Home

Book Discussion *SPOILERS*

Posted By: Don Cardi

Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/09/06 09:23 PM

THIS TOPIC WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS

THIS TOPIC WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS


For anyone that has started reading the book and would like to discuss it here under this topic, PLEASE start EACH of your posts, UNDERLINED and in BOLD with the Chapter Number and the word SPOILERS at the very top of EACH Post.

Example : CHAPTER ONE DISCUSSION SPOILERS

This way if someone is not up to a part of the book that you are up to, they will be forwarned that what they are about to read is NOT a part of the book that they are up to yet.

You may be 5 chapters into the book and want to discuss and post about something in chapter 5, but I may only be up to chapter 3 and therefore wouldn't want to read what you are discussing about chapter 5. So that is why I suggest that EACH post starts out, at the very top, with the chapter number underlined and in bold.


Don Cardi


Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/09/06 11:34 PM

Did you get your book DC? There was trouble with my order so I won't get mine till sometime next week
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/10/06 03:34 AM

CHAPTER ONE & CHAPTER TWO SPOILERS


Well, it's very obvious that Winegardner took the Carlos Marcello and the Kennedy brothers stories and just changed their names. Carlos Tramonti ( Carlos Marcello). The Shea Brothers
(The Kennedy Brothers).

I found that so far, through a preface and two chapters, this book is already more interesting than The Godfather Returns.

I find it more interesting that Winegardner has taken real life mob history, real life political history and incorporated it into a story involving The Corleones.

There are several things said by Winegardner about some of the original GF characters that tells me that he's surfed our GF Trilogy thread and 'borrowed' some of the things that we've pointed out or specualted about the GF characters.

It also looks to me as though the story of Michael, helping to get James Shea ( John Kennedy) elected President, is based on the real life story of Sam Giancana intervening on behalf of Frank Sinatra, to pull the union votes to Kennedy.

This book may actually be better than the last one in the sense that a lot of what has taken place so far is based on real life happenings between the mob, the government and the connection between the CIA and the Mob in attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Two chapters. So far so good.



Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/10/06 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi

There are several things said by Winegardner about some of the original GF characters that tells me that he's surfed our GF Trilogy thread and 'borrowed' some of the things that we've pointed out or specualted about the GF characters.

Don Cardi


Like what?
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/10/06 04:06 AM

CHAPTER ONE & CHAPTER TWO SPOILERS


Originally Posted By: Mignon
Originally Posted By: Don Cardi

There are several things said by Winegardner about some of the original GF characters that tells me that he's surfed our GF Trilogy thread and 'borrowed' some of the things that we've pointed out or specualted about the GF characters.

Don Cardi


Like what?


It wasn't really that much stuff Mig. A line or two here and there in The Prologue. so I don't want to make it appear as though he did this alot. It's really no big deal and I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it.

It's hard to explain in words Mig. You have to read it to understand what I mean. Some of the lines he uses about Michael and Tom's relationship, about Michael breaking Tom's balls about loyalty, are very very similar to things that we've discussed on the boards many times. Points that I remember Turnbull bringing up about why Michael treated Tom like shit at times.

I just get the feeling that he's read our discussions about things like this because what he writes resonates views that only a gangsterbb fanatic would talk about.

Besides, why in the world are you reading these posts when you haven't even started reading the book? You're going to ruin it for yourself.


Don Cardi
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/10/06 06:32 AM

I guess I'm going to have to give in and read it.
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/10/06 12:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
CHAPTER ONE & CHAPTER TWO SPOILERS
Besides, why in the world are you reading these posts when you haven't even started reading the book? You're going to ruin it for yourself.
Don Cardi


What's wrong with a sneak peak?
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/13/06 07:32 PM

I got my book in today. Can't wait to start discussing it.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/13/06 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Mignon
I got my book in today. Can't wait to start discussing it.






Now get crackin!



Don Cardi
Posted By: MDR

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/13/06 10:24 PM

Tom Hagen is hands down my favorite character from both the novel and the saga, so when I heard that the new book was going to give him a lot of time in the limelight I was very happy (inspite of the terrible reception Returns recieved. I've yet to read that myself).

I won't be able to get my hands on Revenge for a minute yet so I was wondering if anyone could field any spoilers regarding the character. Pretty please? Anyone? I wouldn't forget the favor
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/14/06 12:32 AM

SPIOLERS UP TO CHAPTER 9


Well early in the book Winegardner dedicates a whole chapter to Hagen and his wife. But you'll have to read it to find out


This book returns to the Nick Gerace character, and the chapter given to Gerace is an interesting one, making the Gerace character much more interesting than in the last book.

He also spends a chapter on Johnny Fontane which, to my surprise, was not as boring as I thought it was going to be. I'll put it this way, if ever anyone had any doubt that the Johnny Fontane character was based on Frank Sinatra, after reading this chapter all doubts will be erased. Winegardner lightly touches on Fontanes life in the sixties which mirrors many of the things that Sinatra went through up until those years of his life.

I also enjoyed the chapter (8 I believe) which introduces a Corleone caporegime named Eddie Paradise (pronounced Paradee-see). An interesting character who could be right out of the streets of any tough neighborhood that is run by gansgters. He runs the Redhook section of Brooklyn along with his right hand man Momo The Roach. Winegardner is cute in that he makes several little inuendos in this chapter covering Eddie Paradise, which mirror some of the real life doings of The Gallo clan who used to run Redhook in real life. While we all know that The Rosatto Brothers from GFII were based on the real life Gallo brothers, Winegardner makes a reference about this Eddie character having a cage from a Zoo in the basement of his club and his wanting to put a pet Lion in that cage. In real life the Gallo brothers had a pet lion in the basement of their club in Redhook.

So far, it looks as though Winegardner did his homework as far as real life mobsters and polticians go and has creatively applied some of those real life happenings to his charaters in the book.

I have to say that I am enjoying this book much more than I expected. And definitely much more than The Godfather Returns. Not a literary genius by any means, but enjoyable.

EDIT : Did I mention about Johnny Fontane being the Grand Marshall of the Columbus Day Parade, accompanied by his oldest daughter? And how Winegardner keeps referencing about her new Black knee high Boots? Ring a bell anyone? ( "These boots are made for walking," recorded in real life by none other than the chairman of the board's daughter--Nancy Sinatra)


Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/14/06 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi

Now get crackin!
Don Cardi


Ok I'm crackin
Posted By: MDR

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/15/06 08:12 AM

Don Cardi you are a terrible tease
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/19/06 11:52 AM

SPOILERS UP TO CHAPTER 14, End of BOOK I



So both Sonny's daughter and aunt Connie have the hots for Johnny Fontaine. The weakest chapter in the book so far. One that I could have done without. But I guess that a writer needs to insert dull and sensless chapters like this one in order to fill up his book.

A commission meeting held in Brooklyn, run by Michael Corleone. Now this is what I want to read about, not Connie's hots for Johnny Fontaine.

Don Altobello has just become a member of the commission and is the Don of the Tattaglia family. The Cuneos have become a close ally to the Corleones, and they were the ones responsible for finding and taking out Fabrizzio on Michael's behalf, years before. (obviously why I posted the question that I did over in the GF Novel thread).

The book continues to parallel real life mob and political happenings. There is reference made to a farm in upstate New York where a raid had taken place years earlier, netting the heads of many mafia families from around the country. An obvious referal to the real life infamous Appalachian meeting.

There is also a proposal made at that commission meeting to kill the President of the United States in order to put a stop to his younger brother's continued efforts, as attorney general, to crackdown on the mob. That proposal comes from the Don of New Orleans.

These two brothers, the President and the Attorney General, have one weekness though, and Micheal Corleone knows exactly what that weekness is, due to their hanging out with Johnny Fontaine; infidelity with woman.

Sound like any historical pair of political brothers that we know of who were known to have hung around with a famous italian singer?

Hopefully things will get a bit more exciting in Book II and start to take place after Winegardner spending 14 chapters developing the plot.

Not a bad read so far, but not as action packed as I thought it was going to be.





Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/20/06 05:47 AM

I'm not even done with chapter 2 yet. I still have the mind set that it is going to suck like Returns did so I am having trouble reading it.
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/20/06 06:07 AM

SPOILERS **** SPOILERS **** SPOILERS ****



OK people, back after about a year off (??) but I just happened to be doing some very early shopping at the local bigbox, and picked up a copy of "Revenge" at a big discount.

So I tore through it yesterday, speed-skimming it, and I must say I have very, very mixed feelings so far.

First, the book seemed overly fixed on resolving the Nick Gerace storylne from "Returns." Frankly as much as anything it seemed more like a book about Nick Gerace than the Corleones.

That ticked me off, because while overall I liked "Returns" OK -- didn't love it, but didn't vehemently hate it as much as many here or other reviewers seemed to -- to me, the main challenge to any writer basing a new work on the Corleone Saga HAS to be how to advance and integrate the unresolved storylines of the characters already established in the canonical works, to come up with plausible plotlines which would fit in the existing continuity.

By far, the biggest unresolved storyline from "The Godfather, Part II" (and, by omission, the failure of "Part III") was the issue of Tom Hagen's loyalty to Michael Corleone. Toward the end of Part II, that loyalty was starting to fray a bit around the edges. It was clearly being foreshadowed by Puzo and FFC toward the end of Part II that Hagen's loyalty might not be as unconditional as it had appeared to be, and both Michael and Tom had reasons to question how loyal he would ultimately be.

So to me, the demise of Hagen in "Revenge" was a HUGE disappointment -- a fundamental core character in the Puzo/FFC continuity was written out simply as a plot device to advance the adventures of Nick Gerace (who frankly I did not personally give a $#$# about, since he was not an established character in the canon). Hagen's death, in mid-1964, also comes too soon to match up with the continuity established in "Part III" -- Hagen is dead in Part III, but the implication I always got from watching the movie is that his death had been somewhat recent, not last week, but not 16 years ago as the "Revenge" storyline now places it.

There were a few other things, I can't recount in detail, that "Revenge" seemed to just totally ignore "Part III" as canon, perhaps just pretending that it hadn't happened.

The storylines of the Corleone children were also jumbled up. We didn't really see what happened to Sonny's older sons (who were toddlers in Part I, visited Vito's bedside, etc etc.) It has been presumed they moved away with Sandra, and did not pursue life in "the family," but there's still a question if Sonny's legitimate sons would want to get involved with the family as his illegitimate son Vincent does in Part III.

I will have to read it over and let it soak in. Some parts were OK, but again I felt it dwelled way too much on what happened with Nick Gerace and not enough on the Corleone Family.
Posted By: dontomasso

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/20/06 04:08 PM

The NY Times Book Review panned this book.
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 06:14 AM

Originally Posted By: dontomasso
The NY Times Book Review panned this book.


November 19, 2006
The Consigliere
By MICHAEL AGGER

THE GODFATHER’S REVENGE
By Mark Winegardner.

Say what you will about the Mafia, it’s an organization that knows how to elegantly dispose of a corpse. Mark Winegardner, not a Sicilian but an English professor, has written two sequels to Mario Puzo’s “Godfather.” The first was a jumble of Cuba scenes, betrayal and Michael Corleone’s eternal desire to become a legitimate businessman. It’s memorable mostly for angering readers with its “gay Fredo” revelation (an entirely plausible deduction from the movies). Now, with “The Godfather’s Revenge,” a once-amusing idea is starting to assume a necrophiliac air. For how many more pages can Michael, Kay, Tom and Johnny Fontane keep this stuff up? And don’t they ever get to leave the ’60s behind?

Winegardner sets his new novel determinedly in that era, when the Kennedys, the Mafia and Frank Sinatra burned brightly in the American imagination — a safe and unsatisfying decision. In the wake of “The Sopranos” and “The Wire,” the book feels like a visit to a Mafia version of Colonial Williamsburg: watch the women make manicotti, while the men plot and sulk in the dark.

