified as an "action" movie. We are speaking of the film in which the studio almost brought in a second director, because the film did not have enough action in it, are we not?

There was occasional action, a minimal amount for a crime-drama, and I wouldn't have it anyway. I mean, they loaded Scarface with action to make it hold the attention of its viewers (whom must've all been diganosed with adult ADD), and in the end it sucked. [/b][/quote]Exactly, LLC, I agree. I am afraid you misunderstood me. I meant that in the eyes of many, this movie was just a movie about killing people. I don't see it as that, but others do. And this game, will only inforce that.

Where did I say that?
I don't say that he chose the screenplay because of money. I said that the movie was made because of money, othervise he'd never consent to return to the franchise. He had many versions of the script. He planned that Mike and Kay will have sex. (what's with that poor guy her husband? ) And there was a funeral of Michael even filmed already. And in the beginning, when they simply didn't know what to write, they had a version where Antony would take over the corleone Family, will be recruited by FBI and will fight some Latino-American dictator...
When Pacino asked too much, FFC said he'll just begin the movie with Michael's funeral.
So it was of no importance for him what it will be all about. Sure he did not do it in a way attractive to the audience, but then, it didn't attract. Compare its boxoffice success. Would you pay to see incest and someone repenting something endlessly? I wouldn't. And I'm not alone.[/b][/quote]I agree. This movie wasn't made for the audience. But, from what you say, its a little odd that Coppola pretty much didn't care where the film was going, yet he didn't conform to a certain area in order to be guarenteed a bigger income.

However, I can still see why he is mad that people are taking his story and doing something that he doesn't want done. I would be mad too.

Ah, alright. Then, I agree with you.