Maybe someone who read the book already, may answer such a question.
If the book does not interfere with movies, does it accept their plots thoroughly? Does it try to justify, or prepare ground to, the inconsistences and flaws that we find even in the 2 part, nothing to be said of the 3-d?
From what you say i see that it doesn't follow Puso’s ideas strictly, including coppola’s too.
We know wery well, for instance, that Puso was against the killing of Fredo, that he felt it to be absolutely impossible, and it was Coppola alone who insisted on it.
But in other things?
We know, that Mike and Kay had two boys in the first two years, then after a few years more there could be Mary, so they must have 3 children.
As to GF3 , It always seemed to me impossible to believe in. It has simply nothing to do with the first two. I don’t say that it is a bad movie, maestro didn’t know how to make bad movies . But it is written about absolutely different people. All of them, especially Michael, had to become “stupid and soft”, short-sighted, to loose all the will, character, brains, cunning, all their abilities carefully created by the novel, to start acting talking and thinking as they do in almost every moment of this movie.
That relates to the shocking, obvious and un-mafia-like flaws in their business actions, and organisation of security.
But most of all, personalities! We hear nothing in the book of Vinnie. and Antobello, supposing that he is about 70 in 1980, we should think that he stood godfather to Connie being 18 or 19, when Vito was already 40? And why should Vito grant such a honor to such a salad? And my oft-repeated point about Anthony, who is still unable to get his law degree, being 30, at least. Degeneration?
The most important of all is that Michael would never give children to Kay. If something is impossible, that is. After all that we see and read, especially after the stare he gives her when he catches her visiting children, we must be convinced that he would never let her even approach them. That by killing his child she made him feel such pain, disappointment an even hatred, that it killed all his love and respect for her, whatever it could be, and killed forever. She could have no illusions about that, she wished to do it, she said “there would be no way Michael, no way you could ever forgive me.” And there is no way. Even if he didn’t kill her, that never means that he could forgive. And certaily, he is not an idiot to send his children to the only person in the world who would most surely teach them to hate him.
And of course, he would never say “I love you…Forgive me everything...” NEVER! And he would never complaint being feared. Anyone else could. Not he.
I think that he would rather marry again, it would be more natural for him.
And he was not the man to dream every night about losing her, and children he is supposed to have given up himself. He is not so sentimental and snotty, and there is a lack of logic in all this.
And that goddamned legitimacy.
Where could they find a single clue about it’s being of any real importance to Mike? From GF2 we may conclude that he had already changed his wiews on the necessity of being legitimate .
And he is not the man to be so concience-eaten about Fredo. He is too cold and ruthless already for that. He would regret, perhaps, but never repent. I think that they squeesed the GF3 out of themselves cursing, and prettily forgot in 16 years what was it all about.
But i must apologise for the length of this post - I feel myself being carried avay by the smell of blood
So, does the book try to make GF3 possible?