Recreating Puzo’s embroidered Mafia universe can be entertaining, and Winegardner has rich (in every sense of the word) material to work with. Name another movie that half the world can quote ... besides “Star Wars” and “Casablanca” and “The Wizard of Oz.” Despite this inherited advantage, Winegardner writes like a low-level soldier who never fails to mention his connections to the more powerful. “The Godfather’s Revenge” cruises through a few scenes of double-dealing and then invariably drops some thundering reference to scenes mostly remembered from the Francis Ford Coppola movies. When Johnny Fontane and Francesca Corleone stroll in the moonlight, for instance, they end up flirting on top of the grave of Khartoum, the racehorse whose head showed up in “The Godfather.” This made me want to put down the book and go watch the original scene on YouTube.

“The Godfather’s Revenge” takes an extended journey into the mind of Tom Hagen, the Corleone consigliere, and continues the original story of Nick Geraci, a traitorous Corleone underboss determined to push aside Michael and take his job. Nick is somewhat unbelievable. He’s a wiseguy in search of a Renaissance Weekend — give this man a pay phone and he will orchestrate a few hits and then go home and work on his memoir while struggling with his Parkinson’s and keeping trim as a boxer and hiding from his mortal enemies. Tom merely gets into trouble with his wife after his mistress turns up dead. The novel also features cameos from the athletic, philandering Shea brothers, who are Winegardner’s stand-ins for Jack and Bobby.

The stories of these tradition-bound men are told with economy and a pulpy flair. There’s just one problem: these men are not Michael, who makes only shadowy and inconclusive appearances in the book. That’s an astounding choice. Why drive a Fiat when you have a Ferrari in the garage? Michael is a character who moves between good and evil, who killed his own brother, who longs for legitimacy and power. He’s a successful Hamlet, one who can dress well and act when pushed.

The great attraction of Puzo’s and Coppola’s “Godfather” was the romantic notion that a criminal code of honor, based on family, could persist in the modern era. When Winegardner delves into how all the world is like a Mafia, his book feels right, as in the scene with Michael envying the set-up of Robert Moses, who collects kickbacks from the public works he oversees, yet is hailed as a civic hero. Too often, though, the book just wants to rub shoulders with every historical moment it can, including the ultimate: the Kennedy assassination. Sure, the Corleones can be a hidden hand in history, but their power was always balanced by and rooted in a ritualistic family life. This is where Winegardner fails to innovate, and his confection falls flat. After all, a man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 07:16 AM

Just idly wondering here: I wonder if Winegarden was under some kind of contractual restriction from Paramount, or FFC, or the Puzo estate, or whomever actually controls copyright on the character, as to how much he could involve Michael Corleone in the plotline.

Both books ("Returns" and "Revenge") dwell conspicuously on subplots involving secondary characters (Fredo in "Returns," Tom Hagen in "Revenge,") and BOTH deal quite extensively with the new character, Nick Gerace, created by Winegarten strictly for the books -- while leaving Michael Corleone almost a peripheral character in the storyline in both books.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 08:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Just Lou


November 19, 2006
The Consigliere
By MICHAEL AGGER

THE GODFATHER’S REVENGE
By Mark Winegardner.

Too often, though, the book just wants to rub shoulders with every historical moment it can, including the ultimate: the Kennedy assassination.


That statement is right on the money. Historical moments and parallels work well at the appropriate times, but it's now at a point of overkill. Not to mention that I am halfway through the book and so far, not even a mob hit, halfway through the book and no action whatsoever.

What started out as a pretty good foundation for a decent story has now become somewhat boring.

It's now begining to look as though Winegardner has once again dropped the ball.



Don Cardi
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 08:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi

It's now begining to look as though Winegardner has once again dropped the ball.


You had doubts that he wouldn't??

I think your brain has gone soft from all that comedy you play.

Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: SC
Originally Posted By: Don Cardi

It's now begining to look as though Winegardner has once again dropped the ball.


You had doubts that he wouldn't??

I think your brain has gone soft from all that comedy you play.




I thought that I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Figured that after reading our reviews of his first book, here on the boards, he would at least try to get it right the second time. In all fairness I have to finish the book before becoming a critic.




Don Cardi
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
In all fairness I have to finish the book before becoming a critic.


You're probably right. I should START the book before I criticize him.
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/21/06 04:56 PM

Quote:
“The Godfather’s Revenge” cruises through a few scenes of double-dealing and then invariably drops some thundering reference to scenes mostly remembered from the Francis Ford Coppola movies. When Johnny Fontane and Francesca Corleone stroll in the moonlight, for instance, they end up flirting on top of the grave of Khartoum, the racehorse whose head showed up in “The Godfather.” This made me want to put down the book and go watch the original scene on YouTube.


This is worse than Michael getting wood in the movie theater.
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/22/06 01:46 AM

I'm on a roll now I'm up to ch.3
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/22/06 01:57 AM

Now the book is getting interesting again. But it still lacks the real in your face mob stuff.



Don Cardi
Posted By: BDuff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/23/06 02:22 AM

From the reviews that I have read {since I have not started "Revenge" yet} the book is low on action, but it picks up at the end {in terms of mob hits}.
Posted By: BDuff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/23/06 02:25 AM

I wouldn't say that Hagen and Fredo are secondary characters, those are more like Rocco and Neri.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/24/06 08:01 AM

SPOILERS ** SPOILERS UP To CHAPTER 18

It's becoming very difficult to finish this book. One chapter seems to pull you in, and then the next two suck.

I mean this guy spends half the chapter on a meeting between a lawyer and Michael. While it pertains to the story, he drags out a conversation between them, most of it meaningless. He spends almost 20 pages with this Sid Klien character, where he maybe only needed to spend about 5.

Early in the book Winegardner develops what looked to be an interesting storyline interwoven with some interesting characters. But almost 19 chapters later those characters have not developed into anything important in regards to the storyline.

Case in point, Carlo Tramonti. Very good writing about this character in the begining of the book. Outside of the commission meeting, halfway through the book, never talked about again. Eddie Paradise was another character talked about at the begining of the book. A character that looked as though he had the potential to develop into an intersting character in a mafia book. Winegardner, so far, fails to accomplish that.

As I was about to begin reading chapter 18, until I saw that it starts out with

"Francesca Corleone Van Arsdale - shrouded with dread, as she was all the time now..."

Who gives a fock about Francesca Corleone and her dread? This is supposed to be a book about one of the greatest fictional mob families in literary and cinematic history! A mafia book! Michael is almost non existant in this book! And when Michael does appear in a chapter, Winegardner really fails to capture the personality of Michael as we know him through Puzo. It's as though Winegardner wants to create his own characters, which is fine in itself, but has used the Corleone character name to advance his own, stupid, one dimensional characters. He could have surrounded his boring characters with Joe Shmo, and it wouldn't have made a difference.

You know how when reading a good book, you can't wait to find out what happens next but at the same time don't really want the book to end because it is so good?

Well with Godfather's Revenge, you are afraid to find out what junk is going to happen next, and at the same time you just cannot wait for the book to end because it's so bad.

I hope that Winegardner reads this thread because if he is, I want hom to know that he sucks with these Godfather books.

How the hell Puzo and his estate allowed this guy to destroy such great characters as the Corleone characters is beyond me.

Winegardner's books make Godfather III look like it should have won the Academy Award for best picture of the year.

Do I have to finish this book? It's becoming a chore.

Winegardner, you come out with another book, I will buy it, but I won't read it. I'll use it as toilet paper instead .



Seems to me that Winegardner has duped us again.



Don Cardi

Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/24/06 05:02 PM

But DC, how do you really feel?

PS, thanks for saving me $17 and a few hours of my life.
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/24/06 09:47 PM

I really wish Plaw would have finished his GF novel. His novel was 100x's better. The few chapters he wrote was so much more interesting than this garbage and I'm only in ch.4.

Winegardner please do us a big favor and write something you know about.
Posted By: BDuff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/25/06 12:09 AM

Is there a link to this story? You've sparked my interest!
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/25/06 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: BDuff
Is there a link to this story? You've sparked my interest!


Here you go :


http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...=true#Post30252



Don Cardi
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/29/06 12:58 PM

SPOILERS *** UP TO CHAPTER 21 - BOOK 4 *** SPOILERS


Let me tell you, it's been a struggle to get through what has really turned into a very boring story.

For instance Winegardner spends almost half a chapter describing Jack Woltz's newly renovated house. Now I understand the underlying message that Winegardner is trying to get across with that description in regards to what once happened to Woltz (horses head and breach of security), but there was absolutely no need to spend a half a chapter on that description when it could have been done in about a half a page.

And this Francesca Corleone screwing Johnny Fontaine sub story is just ridiculous, so far meaningless, and a waste of time. There was so much that Winegardner could have done with the Francesca character.

Also a lot of menaingless diolague between Connie and Francesca.

Michael basically is just a guest star in this book.

Mr. Winegardner, I will never understand how Puzo and his family picked you to carry on the Godfather tradition. You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. There are times I wonder if you really ever read the Godfather, or even watched the movies.

Sad. What could have been a great continuing saga has been turned into junk.



Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/29/06 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Mr. Winegardner, I will never understand how Puzo and his family picked you to carry on the Godfather tradition. You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. There are times I wonder if you really ever read the Godfather, or even watched the movies.

Sad. What could have been a great continuing saga has been turned into junk.

Preach on brother
As much as I love to read I am having trouble reading this pig slop. I've had this book since it came out and I am only on pg.56 I can see it now this book will take 6 months to read just like Returns did. That is sad also.
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/29/06 02:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Mignon

As much as I love to read I am having trouble reading this pig slop. I've had this book since it came out and I am only on pg.56 I can see it now this book will take 6 months to read just like Returns did. That is sad also.


Have you ever considered a speed reading course?



I'll do you one better. I've looked in on the inside front cover only. You've got 56 pages on me!
Posted By: dontomasso

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 11/29/06 06:36 PM

I am glad I didnt buy it. Plaw's sequels were better.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/02/06 08:05 PM

I'm new here, so I'll start off with a very short observation.
Why does Winegardner keep using the term "whack" , when I don't recall anybody, let alone a "civilian" reporter, using that term in the 60's ? Frankly, before the surveillance tapes of the 80's, I defy you to find that term used anywhere outside of "the life". Just a pet peeve of mine. As far as the book itself, it's actually painful to read. I only endured it out blind loyalty to the original characters.
Posted By: J Geoff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/03/06 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: SC
I've looked in on the inside front cover only. You've got 56 pages on me!


I guess we're neck-in-neck!
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/03/06 01:53 AM

Hey Geoffy,

Did you ever finish GF Returns?
Posted By: J Geoff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/03/06 07:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Mignon
Hey Geoffy,

Did you ever finish GF Returns?



Err uhh...

Workin' on it! I take it to the laundromat with me... trouble is, I don't go often enough! lol
Posted By: mr. soprano

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/03/06 10:17 PM

for those who have read both novels, or have read enough of both...tell me which one is the better novel? and second, should i even bother buying either of them? i held of on gf returns because of its bad reviews...but i read the first chapter once when i was in a bookstore and found it to be a bit interesting.
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/03/06 10:21 PM

Quality-wise, they're about the same.

You can probably pick up "Returns" in the discount stacks for a few bucks, so it might be worth it.

"Revenge" assumes you know what happened in "Returns," so if you want to read either, read "Returns" first.

If you are really a hardcore Godfather freak, both books will piss you off because the canonical characters, mainly Michael Corleone, are such minor players in the plot, while page after page and chapter after chapter are spent on concocted characters like Nick Gerace, who we really don't care much about.
Posted By: Dominic_Corleone_Jr

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 01:09 AM

question - how come author said sonny was 37 years old when he died...i thought he was 32 1916 - 1948
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Dominic_Corleone_Jr
question - how come author said sonny was 37 years old when he died...i thought he was 32 1916 - 1948


Sonny was born in 1910 (according to the novel).
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 01:48 AM

Winegardner didn't even get important dates right?

He wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 01:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Mignon
Winegardner didn't even get important dates right?

He wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground


In all fairness to Winegardner, he took ALL his trivial info from Puzo's book (and not the movies).
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 01:59 AM

SC,
Have you got past the inside front cover yet?
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 02:39 AM

Originally Posted By: SC

In all fairness to Winegardner, he took ALL his trivial info from Puzo's book (and not the movies).



As he should have. After all the books are continuations, well are supposed to be continuations, based on the original novel.

He still sucks as a writer. Boring shit. So much potential thrown down the drain.

Geoff, I want his e-mail address. I want to ask him some questions. The one question that I really want to ask him is "What the F**K were you thinking when you wrote these books?"

This one should have been titled : WINEGARDNER'S REVENGE


Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 03:31 AM

DC,

Ask him why is so much of the books about Nick Geraci?
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 04:18 AM

I think that Winegardner has an axe to grind with Michael.
He's very quick to point out what he perceives as Michael's shortcomings as a Don, while singing Geraci's praises.
He knows that he couldn't eliminate the Corleones completely so he gave them a backseat to the Geraci character.
Posted By: Dominic_Corleone_Jr

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 11:14 PM

you can contact him on his website, his email is there, i already did contact him

and as for sonny's age i was going by the timeline and my book

THE CORLEONE TIMELINE Last updated - 27 Nov 04

*1911 - Las Vegas officially becomes a city
1914 - Vito & Carmella get married
1916 - Santino (Sonny) & Tom Hagen born
1917 - Vito's Little Italy sequence begins (De Niro)
*1917 - Sicilian (Mafia) Don Morello murdered by Neapolitan (Camorra) Don Morano
*1918-1922 - Merger of Mafia and Camorra. Giuseppe Masseria is boss.
*1919 - Prohibition begins
1919 - Vito (27) kills Fanucci; Fredo born, gets pneumonia
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 11:27 PM

What do I tell him? "Winegardner, you suck as a writer?"

Anyways I am sure that he reads these boards. There are even hints in his writing about some of the GF character traits that I would swear he picked up from reading these boards.

Then there are times when he portrays certain GF characters in certain ways that I find hard to believe. Especially some of the things that he has Michael say or do.

Truthfully, do you really think that Johnny Fonatane would have sex with Santino Corleone's daughter, the neice of the most powerful mobster in America? And even that aside, I find it very hard to believe that Johhny Fontane would disrespect his Godfather's memory by doing something like that.

I do have to admit though, I've grown to like his Nick Gerace character.



Don Cardi
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/04/06 11:54 PM

Well, I don't think Winegardner sucks as a writer, in fact I don't hate either book as much as a lot of people here apparently do, and yes Nick Gerace does come to command your attention to some extent, but I do think that both books ultimately fail because they neglect the major characters in the saga.

Plus, although Tom Hagen is a fairly major character in "Revenge," the story completely misses the boat in exploring potential conflicts or rifts in the loyalty between Hagen and Michael Corleone -- which was quite clearly the primary theme being set up for Part III by subtle plot points written into the later scenes of Part II.

Had Puzo and FFC been able, or willing, to make GF III in the late 1970s or early 1980s, as originally intended, OR had they been able to re-sign Duvall for the cast when they finally DID make it, the growing tension and possible conflict between Hagen and Michael Corleone would almost certainly have been one of the central plotlines.

In fact, in my opinion, most of the character of Don Altobello (longtime trusted family friend of the Corleones, almost a part of the family himself, former close confidante of Vito, with many other contacts in the world of organized crime, who ends up shockingly betraying Michael) was probably adapted off of ideas they were going to use with Tom Hagen, had Duvall been signed for the film.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 12:51 AM

I'm a bit new here so I'm not sure if you guys are aware that the original script for GF 3, from May of 89, is viewable online.
If you check it out you'll see that Tom was supposed to have a tremendous part.
In this early draft it seems to me that Puzo/FFC had Hagen loyal to Michael to the very end.
Anyway, you can see it at joblo.com/movie scripts
Just click on The Godfather 3 link.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 01:28 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I'm a bit new here so I'm not sure if you guys are aware that the original script for GF 3, from May of 89, is viewable online.
If you check it out you'll see that Tom was supposed to have a tremendous part.
In this early draft it seems to me that Puzo/FFC had Hagen loyal to Michael to the very end.
Anyway, you can see it at joblo.com/movie scripts
Just click on The Godfather 3 link.


JoBlo comes up, but doesn't show scripts and says that PAGE IS MISSING.




Don Cardi
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 06:15 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I'm a bit new here so I'm not sure if you guys are aware that the original script for GF 3, from May of 89, is viewable online.
If you check it out you'll see that Tom was supposed to have a tremendous part.
In this early draft it seems to me that Puzo/FFC had Hagen loyal to Michael to the very end.
Anyway, you can see it at joblo.com/movie scripts
Just click on The Godfather 3 link.


Went and read it; very interesting.

As I suspected, the Vincent/Mary romance was a much smaller part of the storyline.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 07:15 PM

Originally Posted By: EnzoBaker
Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I'm a bit new here so I'm not sure if you guys are aware that the original script for GF 3, from May of 89, is viewable online.
If you check it out you'll see that Tom was supposed to have a tremendous part.
In this early draft it seems to me that Puzo/FFC had Hagen loyal to Michael to the very end.
Anyway, you can see it at joblo.com/movie scripts
Just click on The Godfather 3 link.




Went and read it; very interesting.

As I suspected, the Vincent/Mary romance was a much smaller part of the storyline.



Enzo, could you please post a link? I'd love to read it.



Don Cardi
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Originally Posted By: EnzoBaker
Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I'm a bit new here so I'm not sure if you guys are aware that the original script for GF 3, from May of 89, is viewable online.
If you check it out you'll see that Tom was supposed to have a tremendous part.
In this early draft it seems to me that Puzo/FFC had Hagen loyal to Michael to the very end.
Anyway, you can see it at joblo.com/movie scripts
Just click on The Godfather 3 link.



Went and read it; very interesting.

As I suspected, the Vincent/Mary romance was a much smaller part of the storyline.



Enzo, could you please post a link? I'd love to read it.


Don Cardi


Here ya go; it's a very long .pdf file, so it may take a while to load.

GF III script - 1989
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 09:19 PM

The only link to GF3 in their scripts section sends you to JG's GF3
transcript.
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: EnzoBaker

Here ya go; it's a very long .pdf file, so it may take a while to load.

GF III script - 1989


Thanks.
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 09:26 PM

I've read through half of it... I wish they would've stuck to this script (and would've paid Duvall the money he was seeking).

A few "surprises" from this version.

- Willie Cicci is in it. He hates Vincent; Cicci gets killed in a takeoff of Paul Castellano's murder.

- Rocco Lampone is in it. (He has a small part through what I've read).

- Tom Hagen discovers that Don Altobello is behind a scheme to counterfeit the Church's securities and gets shot (he survives) because of that discovery.

- The Russo Bros. (backed by Altobello) get killed on 46th Street (a reference to Spark's Steakhouse where Paul Castellano was gunned down) at a restaurant named Joe & Mary's (in real life where Carmine Galante was killed).

Anyway, here's a link (below) to that script:

GODFATHER III SCRIPT - FIRST DRAFT
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/05/06 11:55 PM

Joe Spinell was to reprise his role as Willie Cicci but died in 1989. That's apparently when Zasa was written in.
Puzo/FFC decided that Rocco couldn't have survived his wounds and wrote him out.
The most intriguing possibility was Hagen. Opening the movie in Vegas for his birthday instead of Michael being honored by the church in NY.
Oh, what could have been.....
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 12:25 AM

You can see how various scenes originally written for completely different purposes eventually did make it into the movie as actually released: the horseback shooting scene where Vincent kills Zasa was originally written as Tom Hagen being wounded, not killed, in a hit attempt.

Obviously Zasa was written in almost wholesale to replace the part originally intended for Cicci. (The names, of course, being phonetically almost identical.)

A lot of Hagen's convalesence scenes after the shooting were transposed onto Michael.

In this early version of the script, they make no bones about the fact that by this time, Connie is acting as a fully functional member of the family.

At least passing mention is given to Sonny's legitimate children -- Santino Jr. has become a dentist, and calls himself "Sandy."

No mention whatsoever of Connie's sons, Victor and Michael, who by this time would have been in their 30s, and probably involved in the family themselves (Michael commented on their getting involved in crime when they were kids in 1957). Maybe they're dead?

The time line is a little fuzzy -- the movie is framed around Tom Hagen's 70th birthday party, which would make it 1986. Some other time references seemed a little off; I suspect that neither Puzo nor FFC were probably as obsessive about exact dates as many hardcore fans were and are.

In this version at least, Hagen remains fully loyal and dependable even to the end -- I still can't believe at some time, the operative story line of GF III wasn't intended to focus on Michael finally being betrayed by Tom, since several scenes at the end of GF II clearly indicate a growing rift of loyalty between the two.

The out-of-nowhere appearance of Don Altobello, and his behind-the-scenes maneuvering to betray Michael, still seem to strongly indicate the part could have been originally have been written to depict the loyal and trusted Hagen, who by this time would have developed plenty of contacts himself in the underworld, eventually realizing he would never take over the family no matter what happened to Michael.

If Michael had retired, been incapacitated or died, the power struggle between Vito's adopted son, Tom Hagen, and his bastard grandson, Vincent, for ultimate control of the family would have been a great storyline -- perhaps with Connie, by now the shadowy Black Madonna of the entire family, making the ultimate decisions.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 01:16 AM

I agree about Connie. According to the Harlan Lebo's 'Godfather Legacy' a script that was written in the mid 80s, and was ultimately scrapped, had Neri admit to Connie that he betrayed Michael and left the drapes open at the communion.
She blackmails him into poioining Michael as payback for Carlo and is ultimately killed himself.
Personally, I'm glad that neither Neri nor Tom ever betrayed Michael.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 01:22 AM

Either way, Paramount obviously should have paid Duvall what he wanted. In my opinion he was certainly deserving.
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
Either way, Paramount obviously should have paid Duvall what he wanted. In my opinion he was certainly deserving.


That's for sure. Whether Tom Hagen ended up betraying Michael or not, it certainly would have been a more satisfying conclusion (or continuation) of the saga to have his storyline resolved in a more significant manner than just to say, "oh, he died."

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I agree about Connie. According to the Harlan Lebo's 'Godfather Legacy' a script that was written in the mid 80s, and was ultimately scrapped, had Neri admit to Connie that he betrayed Michael and left the drapes open at the communion.
She blackmails him into poioining Michael as payback for Carlo and is ultimately killed himself.
Personally, I'm glad that neither Neri nor Tom ever betrayed Michael.


Ehhhhhhh, I wouldn't buy that Connie would still be bent on revenge for Carlo, 25-30 years after he was killed.

By GF II Connie had clearly come to grips with the fact Carlo had to be killed. Connie always saw herself as a Corleone, not a Rizzi -- I would never have bought for a minute that Connie would have wanted Michael dead in revenge over Carlo.

Connie idolized Sonny, her oldest brother; Carlo had led directly to his death, and also brutally beat Connie. By having Carlo killed, Michael did Connie a big favor, in addition to getting revenge for Sonny and eliminating a security risk for the family.

Fast-forward Connie from the simple-minded teenager of GF I to the mouthy, brassy, bed-hopping floozy of GF II, she would have understood why Carlo had to go. Fast-forward her to the ruthless black-widow of GF III, she'd have pulled the garotte herself.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 02:17 AM

I agree. I would have also had a hard time accepting Neri as a traitor. Anybody who ever read the backstory on Neri in the novel would have to agree.
That's one of my huge problems with the Winegardner books.
He makes Neri out to be a one dimensional psychopath.
He did not do the proper research.
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 09:15 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I would have also had a hard time accepting Neri as a traitor.


