There have been many "director's cut" versions of different movies in recent times. Movies like "Blade Runner" and "Alien" just to name a couple.

Is there any reason why there has not been a director's cut of GFI and GFII? I'm talking about versions of each movie with every single deleted scene inserted into their proper place. Why has this not been done? With the advent of DVDs, there's absolutely no reason not to do it, unless it has something to do with the film rights, etc.

I've got the chronological TV version on VHS, and it's great to be able to see all the deleted scenes.

HOWEVER, I think most would agree with me when I say the original structure of the two movies is superior to the chronological one.

But I will also say that the sequencing of certain sections in the chronological version is superior. In the TV version, the meeting with Ola happens before the one with Geary. This makes more sense because Mike speaks to Ola about taking over the Tropicala and then when he speaks to Geary, the Senator mentions that his sources have told him that Mike is planning this. It works better. Also, in the TV version, Mike goes and says good night to Anthony before he goes to bed. Anthony asks him if he saw his present for Mike and Mike says "you got me a present?" In the movie version, when Miek says "It was on my pillow" it doesn't sound right. Also, he told Tom he would leave "tonight" AFTER the assassination attempt, but then when he says good night to Anthony he tells him he's leaving "very early tomorrow", which also happens AFTER the assassination attempt. The sequence works better and makes much more sense to have Mike say goodnight to Anthony before going downstairs to bed.

In GFI, when Mike tells Tom that he's "out", there's a deleted scene before Tom says "Why am I out" where he questions why Rocco and Neri are reporting directly to Mike. This scene flows nicely but in the movie, it's quite abrupt how Tom just says "Why am I out."

There is one scene in the TV version that makes no sense. it comes in after Tom has spoken to Jack Woltz and shows Connie and Carlo fighting. Connie runs downstairs saying something like "They're MY things!" Mama Corleone says "They're fighting again! Connie and Carlo are constantly fighting!" Santino gets up to speak to carlo and Vito tells him not to interfere. He then speaks to Tom and santino about Woltz and eventually says we need to send Luca Brasi to reason with Woltz. The reason this makes no sense is because Tom went to Hollywood on the night of the wedding. He would not have been there for more than a day or two. Then when he's back, Connie and Carlo are fighting? A few days after the wedding? Shouldn't they be on their honeymoon? That would be one scene that should not be included in a definitive director's cut. The way this section is in the movie is fine, with tom leaving Woltz's place and then going straight to the horsehead scene.

That's all I'll say for now (I have to get some work done!). But I'll come back later and continue to discuss this. I do believe that a director's version of each movie with the deleted scenes inserted would be the ultimate, though.

Since the chronoligical, tv version of GF/GFII were put together by Francis Ford Coppola, then I suppose that is the 'director's cut'.

I think it would be a bit impractical to insert every single discarded, deleted scene that ended up on the cutting room floor. That said, FFC did quite a nice job choosing what he had in order to tell the story.

The makers of GF and GFII had an opportunity that very few filmmakers have ever had ... the chance to expand their creation through television. Godfather fans have something that to my knowledge never came before and has not come since. Both the movies AND the made-for-tv Saga to enjoy. I think we ought to be very grateful for that.

And while both the film/tv versions definitely have their 'superior' points, why not enjoy them both for what they are.

As for the Connie/Carlo fighting scene...there is no indication that they even had a honeymoon so I'm not sure why you are assuming they should be on one.

Apple

Doesn't vito say to Tom "What time is my daughter leaving with the bridegroom?" That could imply a honeymoon.

It could...but a honeymoon and a wedding night are two different things.

Apple

A Director's Cut does not mean he simply puts in all of the deleted scenes, btw.

That's true. Maybe they could call it the "Complete, Definitive Version", or something like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director\'s_cut

By the way, The (made-for-tv) Godfather Saga IS the "Complete, Definitive Version".

Or at least as complete as it's ever going to be, aside from whatever can be viewed on the Trilogy DVD.

Apple

It as it stands, but things can change, we're in an age now where we can have multiple versions of movies, id be all for all the deleted scenes being put back in, every last one of them they're all great

Actually, Tom might not have been back from California for even a few days. Vito says, "You're not too tired, are you, Tom?" He says, "I slept on the plane." I inferred that he met with Woltz on the day he arrived in CA, dined with him that evening, and caught the first plane back to NY. Pretty exhausting in the prop aircraft days.
But it's not necessarily true that Connie and Carlo had a honeymoon. Vito did say, "What time is my daughter leaving..." but he didn't say "for her honeymoon." In the novel, Puzo merely says of their wedding night that it was satisfactory sexually, but that Carlo had to blacken one of Connie's eyes to get the wedding purse away from her. So, if they didn't go away on a honeymoon (not everyone did in those days), it'd be logical for them to be visiting the Mall. One of the values of that scene is that it sets us up for Carlo's later brutalization of Connie (and everything that followed), as well as the Don muttering, "infamita," when hearing about Woltz and the little girl--a key to his character.

Turnbull...just curious.

I suppose of all the Gangster BB members I'm asking just the wrong person...but don't you find the latter scenes of the Saga just a tad lifeless (for lack of a better word) without the early Vito scenes being interspersed?

I'm thinking that minus those ingenious flashbacks of Vito's humble beginings and rise, contrasted with Michael's present-day leadership, GFII would not have received quite the degree of acclaim that it did. Nor would it be the classic that it is today.

Maybe because we're used to it and have had the rare gift of being able to view it both ways. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss on this matter. I think the early scenes breathe life into the movie.

While the early and middle (Brando) segments of the Saga are terrific, I still enjoy GFII more as a FILM, and not the latter-day, deleted-scenes-included, part of the Saga.

Apple

Well, to each his/her own, Apple. I found the interspersing of time frames tolerable in the theatrical release of II, but I came away from my first viewing thinking that it was too long. I never felt that way about the chronological version. I also found the time frame jumps jarring when Michael came home from Cuba and faced the Senate hearing.

Again, just curious.

Did I read on this Board once (possibly taken from Lebo's book) that FFC never even wanted to make the chronological tv Saga...that he always intended (and wanted) the GFII story to be told using the alterante past/present sequences...but finally relented only because the network offered him so much money he 'couldn't refuse'??

Apple