What could have made Godfather 3 better?

What could they have done differently in Godfather 3 to make it a classic like the 1st and 2nd? I thought the story was pretty good but just maybe not executed very well.

Recast it; remove the incest storyline; reword some of the dialogue.

I thought Andy Garcia was great. Some of the characters were a little boring to me though, I will say.

I think if FFC's original plan of having Winona Ryder play Mary had worked out, it would have made a huge difference.

Sofia Coppola was so terrible it kind of ruined what should have been a heart-rending conclusion.

It wouldn't have made GFIII anywhere near as good as the first two installments but it would have spackeled over a lot of the film's problems.

I didn’t even know she was in the running. James Caan said that FFC was going through a lot of problems in his personal life when he made the movie so that may have played a role too

Yeah, she was actually hired but had some medical problems and had to drop out.

They needed to fill the role on extremely short notice, so they ended up with the director's daughter instead of an actual actress.

Do you think that part of it could’ve been because the 4 hour long movie had run its course already too? For instance, today I am unsure if The Godfather 1 and 2 would garner as much attention because today’s generation would not sit through a 4 hour long movie. And in the 1990s, I think it was somewhat like that as well.

Another thing, do you think that they could’ve explained Vinny’s background a little better? He kind of just ascended from soldier to boss. Didn’t even have to become a captain or anything. And it seemed as though Michael didn’t even really know him. And I think his role was the best part of the movie. I thought the feud between Zasa and Mancini was amazing.

By the way, I watched Making of the Mob last night. In it Vito Genovese begins an affair with his cousin. Is this affair the prompt for FFC's inclusion of the Vincent/Mary affair?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. I’m not too knowledgeable on Genovese though. But I don’t think so. I wonder what the motivation was for that whole plot line. Vinny was such a great character. No need to waste some of his screen time with this boring and bizarre subplot.

Tom Hagan. The studio lowballed Robert Duvall, and I'm guessing this is why Pacino phoned in his performance. Pacino didn't even try to play Michael Corleone. He was just basically being 90s Pacino.

Stone/s! in my shoe, among others -

1. No Tom Hagen [no brainer]
2. Weak and stupid Michael
3. Sonny's or even Connie's son/s as power struggle schemers instead of inventing Vincent

I felt Sofia was alright especially compared to the performances of quite a few of the seasoned actors....

"The studio lowballed Robert Duvall" indeed

Robert Duvall felt the pay gap between Al Pacino and him was unacceptable
Robert Duvall-Seth Meyers interview

Al Pacino on The Godfather: Part III (1990)

Al Pacino - Biography - IMDb
under 'Personal Quotes' -

You know what the problem with that film is? The real problem?

Nobody wants to see Michael have retribution and feel guilty. That's not who he is. In the other scripts, in Michael's mind he is avenging his family and saving them.

Michael never thinks of himself as a gangster - not as a child, not while he is one and not afterward. That is not the image he has of himself.

SPOILER

Michael has this code: he lives by something that makes audiences respond. But once he goes away from that and starts crying over coffins, making confessions and feeling remorse, it isn't right.

I applaud [Francis Ford Coppola] for trying to get to that, but Michael is so frozen in that image.

There is in him a deep feeling of having betrayed his mother by killing his brother. That was a mistake. And we are ruled by these mistakes in life as time goes on. He was wrong.

SPOILER

I reckon it is Turnbull's and his mantra Crime doesn't pay fault!!

After Turnbull's mantra, Coppola had no choice but to make Michael pay dearly, deeply, resulting in his beloved daughter Mary's death and his own lonely, miserable death

He had to show Crime doesn't pay “Your sins are terrible and it is just that you suffer” beyond redemption...

I agree with everything. But I really did think Vinny was a great character. Maybe they could’ve made him Connie’s son or Sonny’s son with his wife and not his mistress. But I didn’t have a problem with that.

Pacino’s performance was terrible. Michael was so focused in 1 and 2. Especially after Vito’s shooting. He was the opposite of that in the 3rd. But maybe that’s what Coppola wanted.

Side question, what mobster was Michael based on if any? Or what mobster do you think Michael mirrored whether intentionally or unintentionally?

No one. Several Dons attempted to have one of their sons succeed them, but none of the sons was anywhere near as successful as Michael. Looked at as a "stand-alone," Michael has no parallels in Mobdom. You might say that Joe Columbo, like Michael, attempted to make himself appear "legitimate," but that's where the comparison fails.

I'd like to hear from others on this board.

Pretty much my opinion also. The Bonannos come the closest though to the father/son duo. Like Michael, Bill was forced into the life too early and probably somewhat reluctantly. However, once in, Bill's fortunes significantly depart from Michael's.

One significant difference is Bill's hesitancy to strike back against Maggadino et al while Michael wants to jump right in: "We can't wait."

I was talking more as a stand-alone. But as far as his cunningness, I think Gambino could be a good comparison. Maybe Lucchese. I’m surprised more people within the Corleone family didn’t have a problem with Michael jumping all of them to be named boss just because he was the son of Vito. Obviously the right choice was made but I can see why some people might’ve felt like Michael was just a spoiled kid who didn’t put in enough work and didn’t deserve to be boss. Tessio was handled, maybe everyone in the family fell in line after that.

No one would question Vito's choice, but the novel points out that many (in and out of the family) thought Michael put in "a bravura performance against the Turk and McCluskey," but he lacked "force." Tessio obviously carried that thought to the extreme when he betrayed Michael.

I never read the novel. Maybe I should.

All true TB. However, as the novel states, "Tessio had a better opinion of Michael. He sensed something else in the young man: a force cleverly kept hidden, a man jealously guarding his true strength from public gaze ..."

You're right, Oli. But, at the end of the day, Tessio threw in with Barzini because he didn't think Michael would win.

Underestimation is a major subtheme of the Trilogy. Vito underestimated Solozzo. Sol underestimated Michael. Sonny underestimated Carlo. The other Dons underestimated Michael. Michael underestimated Roth. Roth underestimated Michael. Michael underestimated Fredo. Michael underestimated Altobello. Vincent underestimated Mosca and overestimated The Twins...As Vito said; "Women and children can afford to be careless. But not men.

Who do you think was Michael’s toughest adversary?

Andy Garcia could have played the victorious schemer, the horse riding, Joey Zasa ear biter and slayer, keeping the theme going
Vincent pop-up story was too lazy and his ascension to Don Corleone too easy, no other contenders in the current story

That’s actually how I felt about Michael in Godfather 1 but it was made apparent to me that the novel elaborates on his climb up the ranks more than the movie.

Another question I have is, did they ever say what businesses exactly helped Michael accumulate such immense wealth? He was going to buy shares for $600 million and donated $100 million in the beginning of the movie. I’m assuming that the olive oil business did not earn the majority of that.

Rocco.

Roth, without a doubt. He was incredibly clever and resourceful.

No doubt Roth was incredibly clever and resourceful in Godfather 2

I reckon, in terms of most irreparable permanent damage and most significant adverse turn of events were caused by

Godfather – Carlo and Fabrizio
Godfather 2 – Fredo and Rocco failing to secure Tahoe
Godfather 3 – Vincent including failing to secure the safety of the Corleones

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.