As I feel about Clemenza turning traitor (if he was to appear in Part II. For that very reason I'm glad Richard Castellano didn't come to terms with FFC).
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 11:08 AM

Truthfully, I would have had a very hard time believing that Tom Hagen would ever betray Michael! I just feel that Hagen is too much of an old school kind of man who had pledged his loyalty to Vito and the Corleone family to ever do something like that to Michael.


As for the subject of this God awful book, well I am really struggling to finish it. Last night I couldn't even make it through a chapter! It just gets progressively worse.


Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
As for the subject of this God awful book, well I am really struggling to finish it. Last night I couldn't even make it through a chapter! It just gets progressively worse.
Don Cardi


I hope this will be his last GF book then.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 05:22 PM

SPOILER * SPOILER * SPOILER


The only topic in this piece of trash that remotely appeals to the hardcore Godfather fan is the death of Tom Hagen.
Winegardner couldn't even get that right.
Don't you think if Tom was to have been murdered there would've been some hint of it in GF 3 ?
I wonder what Coppola thinks of this mess because the Puzo family obviously doesen't care. It looks like they're only loyalty is to the dollar bill.


**edited by Don Cardi to add a spoiler warning for those who may be, or are going to read the book.
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy

I wonder what Coppola thinks of this mess because the Puzo family obviously doesen't care. It looks like they're only loyalty is to the dollar bill.


I can't speak about Puzo's estate but FFC has been known to change storylines because of his own loyalty to the dollar bill. To wit, he purposely left Clemenza's death vague after Richard Castellano and he couldn't reach terms for his appearance in Part II; Hagen's vague disapperance from Part III was prompted by the same reason. Coppola was more concerned with the dollar than he was in the storyline.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/06/06 07:18 PM

I agree. As you probably know, Pacino was an early holdout as well. FFC threatened to open the film with the funeral of Michael Corleone. That aside, neither FFC nor the Puzo estate should be happy with either of these 2 books.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 01:40 AM

POSSIBLE SPOILER

Pizzaboy -

I once was shown a very rough early draft of a GFII script by an old neighbor of mine who had the Laser Disc version of the GF trilogy. In this rough draft it had storyboard sketches with one showing Tom Hagen getting shot and killed. I am so sorry that I never made copies of those storyboard drawings.I am thinking that Winegardner may have gotten this notion from possibly seeing these storyboards.

On another note, I would appreciate it, as I know some others here would also, if in the future, when you post something that happens in the Godfather's Revenge book, that you post "SPOILERS" and the CHAPTER that you are going to talk about at the very top of your post.

I am reading the book and did NOT get to the part, nor did I know, that Tom Hagen was killed. That was until I read your post. So please, in the future, post the SPOILER warning along with the Chapter so that you do not ruin it for others who may be reading the book.

Thanks.



Don Cardi
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 01:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Mignon


I hope this will be his last GF book then.


For some reason I don't think that it is. There are a lot of years, even after this book, that can be touched upon. I also have a feeling that he's going to do one about Vincent taking over after Mary's death. Probably will do it with the hopes of it being made into a motion picture.

Don Cardi
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 03:04 AM

Sorry about that DC. I'll make sure to post SPOILERS in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
As far as Winegardner writing another book, I read where he said this was the last one, but we all know that doesen't really mean anything.
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 03:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Originally Posted By: Mignon


I hope this will be his last GF book then.


For some reason I don't think that it is. There are a lot of years, even after this book, that can be touched upon. I also have a feeling that he's going to do one about Vincent taking over after Mary's death. Probably will do it with the hopes of it being made into a motion picture.

Don Cardi


IMO GF IV, if it's ever made, should be multi-episodic like GF II, dealing with three time periods:

1. 1930s as Vito consolidates his empire and a teenage/young 20s Sonny enters the family business, exploring more of the back stories of guys like Tessio, Clemenza and Luca Brasi;

2. 1970s as Michael attempts to move the family into legitimate business, and the ultimate loyalty of Tom Hagen is tested, probably including his death. (This would be the hardest to carry off, since none of Pacino, Duvall or Shire can pass for being in their 40s-50s any more, even with heavy makeup).

3. 1990s as Vincent takes over the family, with Connie, effectively as his consigliere, and an emotionally shattered yet still sometimes dangerous Michael withdraws from the business, and other Corleone grandchildren such as Santino Jr. or Frank (Sonny's legitimate sons) and Michael (Rizzi) Corleone (Connie's son, the baby baptized at the end of GF I) make their own moves to assume control of the family.

4. Then, as in GF III, a brief coda set about 2008-2009, as an 85-ish Connie Corleone dies in the garden of the house in Long Island (repurchased by the family as a retirement home for the grande dame of the clan), slumping out of a lawn chair just yards away from the spot where Vito Corleone died in 1954.

(I realize this should probably go in the GF IV forum).
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 05:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Originally Posted By: Mignon


I hope this will be his last GF book then.


For some reason I don't think that it is. There are a lot of years, even after this book, that can be touched upon. I also have a feeling that he's going to do one about Vincent taking over after Mary's death. Probably will do it with the hopes of it being made into a motion picture.

Don Cardi


Well let's get in touch with the Puzo Estate and beg them to get someone else to write it.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 10:21 AM

SPOILERS * UP TO CHAPTER 25 * SPOILERS


Finally, a bit of mob action! Or so I thought.

Neri and his nephew trying to get information out of Geraci's father and daughter. Starts out pretty good, has a lot of potential for excitement, but winds up being a bit lame. Could have been a bit more interesting than it turns out to be.

Winegardner originally makes Fausto Geraci out to be this old fashioned tough mobster, and then in this chapter he cracks under pressure and gives up information about his son to Neri. Not believable at all.

To add insult to injury Winegardner tells us that when the prositute was killed while with Geary in Fredo's cathouse (GFII), Neri was NOT the one that killed her, but instead he gave the job to some young guy. Give me a break here Winegardner. Now why in the world would the Corleones involve someone outside the circle to carry out such a sensative job such as that one? In GFII we are told that they were very careful to pick a prositute that had no family, no background and no ties to anyone. They were setting up a United States Senator. We even see Neri in the background cleaning a knife. Does Winegardner really expect us to believe that Neri was only there to supervise and then do the clean up duties after the girl was killed?

Horrible. No real Godfather passion or savy whatsoever by Winegardner. Just continues to throw the bullshit references to the other GF movies out there without giving much thought at all to what he is writing.

These books are an infamia as far as I am concerned. They have absolutely no validity whatsoever.

What a damn shame.




Don Cardi
Posted By: BDuff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/07/06 08:26 PM

How are we suppose to believe that Neri did not kill her? Was he doing the outsider a favor by hanging around the scene of the murder and clean the knife? Bullshit! This is a perfect example of why I will not read "Revenge", why the Puzo estate picked Winegardner is beyond me.
Posted By: Just Lou

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/08/06 04:53 AM

What's next? Neri didn't kill Fredo either?
Posted By: Don Lights

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/08/06 08:58 PM

yeah, I admit I found the beginning of Godfather Revenge to be decent. however, as I kept reading I became more and more dissappointed. Thank god this is the last novel. I admit I do find the character Nick Geraci interesting.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/12/06 08:07 PM

Almost done. It's a struggle to pick up. It just keeps getting worse and worse.



Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/13/06 06:24 AM

I got a LONG way to go. I'm only on pg. 101
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/15/06 03:23 AM

SPOILERS! FINISHED! SPOILERS! FINISHED! SPOILERS!


Finally! Done ! Finished! Finito! THANK GOD!

HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE! What started out as a seemingly potential storyline turned into a terrible one in no time.
Winegardner did a terrible job in writing this book.

He basically borrowed from JFK/RFK history and tried to make it fit in his book. Francesca Corleone gets married and lives happily ever after with Johnny Fontane! And Michael gives his approval and walks her down the aisle! How believable is that one?

The killing of Tom Hagen was just ridiculous. There could have been 100 other scenerios used in the story to have Hagen killed off. But being tied to the drivers seat in a car that is plunged into a swamp? How lame.

And the supposed commission meeting that was going to take place. So predicatable as to how that turns out. Just two or three papragraphs into that chapter and you knew that Geraci was being misled and set up by Michael. And the final showdown between the two, so anti climactic. Winegardner uses almost the whole book to build up this intense dislike between Geraci and Michael, one that is sure to make for a great showdown. And with this, Winegardner again drops the ball. A bland and predicatable showdown. No imagination whatsoever in the writing of that chapter.

Winegardner also tries to make this cute little reference to a book that is written about a mob family, a book that goes on to inspire the making of three movies, with the first two becoming classics without ever using the word Mafia in those movies.


Scary thing here though is there is a good chance that Winegarner may attempt to write another GF book! Why do I say this? Because at the very ending, Connie confides in Michael, as they are walking along the beach and holding hands "just as they did as kids walking to school" that Fredo, (now brace yourself, get ready for this one, are you sitting down?)had an illigitimate child with a hollywood actress named Rita Duvall, and that Fredo's now 8 year old son is out there somewhere. It just so happens that Rita Duvall had been Michael's girlfriend throughout this book. Maybe Winegardner is going to name the next one " Fredo's Revenge."


It's really a disgrace that Puzo's estate picked this guy to write these GF books.

What a waste of my reading time. But thank God I'm done with it! And hopefully Winegardner is done destroying the Godfather and Corleone name.



Pure Crap!



Don Cardi

Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/15/06 05:05 AM

You make me laugh.

Maybe Winegardner should just stick to being a Professor in Florida or wherever he lives.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/15/06 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mignon
You make me laugh.



And Winegardner makes me cry.

Sad thing too is that Returns was a better book than Revenge! And that's not saying much.



Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/15/06 01:01 PM

Did you ever finish Returns?
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 12/15/06 01:28 PM

Yes I did. I originally thought that Returns was boring....that was until I read Revenge. Returns is a literary classic compared to Revenge.

In Revenge, he has this potentially great basis for what could be a really interesting stroy. He uses the Kennedy story and the New Orleans mob story for the foundation, but instead of building on that foundation, he instead uses it to fill up pages of the book. As you will see there is a whole lot of unecessary dialogue thougout the book along with some very unneeded sub plots. Sub plots that just don't work.


Don Cardi
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/15/06 03:34 PM

Did you finish it DC ?
How obnoxious to suggest that "Fausto's Bargain" would go on to inspire three movies. An obvious allusion to the trilogy, written by a faux Puzo.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/15/06 03:38 PM

Oops. I see that you did finish it and you picked up on the reference to the three movies. Great minds.....
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/15/06 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
How obnoxious to suggest that "Fausto's Bargain" would go on to inspire three movies. An obvious allusion to the trilogy, written by a faux Puzo.


Yes, extremely obnoxious. And how about the Fredo's child thing? Winegardner is definitely leaving the door open for another book. What a terrible thought!

Don Cardi
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/15/06 10:36 PM

Returns/Revenge would have been an OK pulp potboiler if it had been boiled down into one book -- and all the allusions to the Corleone Family saga deleted -- just make the book completely about the Gerace Family. Because in the end, that's what both books ended up being about anyway.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/15/06 11:39 PM

He even mentions that Sergio Lupo, his Mario Puzo alter ego, was best known for "An Immigrant's Tale", based on his mother.
Sounds an awful like "The Fortunate Pilgrim", which was based on Puzo's mother. Where does he get the balls ?
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/16/06 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
He even mentions that Sergio Lupo, his Mario Puzo alter ego, was best known for "An Immigrant's Tale", based on his mother.
Sounds an awful like "The Fortunate Pilgrim", which was based on Puzo's mother. Where does he get the balls ?


Great catch Pizzaboy! That one got by me. What a pair of balls, huh?



