Gotta go with Roth too.

Why did Michael have Rocco kill Roth if he was a high ranking member of the family? Was it revenge for not keeping the compound secure?

I recall Michael Franzese saying The Godfather wasn’t realistic because Tom was consigliere. But he obviously neglected to point out that Vito ignored any objections and issues that the other families had with him elevating Tom to such a high position within the family because A) He was his son, and most importantly B) He was extremely capable.

imo not taking the time forward so much
they should have made it closer to no 2
or change the script completely

I think parts of the story, script and time period could have worked. But I wholeheartedly agree. That was one of the gripes that Coppola had, I think he wanted around 6 months or so to write a script but because he was at the studio’s mercy(his previous movies had flopped) they only gave him 2 months.

FFC should have offered Robert Duval an offer he couldn't refuse.

Where's Luca Brasi when you need him !!

I know... he sleeps with the fishes.

How about this? The strong points in the GFI & GFII was the attention to detail in depicting the Corleone family in the past. GFIII, basically set in the present time. Just doesn't quite hold the same interest.

One could make a case that I&II largely portrayed Vito and Michael in control despite the travails they faced. One had confidence that they would successfully meet the challenges they faced. However, in III, Michael's control seemed tenuous and the challenges he faced required help to overcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-IkWpm7TS0

I got the impression that Michael finally got the point of being considered legitimate. "Kay, my father's way of doing things is over -- it's finished. Even he knows that. I mean in
five years, the Corleone Family is going to be completely legitimate. Trust me. That's all I can tell you about my business". A promise he made to Kay upon his return to the USA. I think he wanted to just bask in the glory of being a philanthropist, especially with the Catholic Church.

I read somewhere that FFC really didn't want to do a GFIII. He basically did it for the money to start his winery. I found many of the scenes in GFIII repeated from previous GF's i.e. the family group picture, family events wedding/first Holy Communion.

This topic has been discussed many times in the past. The best opinion that I read was by itself it would have been a great film. It just had the misfortune of being naturally compared to the first two.

Some, much, or perhaps all of III was forced. Whether FFC produced it for want of cash or pursuant to we fans' demands, or just because it seemed the thing to do, there was no natural storyline that FFC could follow as there was from I to II.

Maybe FFC figured that we fans would want to know what happened to Michael et all. If so, perhaps he could have produced a one hour documentary that answered our questions. Of course, he couldn't just do that; he had to try to produce an epic that at least attempted to emulate the previous two films.

You know, when I watch the documentaries on TV about the Mafia in the 30s, 40s, 50s (and even somewhat into the 60s), I have a certain feeling about it that is so different from what I feel when I watch a Mafia documentary about the 70s, 80s, and the present. Those latter decades documentaries (what they document) just seem so cheap by comparison. Gotti and Massino simply don't rise to the level of Luciano, Genovese, Costello, or Gambino.

Now, scum of the Earth are just that no matter during what decade they are scum. However, there was something substantial about the early decades' Mafiosi that recent Mafiosi can't even come close to. In I and II, Michael et al had that substance. In III, they just plain didn't. That's the big cognitive problem; we had I and II with which to compare III. III's plots were contrived. Murder is bad enough, but why or why incest?

So, what could have made III better? Maybe just don't make it.

It should have been made more timely instead of Coppola hemming and hawing for sixteen years. For those of us old enough to remember, those sixteen years felt like an eternity. It's not like today where you get a sequel in a series every two or three years. Plus, I think it would have behooved them to set the film in the sixties rather than the late seventies. Throw in a different plot, maybe something akin to the Colombo war (the Rosatos, who were loosely based on the Gallo brothers, seemingly survived Part II), and let the Corleones win decisively. Pacino was quoted as saying that no one wanted to see a weak Michael, let alone lose his daughter. And he was right.

Could've started with better casting/luck. Eli Wallach as Don Altobello and Sofia Coppola as Mary, were just horrible decisions... Due to illness or not, they were just not believable in their roles. Thats what killed the movie for me.

PB, basically I agree with you especially about setting it in the 60s and basing it on actual mob events such as the Columbo and Bananas Wars. Letting the Corleones win decisively would have sealed it too by making Michael (regrettably) the family's savior.