Don Cardi
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/16/06 04:26 PM

Wow, DC. I was so relieved to finish GF's Revenge that I didn't even consider the idea of a third Winegardner book.
You are so right about Winegardner conveniently giving Fredo an heir. The worst part of it is that, given the age of this alleged child, he could set it after the events of GF 3.
Sonny's bastard son vs. Fredo's bastard son
He must be stopped !
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/16/06 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy


You are so right about Winegardner conveniently giving Fredo an heir. He must be stopped !


Maybe we can get Annie Wilkes to kidnap him and put him through some "Misery."



Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/18/06 01:34 AM

DC-
What a great idea that was.
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/18/06 10:00 PM

Well, thanks guys. I was wondering if I should get this for Christmas or buy it or something, but after reading this thread and remembering what a heap of crap Returns was, it looks like you've done me a huge favor. I will not be reading this book.

And isn't it sad that any future movies/books will have to probably be tied in with these clunkers somehow? I know that the prospect of future movies is another discussion in itself, but now that these 2 books really screwed the pooch, I almost don't want any movies made -- and I would go see anything related to the GF in any way!
Posted By: Sicilian Babe

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/18/06 10:13 PM

I actually thought about taking this out of the library today, but I decided to pass. Even for FREE, I don't want to read it.
Posted By: SC

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/24/06 08:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Sicilian Babe
I actually thought about taking this out of the library today, but I decided to pass. Even for FREE, I don't want to read it.


Amazon.com has already dropped the price for its hardcover version to $4.99. It was released six weeks ago and its already in the bargain basement bins.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/24/06 02:03 PM

Originally Posted By: SC



Amazon.com has already dropped the price for its hardcover version to $4.99. It was released six weeks ago and its already in the bargain basement bins.



Are you kidding me?

I bought mine through the banner on this site. Geoff, I want a REBATE!

Come to think of it, Winegardner should give me a full refund!



Don Cardi
Posted By: EnzoBaker

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/24/06 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

And isn't it sad that any future movies/books will have to probably be tied in with these clunkers somehow?


No way in hell. GFRturns and GFRvenge BOTH have NUMEROUS major breaks with canon as already established in the movies, to make any further GF movies using Returns or Revenge as a basis would, in effect, throw III and part of II out of canon.

Returns and Revenge have to be simply considered as "Elseworlds" or "Imaginary Stories" loosely based on the Corleone characters, and only peripherally involving them in the storyline.

Now, if they want to make a "Nick Gerace" movie -- focusing almost completely on him -- and maybe mention in passing that he knows, or knows of, the Corleone Family, that might work.

But no established character from the Godfather movies should appear onscreen in a Nick Gerace movie.
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 12/27/06 10:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Originally Posted By: SC



Amazon.com has already dropped the price for its hardcover version to $4.99. It was released six weeks ago and its already in the bargain basement bins.



Are you kidding me?

I bought mine through the banner on this site. Geoff, I want a REBATE!

Come to think of it, Winegardner should give me a full refund!



Don Cardi


I demand that Winegardner give us a full refund on both of his GF books.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/08/07 08:04 PM

Miggy, you finish this trash book yet?

Has anyone that started reading it finished it yet? Or am I the only sadist victim who suffered through the whole thing?



Don Cardi
Posted By: DonPacino

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/08/07 09:11 PM

I have read it and i absoutley hated it! I mean Tom Hagen's death!
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/09/07 01:16 AM

I finished it. It was the literary equivelant of a full rectal examination. Ironically, I was in Barnes and Noble on 86th St in Manhattan today. It's marked down to 75% off, so if you have a membership card, you can get it for like 5 bucks.
Hopefully, being that the general public isn't buying it, Paramount will take it as a sign to NOT exercise their option on it.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/09/07 02:13 AM

Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
I finished it. It was the literary equivelant of a full rectal examination.




I think that you're being a little too kind.




Don Cardi
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/09/07 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
Miggy, you finish this trash book yet?
Don Cardi


Nope sorry I haven't yet. I'm on pg.161 chapter 12
Posted By: Longneck

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/26/07 05:39 AM

The Shea brothers thing was too close to what happened, all he did was copied history, he didn't even change anything about it until near the end. At least Puzo took real life events and put his own spin on them...
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/28/07 05:06 AM

Longneck. Bottom line is that his followups on the Godfather Novel sucked big time. The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time.

Over in another topic I said, along with another member, that Winegardner wanted to introduce his own characters, characters like Nick Gerace, and in doing so he just used Puzo's characters to suround his own. Using the GF names only helped him to sell his trash novels.

Don Cardi
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 01/28/07 06:05 AM

AMEN.....
Posted By: Paul Krendler

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 04/04/07 07:51 PM

I've seen this in hardback in the local Waterstones. I must admit I was tempted, but I remembered the first book and I felt a lot better. Been following Don Cardi's continuing review and I have to say I don't feel too inspired. But then again, I'm a sucker for all things Corleone. I'll probably read it. Buggered if I'm gonna buy it though.

I just hope we don't get a repeat performance of Michael's "wood".
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 04/10/07 11:19 PM

No, you don't get a repeat performance of Michael's wood in this book. Just Johnny Fontaine's. \:x
Posted By: Mignon

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 04/11/07 01:34 AM

When I read that I felt like throwing up.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/02/07 08:07 PM

You know, I was re-watching the Saga on Bravo yesterday and I caught the deleted scene where Francesca introduces Gardner Shaw to Michael.

It just fucking galls me that Winegardner completely overlooked this.
Posted By: BDuff

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/03/07 01:51 AM

 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
You know, I was re-watching the Saga on Bravo yesterday and I caught the deleted scene where Francesca introduces Gardner Shaw to Michael.

It just fucking galls me that Winegardener completely overlooked this.


You seemed surpried by this, c'mon it's Winegardner!
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 03:55 PM

"GFRturns and GFRvenge BOTH have NUMEROUS major breaks with canon as already established in the movies, to make any further GF movies using Returns or Revenge as a basis would, in effect, throw III and part of II out of canon."

I don't understand this attitude at all. It's perfectly clear to me that Winegardner was not instructed by his publisher and the Puzo estate to create a sequel to the FILMS, but to create a sequel to the BOOK. By that reckoning, the films would not be canon, but the book is, first and foremost. He would be obligated to proceed from what the book says and follow up from there. Therefore, he was not at all obligated to say ALL the heads of the Five Families were clipped when, in the book, only Barzini and Tattaglia were killed. Nor, for that matter, was he obligated to follow a scene from Part II that wasn't even in the finished film, but cut, regarding a proposal from Garner Shaw or anyone else, for instance. It could have been done if he wished to, but if he felt he had a better story to tell regarding Francesca, why should he have been so straightjacketed? Again, it wasn't even in the finished film, and for obvious reasons it wasn't in the book, so he decided not to use it. Over. Basta. Who cares if it galls us? Did I notice the difference? Yes, I did. But really, in the long run, how the hell is my life any better or worse if Francesca married Gardner Shaw or William Van Arsdale? How is Godfather Part II any different, since you're so concerned about that? Is the film fundamentally ruined for you? If so, that's your problem, not mine, and not Winegardner's.

Still, it is perfectly understandable that the films be considered canon by so many, here and elsewhere, because let's face it, the films are what most people know, not the book. The book was a bestseller, a potboiler (Hell, even Puzo - like the Sergio Lupo character modeled after him in Revenge - considered it a sell-out), but the films became iconic, some of the finest works of art the cinema ever produced. For that reason, Winegardner could not ignore Part II altogether; ignoring the small issue of Gardner Shaw was one thing, ignoring the much larger issues of Fredo's death, Hyman Roth and Cuba quite another. To do that would be to earn more ire than you've already sent his way. He had to at least acknowledge the films. But it was always gonna be HIS story, not the films'. That's why he had to include Geraci at the periphery of the conspiracy that got Fredo killed. Geraci was his villain, and he had to be the one hurting the Corleones, so he had to have a role - via Forlenza and Russo - in Roth's plan. But that's it. It doesn't change Roth as a character, doesn't make him any less dangerous, it just explains where he got some of his ideas. Again, how does that change your life?

But again, he didn't want to just novelize Part II for his book (I'm sure some of you wouldn't have minded that, and to tell the truth, I wouldn't have taken issue with it either) but what self-respecting creative author, give the freedom he was given, would want to do that? He had his own story to tell, for better or worse, and to accomodate both sides of the divide he just worked around Part II. The result was a hybrid where, as long as things in the films didn't contradict either Puzo's book or his own intentions, it was acknowledged and regarded as "canon." Because of this, in Winegardner's books, the flashbacks show Michael, as in the film, enlisting in the U.S. Marines on Vito's birthday, which fell on the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 (a scene that was fundamental to the message and meaning of the film and was not cut, I might add), since there was nothing in the book of sufficient importance to contradict that such a thing happened. He also puts the scene into the framework of Michael's life by discussing what happens before, during and after that scene. Or how about this? the original Puzo book had nothing at all about Vito going back to Sicily and getting vengeance. The Mafia chief was never even named, let alone named Ciccio. But after the film was released showing Vito killing Ciccio (again, this was fundamental to the flashback sequences since it put a satisfying coda on those scenes), even Puzo acknowledged it by mentioning it in his "side-quel," The Sicilian. So of course Winegardner acknowledged it both in Returns and Revenge. Winegardner acknowledged those films and their continuity or "canon," if you wanna use that word, much more than you give him credit for, and he didn't have to do it.

And by the way, concerning what Don Cardi had to say: "The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time." What? Did we read the same book? Clemenza was in a huge chunk of Returns. In fact, every major character - and several minor ones - from Puzo's book who was alive was included in this story, Michael, Fredo, Tom, Kay, Connie, Clemenza, Johnny, etc. Pentangeli was a Coppola/Puzo last-minute creation (and a very good one) to compensate for Richard Castellano not being able to agree to be Clemenza in the sequel, so did Winegardner have to write for him? He was acknowledged; that's enough (though, to be fair to you, his name was consistently misspelled). And speaking of, you decry Winegardner for creating his own characters, but you don't give Coppola the same lip when he helps to create new characters himself. Pentangeli, or Hyman Roth, or Pat Geary, you have no problem with, but add Nick Geraci, or Louie Russo, or Mickey Shea to that and suddenly it's "Oh, my virgin ears!" And you bitch about the "wood" jokes in Returns, as if playful and witty married couples never talk that way, but ignore the even sicker scene of Sonny banging Lucy Mancini in the original Puzo book. C'mon! These are pulp novels, neither more nor less. Coarse writing and dialogue comes with the turf.

What are you all mad at, that he wrote a story that didn't fit into canon, or that he wrote one that didn't fit into canon in the way YOU wanted? Well, who's "you?" Who are we, really, but some guys who got on the Web to bitch? Some of us could conceivably write a Godfather story ourselves, true, but we have no established record of publishing books, do we? That's why the Puzo estate picked Winegardner in the first place, because like Puzo he'd already published a couple books that had artistic merit but not widespread readership. And for that matter, they liked his outline the best (that's right; the Puzo estate knew what it was getting from him from the first and said "go do it" with their blessing). If we're bitching now, well, we should have written some other books that had nothing to do with mobsters so we'd have an established publishing record like he did, but we didn't, so the Puzo estate never came to us, and so anything we write is nothing but fanon, which is just the same as saying it's worthless to anyone but ourselves.

For better or worse, the Winegardner books are the approved sequels to the Puzo novel, and you may like or dislike that if you choose, but to treat him like he's a piece of shit like you've all been doing is just monstrous. You call his work garbage (which may be considered a legitimate criticism) and you treat him like he's some kind of a damned infidel for laying hands on the sacred texts (which is definitely not). Well, it ain't sacred, and you're not priests of the holy church of the Corleones. None of us are. We're fanboys, and pretty damned picky ones at that. If you wanted something different, you should have worked for it. But we didn't; we went on to pursue our own lives and interests, whatever they are, and that's fine. But don't blame Winegardner for getting the chance to do what everyone here claims to want and then running with it as he saw fit, as an artist should. You don't like the art, fine, but don't make the artist a freaking criminal for it. That's an infamita.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 05:04 PM

Well, welcome to the boards Mark, er, I mean Erik. \:p

The dialogue in both books was horrible, end of story, "behold the wood," or Geraci's father calling him a big dummy and telling him he's gonna get a meat hook up his ass "butta-beepa-dee-boppa-dee boop." PUH-LEEZE!! It's insulting to Italian-Americans that a non Italian would write such nonsense. When James Caan brilliantly ad-libbed butta beep, etc...it was one thing, to put it on paper in a "novel," and I use that term loosely, is another.

He had every right to write the books, it's the American way, but he did a poor job.

And by the way, if he was SOOOO true to Puzo's novel, instead of the films, where were Michael's TWO sons?

Like I say, welcome to these boards, I mean that, but you won't find too many fans of those trash books around here. And not because they're based on "sacred texts" but because they're poorly written.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 05:39 PM

First, thank you for welcoming me here and for letting me rant. Maybe I won't find many fans of the sequel books here, but I will proclaim in all honesty that I am a fan myself. And I don't think he did a poor job, and I don't think he findamentally wrecked anyone's definition of canon. As you said, it's the American way, so feel free to feel he DID do a bad job if that's what you think. But people are bagging on him to an extent that he doesn't deserve for just writing a "bad book," as you call it. It;s one thing just to say that, but to call the book a the equivalent of a "full rectal examination?" That's exaggerating it a bit too far. The book didn't suit your tastes, that's all. You didn't like it, but your ass-equivalent is still intact, I'm happy to say.

No, I'm not Mark. But we DO live in the same state. ;\)

Second, the dialogue in ALL the books was not-so-hot. But I think that, including "butta-beppa-dee-boppa-dee-boop" (though Winegardner didn't spell it the way Caan ad-libbed it), the dialogue was at least more appropriate for the people inhabiting the story. The terminology is more like Mafia terminology to me. Regimes are referred to at the ground-level as crews, and so on. It actually reminded me of what Scorcese did with his Mafia films, if you want a film reference. Keep in mind that, while Michael, Kay and even Geraci (among certain other characters) were college-educated and could turn a phrase, most of the characters were not. Sonny and Fredo never finished school, for instance. Revenge shows a perfect contrast by having Michael tell Eddie Paradise, "The profits are a by-product of good relationships, a good reputation that spreads by word of mouth and causes other people to come to us, seeking our services." and Eddie following up by simply saying "See, in our world, money’s just a prick. But favors – givin’ favors out, callin’ ‘em in, everything – favors are pussy." Same message, different manner of speaking. It's just one more way of showing how these people generally were never well served by the system, educational or otherwise, or else why join the Mafia? That was one of both Puzo's and Coppola's principal messages. Just ask Bonasera if you don't take my word for it...

Third, you're absolutely right: in the end of the Puzo book, Michael did indeed have two SONS, not just two children, a son and a daughter. That, I'm sure, is one of Winegardner's many concessions to the films. Let's be honest here, it makes little difference to the story of the original Godfather if Michael has two boys or just one and a girl. And the films later elaborated that he had a son, Anthony, and a daughter, Mary. And because, as I said, the movies are more well known, he coudn't just ignore something that the films later made pivotal. The story of Part III would have been presumably quite different if Michael had only had sons. Evidently Winegardner decided, "Where's the harm in keeping the son-daughter thing? It doesn't harm the story I want to tell, and it keeps Part III from becoming completely invalid, especially since I'm not going that far forward in time anyway." Again, it's one thing to ignore Gardner Shaw - his scene was considered so unimportant that it was cut, after all - but it's quite another to ignore Anthony and Mary, who ended up having a LARGE impact on the saga's events. You follow?

So my arguing phase is passed, and "I'm glad that we could come here and reason together." But even if you don't prefer Winegardner's work, all I ask is that you don't bash him so bad that I'll have no place here as possibly the lone proponent. I'd like to feel as welcome as you bid me to feel. Be fair to me, is all. \:\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 05:49 PM

Hey Erik, I'm a part time Floridian, myself (Delray Beach). You seem like a gentleman and it's nice having you here. \:\)

As far as Winegardner, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In the word's of Ralph Kramden, "he's a BUM!!"

Er, excuse me, in my opinion, he's a BUM!!
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 05:55 PM

No one's saying we can't disagree, Pizza, or that you can't dislike the book. I'm just saying we needn't burn him at the stake over it, is all. I do try to be a gentlemen, and I suppose I expect others to do the same. As for calling him a bum, I'm not thinking Ralphie-boy so much as I'm thinking Henry Hill's father whacking Henry with the belt. "You're a bum!" WHACK! You wanna grow up to be a bum?!" WHACK! "You wanna write bad novels?!" WHACK!
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 05:57 PM



You're alright, guy. What part of Florida are you posting from? We have several Floridians on the boards.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:00 PM

Naples, land of golf courses and lots of them. Pretty much Colma East without the headstones. ;\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:03 PM

 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger
Naples, land of golf courses and lots of them. Pretty much Colma East without the headstones. ;\)


Too bad. You, Fredo and Winegardner could have opened up a cemetery together

See, as sarcastic as I am, at least you can see I actually read the "novels."
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:10 PM

Not only that, but you read the original Puzo book closely enough to remember the second son. Good eye, Pizza the Hut. \:\)

And you have to admit, the mass killings at the end of Godfather's Revenge? They were nearly as good as any one of the mass killings at the end of one of the films. Geraci, Barone, Lucadello, both the Tramonti brothers? Fierce. You may or may not approve of the Sergio Lupo bit (I personally thought it was cute, but perhaps not sufficient a pay-off to justify the set-up it took), but the whackings were good, weren't they?
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:12 PM

Uh, no.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:12 PM

Aw, maaaaaannnn...
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:13 PM

Sergio Lupo wrote THE FORTUNATE PILGRIM, didn't he?
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:15 PM

And I'll be very fair here: I've never found Puzo's novel particularly well written. And I HATED the Hollywood nonsense in it, Sonny's throbbing pole and Lucy's enormous box.

BUT, unlike Winegardner, Puzo was a wildly entertaining storyteller, if not a great writer.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:15 PM

By the way, perhaps you can help me on that point: if An Immigrant's tale is considered to be the saga's stand-in for The Fortunate Pilgrim, what do you think the real version of Trimalchio Rex is supposed to be? The Dark Arena? I plead ignorance, since I've read neither of those novels. (Probably not The Fourth K, since it was published many years after Godfather)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:17 PM

 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
And I'll be very fair here: I've never found Puzo's novel particularly well written. And I HATED the Hollywood nonsense in it, Sonny's throbbing pole and Lucy's enormous box.

BUT, unlike Winegardner, Puzo was a wildly entertaining storyteller, if not a great writer.


Trimalchio Rex may have been the only thing Winegardner thought of himself. It's probably based on one of HIS books.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:19 PM

And concerning Lupo, how far do we take this story point? There's clearly meant to be a Fausto's Bargain, Parts I, II and III. But is there a Fausto's Bargain: A Novel for Television? Or a Fausto's Bargain: The Game? Fautso's Bargain Returns? Fausto's Bargain's Revenge? How far do you go within the saga's continuity in mimicking Godfather stories?
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:22 PM

And what role was Johhny Fontane meant to play in the film of Fausto's Bargain? The Fontane stand-in? The Vito Corleone stand-in? And for that matter, why and how did the Corleones decide that they had no problem with so close a member of the unofficial family doing such a film? He did get another Oscar for it, says the book. To me, there's enough story potential that it at least merits a short story. But that's just me. ;\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:25 PM

Please, my head is starting to hurt.

If anything becomes of Mr. W's books, I'm leaving the country.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 06:26 PM

MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAA! \:\)
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 08:58 PM

Interesting to hear Erik's side of things. He does raise some interesting points. But I still don't agree with much of anything he said.

For starters, I'd expect Winegardner to invent new characters. Hell, as I fart around with my own Part IV script, I've realized that a lot of new characters are necessary to tell stories in the GF world. So I don't fault Winegardner for creating new characters. It's just that he abandoned the original characters too much in order to follow these new characters around. And the new characters he did create weren't that interesting. Geraci and his father had a good rapport and were memorable, but everyone else blended together on the page. I couldn't tell them apart.

And when he was writing about the original characters he had to mess with our images of them. We didn't like the "behold wood" line because it was too graphic, we just didn't believe Mike or Kay would use a line like that. At the end of Part I, Mike was already a cold-hearted bastard and Kay had already seen what her husband had become. I imagine their sex life as pretty lame. So I just didn't think it fit. I could give MW the benefit of the doubt, because they were still married and would still have sex, just just not in that way.

We didn't like what MW did with Fredo because it cheapened Fredo's fragility. And if I were gay I would take offense to it. Fredo couldn't just be weak because the only trait he got from Vito was his sensitivity... No, Fredo had to be weak because he was gay or bi-sexual. Or whatever. All it ended up as was a cheap ploy to bring homosexuality to the GF world.

My biggest problem, however, was MW taking it upon himself to change Kay's abortion to a miscarriage. Kay's admittance that she had Mike's second son aborted was a cornerstone in their relationship. It was Kay breaking free of Mike's clutches. But MW had to cheapen it. And for what? What did it bring to the story? Nadda!

Then, MW fails to water the seeds that were planted for him to grow. Chief among them is Clemenza's death. We're told "that wasn't no heart attack" but MW gives him a heart attack. Very interesting.

Then, when we're told that Tom died of a heart attack in Part III... and we're given no reason to think it was anything other than a heart attack, MW has Hagen killed by Geraci in a lame fashion.

As for the books themselves, I found Returns to be hard to understand. MW twisted common sentences around instead of just spitting it out. Revenge was a little easier to read, but wasn't interesting. I had it out from the library, made it 150 pages through and just decided that it wasn't worth reading.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about these books. But I'm glad you're hear to bring a new perspective to the discussions. They were a tad one-sided.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 09:16 PM

Ah, phooey!!
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 09:49 PM

Thanks, Death, and I have to say that of the criticisms I've read so far, yours are the most substantive. They go past Winegardner being a sonufabitch or something and speak to real issues. So I'll answer on that level:

1.) I can agree that Geraci's relationship with his grumpy-ass father was quite memorable, but there were other memorable characters as well. Mickey "Cahn-sig-liary" Shea was one; Joe Lucadello was another. Not everyone was, though. Russo could have been more interesting as a character, though the whole "Fuckface" bit did make him a little memorable. Forlenza was a total no-interest character, though, to be fair to you.

2.) The "wood" line. I'm married, and we say stupid things like that constantly. But to speak to the central point you made, you've as much as said that what bothers you about the state of their marriage in late 1955 is that it wasn't fitting in with HOW YOU SAW IT. Yes, a case could be made that, four months after realizing that Michael lied to her face and fleeing to New Hampshire until Hagen got her to come back, Kay'd be a little more cold to him still. But that's asking human relationships to be consistent and have a proper through-line, and they don't. I've only been married for eight months, and I sometimes already want out. Then the next weekend we're happy as all get-out again. But as a side note, it wasn't entirely Winegardner's own creation; Puzo has her taking up Catholicism and becoming the Corleone equivalent of a stepford wife. The precedent is there.

3.) OK, the gay thing. I have to admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea too. And there may be something else at work here: Winegardner's need to comment on things relevant to our time by using their equivalents in other times (no matter who the author is, every story about a certain time period is really about the concerns of the people expected to read it), in this case the issue of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church. Remember that the first mention of anything hinky is when Fredo, at ten, wants to become a priest by studying under Father Stefano, and then he suddenly emerges at thirteen strong, serious, powerful, and shy around women. One day he's just clumsy, then one day he goes off into his room for long periods of time. Finally, at sixteen, he announces that he no longer wants to be a priest and ends up joining the family business. One admittedly has to read between the lines, but it can be argued that Winegardner at least laid the groundwork. As to how it changes the character of Fredo and offers an explanation for his weakness he didn't need, I can't comment either for or against that. It's a valid opinion.

4.) The abortion/miscarriage thing, I totally agree with you; it should have remained an abortion. But the argument I could offer is that Kay was still standing up to Michael, whether the abortion was real or not. She wants out of this marriage, period. She knows she cannot stay with this man. She knows that if Michael thinks he has to, he will make her a prisoner again. He will never change. And he will never allow her to leave, unless she tells him what she has decided to tell him, even if it is a lie. And it works; the marriage is already on the rocks, and now it's ended. They divorce. It brings nothing to the story, really, but it does briong something to the color of the piece, and that may not matter, but it's all I have on that one.

5.) With Clemenza dying, that may not have been as planted as you think. The script for Godfather Part II said outright that Clemenza's heart attack was real, that it came from stress related to the troubles the Rosatos were giving to him. Pentangeli said to Michael: "Sure, Pete Clemenza died of a heart attack, but the Rosato Brothers gave it to him." He later said to one of the Rosatos: "You drove old Pete Clemenza to his grave, Carmine; you and your brother. Turning on him; trouble in his territories, you and your demands. I hold you responsible, just as though you shot him in the head. And I ain’t gonna let that go for long!" That's all in the script, if not the finished film, so it can be argued that the intent, at least, from the beginning was that Clemenza really did die of a heart attack, no matter what Cicci said (he really died from his actor being unreasonable, but what're ya gonna do?).

6.) Finally, regarding Hagen: I have seen nothing in Part III to indicate that he died of a heart attack, or any other cause of death. The only mention of Hagen dying in the film is Michael telling B.J. Harrison that he didn't live to see the ordination of his son Andrew Hagen (well played by John Savage in a brief role; he gets the Robert Duvall voice down perfectly). But that's all; the rest is an open slate. And determining that he might as well cover Hagen's established death, Winegardner chose to do so in the most heart-wrenching manner he could, and to me, it was just that. I'm sorry you felt it was lame, but I'm not sure how a simple heart attack is an improvement.

Finally, not to sound like I'm lecturing, or talking down to you, but if you only read 150 pages into the book, and then gave up, can you really have the most imformed opinion you can get? Just give it another shot; you don't have to change your opinions at all if you don't want to, but at least you'll know they're fully-informed opinions. We can still disagree, but you'll have more ammo. And there's no harm in that. \:\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 09:57 PM

Are you saying I'm not a man of substance?

And to think, I welcomed you aboard. \:\/
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 10:26 PM

 Originally Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger
Interesting to hear Erik's side of things. He does raise some interesting points. But I still don't agree with much of anything he said.

I don't fault Winegardner for creating new characters. It's just that he abandoned the original characters too much in order to follow these new characters around. And the new characters he did create weren't that interesting. Geraci and his father had a good rapport and were memorable, but everyone else blended together on the page. I couldn't tell them apart.

...... we just didn't believe Mike or Kay would use a line like that. We didn't like what MW did with Fredo because it cheapened Fredo's fragility. And if I were gay I would take offense to it. Fredo couldn't just be weak because the only trait he got from Vito was his sensitivity... No, Fredo had to be weak because he was gay or bi-sexual. Or whatever. All it ended up as was a cheap ploy to bring homosexuality to the GF world.


Well said. My thoughts exactly.

 Originally Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger
My biggest problem, however, was MW taking it upon himself to change Kay's abortion to a miscarriage. Kay's admittance that she had Mike's second son aborted was a cornerstone in their relationship. It was Kay breaking free of Mike's clutches. But MW had to cheapen it. And for what? What did it bring to the story? Nadda!


Well in fairness to Winegardner, Erik does make a pretty valid point in that the Returns and Revenge are based off of The GF Novel. And I have no problem with that. But Erik, if that is the arguement that one is going to use in a debate of this nature, than I would have to counter by saying if that is the case, then Winegardner should have remained consistent. If he decided to pick and choose what he wanted to base on the novel and what he wanted to pick from the GFII movie, than he, nor anyone else, cannot use the "its based on the novel" argument.

 Originally Posted By: Death By Clotheshanger
Then, MW fails to water the seeds that were planted for him to grow. Chief among them is Clemenza's death. We're told "that wasn't no heart attack" but MW gives him a heart attack. Very interesting.

Then, when we're told that Tom died of a heart attack in Part III... and we're given no reason to think it was anything other than a heart attack, MW has Hagen killed by Geraci in a lame fashion.


Again, this is my pet peeve with Winegardner's writing of the books. I totally understand that he needed to create new characters and needed to introduce them in the mix of the old ones. BUT, instead of wasting 3 chapters on Johnny Fontaine and Francesca's relationship, he could have given us one chapter on that and then used another or two on a character that he plucked from the GFII movie and not the novel, a character like Pentangeli, and given us a little more insight into that character. Insight that we weren't given in the movie.


 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger

And by the way, concerning what Don Cardi had to say: "The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time." What? Did we read the same book? Clemenza was in a huge chunk of Returns. In fact, every major character - and several minor ones - from Puzo's book who was alive was included in this story,


Did we read the same book? ;\)

Yes it's true that Winegardner did include many major characters, many minor characters, and even a good amount of Clemenza. But my beef is in the way that he used those characters. It was almost as if he dangled them in front of our faces to keep us interested in the book, never really getting deeper into those characters and never giving the insight that may have answered some of the questions that we may have had about them from seeing them in the movies.

Don't you agree that a background story of a Frank Pentangelli, or a WIllie Cicci would have been pretty interesting?

I've said in many of my other posts that I actually liked the Nick Geraci character that Winegardner created. Thought that he was a pretty interesting character. His creation of characters is not my beef. Every good author should inject some of his own creations even when basing his writing on another authors book. My beef is the way that, in some cases, he prtrayed the characters that Puzo created, and then in other cases the way that he did not portray the characters that FFC created, but yet chose to insert here and there in his books.

In Revenge, one of my favorite parts ( yeah, I actually had a favorite part or two ;\) ) is when Winegardner is trying to portray the big sitdown in South Brooklyn. He had some really great newly created characters intertwined with some of the original characters. And he did a really excellent job of creating a picture in the readers mind of what that area of Brooklyn looked like and how the sitdown appeared. It was a point in the book where I began to really get pulled in (see my back and forth chapter by chapter posts that i made while reading the book) and then BAM! Dead end. Boring next story.

Perhaps many, including myself were a bit too harsh on Mr. Winegardner. Lord knows that it took some courage to write a book based on both a novel and a trilogy that are held in such high regard. But by doing so he also took on the risk of critisizm, and should take it for what it's worth.

As I said there were some spots in both books where Winegardner showed that he is a pretty good writer, and that is why I think that he could have done much much better with his storylines and with some of the characters that we were familiar with.
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 11:07 PM

 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger
Thanks, Death, and I have to say that of the criticisms I've read so far, yours are the most substantive. They go past Winegardner being a sonufabitch or something and speak to real issues. So I'll answer on that level:

1.) I can agree that Geraci's relationship with his grumpy-ass father was quite memorable, but there were other memorable characters as well. Mickey "Cahn-sig-liary" Shea was one; Joe Lucadello was another. Not everyone was, though. Russo could have been more interesting as a character, though the whole "Fuckface" bit did make him a little memorable. Forlenza was a total no-interest character, though, to be fair to you.

2.) The "wood" line. I'm married, and we say stupid things like that constantly. But to speak to the central point you made, you've as much as said that what bothers you about the state of their marriage in late 1955 is that it wasn't fitting in with HOW YOU SAW IT. Yes, a case could be made that, four months after realizing that Michael lied to her face and fleeing to New Hampshire until Hagen got her to come back, Kay'd be a little more cold to him still. But that's asking human relationships to be consistent and have a proper through-line, and they don't. I've only been married for eight months, and I sometimes already want out. Then the next weekend we're happy as all get-out again. But as a side note, it wasn't entirely Winegardner's own creation; Puzo has her taking up Catholicism and becoming the Corleone equivalent of a stepford wife. The precedent is there.

3.) OK, the gay thing. I have to admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea too. And there may be something else at work here: Winegardner's need to comment on things relevant to our time by using their equivalents in other times (no matter who the author is, every story about a certain time period is really about the concerns of the people expected to read it), in this case the issue of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church. Remember that the first mention of anything hinky is when Fredo, at ten, wants to become a priest by studying under Father Stefano, and then he suddenly emerges at thirteen strong, serious, powerful, and shy around women. One day he's just clumsy, then one day he goes off into his room for long periods of time. Finally, at sixteen, he announces that he no longer wants to be a priest and ends up joining the family business. One admittedly has to read between the lines, but it can be argued that Winegardner at least laid the groundwork. As to how it changes the character of Fredo and offers an explanation for his weakness he didn't need, I can't comment either for or against that. It's a valid opinion.

4.) The abortion/miscarriage thing, I totally agree with you; it should have remained an abortion. But the argument I could offer is that Kay was still standing up to Michael, whether the abortion was real or not. She wants out of this marriage, period. She knows she cannot stay with this man. She knows that if Michael thinks he has to, he will make her a prisoner again. He will never change. And he will never allow her to leave, unless she tells him what she has decided to tell him, even if it is a lie. And it works; the marriage is already on the rocks, and now it's ended. They divorce. It brings nothing to the story, really, but it does briong something to the color of the piece, and that may not matter, but it's all I have on that one.

5.) With Clemenza dying, that may not have been as planted as you think. The script for Godfather Part II said outright that Clemenza's heart attack was real, that it came from stress related to the troubles the Rosatos were giving to him. Pentangeli said to Michael: "Sure, Pete Clemenza died of a heart attack, but the Rosato Brothers gave it to him." He later said to one of the Rosatos: "You drove old Pete Clemenza to his grave, Carmine; you and your brother. Turning on him; trouble in his territories, you and your demands. I hold you responsible, just as though you shot him in the head. And I ain’t gonna let that go for long!" That's all in the script, if not the finished film, so it can be argued that the intent, at least, from the beginning was that Clemenza really did die of a heart attack, no matter what Cicci said (he really died from his actor being unreasonable, but what're ya gonna do?).

6.) Finally, regarding Hagen: I have seen nothing in Part III to indicate that he died of a heart attack, or any other cause of death. The only mention of Hagen dying in the film is Michael telling B.J. Harrison that he didn't live to see the ordination of his son Andrew Hagen (well played by John Savage in a brief role; he gets the Robert Duvall voice down perfectly). But that's all; the rest is an open slate. And determining that he might as well cover Hagen's established death, Winegardner chose to do so in the most heart-wrenching manner he could, and to me, it was just that. I'm sorry you felt it was lame, but I'm not sure how a simple heart attack is an improvement.

Finally, not to sound like I'm lecturing, or talking down to you, but if you only read 150 pages into the book, and then gave up, can you really have the most imformed opinion you can get? Just give it another shot; you don't have to change your opinions at all if you don't want to, but at least you'll know they're fully-informed opinions. We can still disagree, but you'll have more ammo. And there's no harm in that. \:\)


I just watched Part III last night even then I missed it. You're right, Michael does say that Hagen never lived to see his son ordained. Nothing about a heart attack. I totally missed that one. If you are right about the original Part II script and Clemenze in deed dying of the heart attack, then I might owe MW an apology since it would be the way that FFC and Puzo intended, but like you said about the Gardner Shaw scene, it was cut from the film so all we have to go on is the theatrical version.

I disagree with that, however. I think that there is so much to the GF world that even deleted scenes hold some weight in the grand scheme of things. Why did MW have to invent Geraci out of thin air? He had the Corleone family tree at his disposal... he could have just used the Nick Geraci character he had created and just changed the name so that it was one of the guys on that family tree. He could have done the same thing with Bill Van Arsdale. Just make him Gardner Shaw.

All in all, these are small things, but done the right way they make the reading and viewing experience all that more rewarding.

And that's my biggest beef with these books. MW knew he had to sacrifice some of his artistic integrity to write these books. Anyone writing a GF novel or 2, would have to realize that there are already things that exist, that cannot be changed, whatsoever. But a lot of times MW ignored this and just rewrote things as he saw fit. He should have thought about the fans more. Even in minor cases, like changing Geraci's name to someone on the billboard.

And finally about the book/movie thing. I can understand why MW would keep Cuneo and Stracci around if they were an integral part to the story... but they weren't. MW only mentioned them in passing... so why not defer to the films in this case? Doesn't it seem odd in Revenge when MW is referring to Cuneo and Stracci as the Corleone's oldest friends? I can't get passed stuff like that.

MW could have done a better job making these books more integrated with the films. That is probably my biggest beef. He does some good things in these books... but because he changed around too much and didn't include other things, I will always call these books failures.

Maybe I will re-read them though. I had forgotten so much stuff from Returns when reading Revenge that I wanted to do that. We'll see. As it stands now I just don't have much motivation to.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/10/07 11:13 PM

I'm glad everyone is trying to answer my questions substantively - including Pizza Boy, sorry if I unknowingly implied otherwise. Thank you for agreeing not to be so hard on Winegardner personally and getting to the meat of your issues. I think the problem may also have been that I came into this long after such substantive arguments had been said and replaced with just "he sucks" comments. If I helped to get us there, I'm happy, but I doubt it was me - it's becoming clear that such deep means of discussion were already there, and just needed to be revived.

And yes, I would love a Pentangeli/Cicci story. In fact, like you, I believe that the Godfather mythos is still crawling with stories that have been implied and need telling. What was Antonio Andolini's problem and how did he end up dead? What was Ciccio's backstory? Or Fanucci's? How about Roth's relationship with Moe Greene? Talking about Fredo's betrayal of the family, what did he REALLY do? What was up with the people that tried to hit Michael in Part II, and how did they end up dead? At who's hand? What about Vincent's backstory? Does the whole P2 conspiracy with Lucchesi and Altobello need fleshing out? Michael's late years in Sicily as an old man? Vincent's years as boss? What about Tommasino's backstory? What about Sergio Lupo's writing career? What about the years between 1964 and 1979? Anthony stories? Mary stories? There are any number of stories that could use a telling or two.

What's the solution? Well, I listed too many story ideas to be fit in one book. But what about a collection of short stories, an anthology? Call it "Tales of the Godfather," something like that. There's room for Winegardner or any other author who fits the Puzo estate's qualifications to write stories for such a book. Ther's no reason that there can't be enough potential to have a Godfather expanded universe not to different from the Star Wars publishing license (though probably not THAT many books). As long as there's a continuity editor who knows his Corleones...
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/11/07 02:54 AM

A novel idea Erik. You sure that you are not really Mark? ;\)

There once was a man on these boards who would have been the perfect writer and continuity editor for a project like this one. But unfortunately our friend Plawrence is no longer with us. I don't know if you already have, but if you haven't, please take a moment to go over to the trilogy thread and read Plawrence's wonderful writing of THE GODFATHER SEQUEL .
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/11/07 01:47 PM

Erik's a STAR WARS geek?

I should have known.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/11/07 03:27 PM

And proud of it! \:\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/11/07 04:56 PM



You have thick skin, Erik. That's good, you'll need it around here.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/12/07 02:28 AM

I'm guessing, yeah. But hell, it wouldn't be a wiseguy-book-related discussion page without a lot of breaking balls, would it? ;\)
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/12/07 01:09 PM

Another reason to not like the book as a hardcore Godfather fan was that MW messed with the structure of the original novel and films. He spends too much time on the Corleone's enemies like Geraci. Puzo and FFC showed the Corleone's dealing with the threats they faced from enemies and dropped small hints at who was behind the plot like the Ola/Fredo phone call. But MW spends half the book on Geraci and other Corleone conspirators.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/12/07 09:45 PM

Well, really, Puzo and Winegardner ARE different people, and thus with different writing styles. Because Puzo worked closely with Coppola on the films, it's understandable that the emphases would be the same as in the original book. But really, who's to say that's the only way that a Godfather book should be written? There have to be as many ways to write one as there are writers. That's coming from a hardcore Godfather fan myself. And, by the way, a pretty decent amount of time was spent on the villain, Don Croce, in The Sicilian, and Puzo WROTE that one!
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 02:06 AM

But the plot structure is one of the trademarks of the Godfather book and movies. Part of the fun was figuring out who was plotting against the family and why. In some cases you had to draw your own conclusions to find out why so and so wanted so and so killed. See Mike vs Roth. But MW took this mystery away by focusing on Geraci too much.

Now this is lower on my list of complaints but it is an important one none the less.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 05:13 AM

He took the mystery away. So what? That didn't hinder my enjoyment of the story at all. MW's way of doing things really isn't THAT much worse than Puzo/Coppola's way. There are times when the plot is just TOO damned confusing to follow WITHOUT having it just spelled out and having more time with the plotters. Lord knows I would have had less of a hard time with Godfather III if the whole Joey Zasa/Osvaldo Altobello/Licio Luchesse/P2 plot was explained a lot better. If there had been more time spent with any of those characters, the whole thing would probably have made a little more sense. No, strike that... a LOT more sense.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 11:46 AM

You see, as much as I was not really thrilled with Returns and Revenge, I agree with Erik here in the sense that I thought that the Geraci character, especially in Returns, was a pretty interesting character with a good story. In Revenge I did happen to enjoy the way Winegardner brought him back and how he involved Geraci's father.

Revenge, in my opinion, could have been a much better book had Winegardner evolved some of his own characters, especially those from the Brooklyn scenerios.

As for the Tom Hagen scenerio with his involvement in politics, I thought that was one of the better subplots that Winegarner presented. I've always felt that Hagen would have gone in that direction for the Corleones, and Winegardner set that up pretty well.

But again, where I feel that he dropped the ball was with the way that he killed off Hagen. It was somewhat suspenseful in leading up to Hagen's death, but at the same time it was very predictable and pretty anti climactic.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 01:34 PM

Nah, they still sucked!

Don't abandon me now, DC.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 04:03 PM

Again, in my opinion, what made them suck, was the fact that the author had the opportunity to run with some of the well known, more interesting characters from the novel and the movie, but instead chose to run too far with a boring Johnny Fontaine character. There was a chapter on Fontaine that was very interesting and Sinatra like, but Winegardner went a little overboard with Fontaine overall.

As I said, I thought that his Geraci character was pretty interesting, and in Revenge, I did enjoy the Carlos Tramonti storyline and I really liked the Paradise character, but felt that Winegardner did not take the opportunity to bring the Paradise character to his fullest potential.

With The GF's Revenge, I do give credit to Winegardner in that he seems to have done his homework as far as real life mobsters and polticians go and creatively applied some of those real life happenings to his charaters in the book.

Revenge had some really good potential, but it never really reached that potential. However, out of the two that he wrote, if I had to pick one, I would pick Revenge over Returns.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 04:08 PM

Yeah, I'd say the first third, maybe even half of Revenge was the best part of either of the two.

When Johnny starts boning Francesca I keep thinking of a 50 year old Al Martino singing while the 5 year old twins (Francesca being one of them) watch.

Infamita
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 04:25 PM

 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
Yeah, I'd say the first third, maybe even half of Revenge was the best part of either of the two.

When Johnny starts boning Francesca I keep thinking of a 50 year old Al Martino singing while the 5 year old twins (Francesca being one of them) watch.

Infamita


I felt the same way about the Francesca / Johnny storyline. Totally uncalled for. Added absolutely nothing to the book.
Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 05:41 PM

I agree. After Vito got Johnny that role in the movie he wanted, he brought zero to the overall plot of the films and books.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:24 PM

That's exactly why Coppola was right to just remove the Fontane subplot from the film version of Godfather altogether. Having said that, if MW had to pick up that plot for his books, I think he did a superb job in Returns, including commenting on the Rat Pack days, and especially bringing Fontane to the conclusion of realizing that, no matter how close he is to James Shea, he'll always be a stupid Guinea to them. That's a good side-story. It's when he gets to Revenge that, I have to concede, there was very little for Fontane to do and very little reason for him to be in the book. He hosted Columbus Day, yawn. He played Columbus in a flop movie, yawn. Having him angrily dynamiting his helipad in Returns was a fine climax to his story; having him marry Francesca not necessarily so. That's a plotline that would require its own little short story to clarify and, perhaps, make less gross.

Now, when the book says Fontane got his second Oscar for being in the film based on Lupo's book that was based on Geraci's memoir, THAT peaks my interest. I've said this before. Who did he play in the film? The Fontane stand-in? Maybe even the Don? Who knows? And given that he's still friends with the Corleones, then and later, why would the Corleones let him do a film that's a thinly-veiled attack on them and their lives? What were the behind-the-scenes arguments like? Did Michael and Fontane talk about it? THAT's a possible short story waiting to be told: behind the scenes of the "Fausto's Bargain" films.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:26 PM

 Originally Posted By: DeathByClotheshanger
I agree. After Vito got Johnny that role in the movie he wanted, he brought zero to the overall plot of the films and books.


And that's where I feel that Winegardner dropped the ball. It was fine that he wove Johnny back into the storyline of his novels, but in my opinion he wasted too much time and energy in the Fonataine / Francesca relationship, instead of using that energy to have one of his own creations like Paradise develop into a much more interesting and important character in the storyline.

The guy is not a terrible writer. At various times in those books he shows that he actually has a talent for writing. But what bothers me is that he had such a fantastic foundation, in The Godfather, to work with and he didn't take full advantage of the foundation that he was handed.

And with all this back and forth, you and I both know, that when he comes out with his next GF novel, we'll be right there paying for it at the counter of our local bookstore.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:28 PM

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

Weingardner is a turd!
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:32 PM

Just a tad too militant there, are we, Pizza? ;\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:34 PM

 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger
Just a tad too militant there, are we, Pizza? ;\)


Look at this guy calling me miltant?

He's here all of 3 days and, aw, screw it, my BB brothers don't love me no more.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:42 PM

I still love you, Pizz'.

Wait, maybe this'll work better:

"You can ACT LIKE A MAN!" SMACK! "What's the matter with you?! Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finnochio that cries like a woman? 'Whaaah-hah-hah! My BB brothers don't love me no more! What can I do? What can I do?' What is that nonsense. Ridiculous."

There. That help? \:\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:47 PM

Holy shit.

Okay, I'll go "and I want everybody here to know, there's not gonna be no trouble here fom me. DC, a porta!"

My parting words: Winegardner is still a turd. Erik Pflueger is a turd fondler.

So long cruel boards.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:52 PM

Pizz', I'm just breaking your balls, that's all. I'm only kidding with you. ;\) If you want, just write a response where you do a Billy Batts on me, beat the tar out of me, throw me in the car trunk, then stab me, shoot me, and then bury me in a lot where you'll have to dig me up a few months later anyway. "What'd'ya like, the leg or the wing, Henry? Or do ya still go for the old hearts 'n' lungs?"
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:53 PM

Or, you know what? Why waste time? Just call me Spider and blow me away. ;\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:58 PM

 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger
Pizz', I'm just breaking your balls, that's all. I'm only kidding with you. ;\) If you want, just write a response where you do a Billy Batts on me, beat the tar out of me, throw me in the car trunk, then stab me, shoot me, and then bury me in a lot where you'll have to dig me up a few months later anyway. "What'd'ya like, the leg or the wing, Henry? Or do ya still go for the old hearts 'n' lungs?"


"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em."

Like that?
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 06:59 PM

 Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger

"You can ACT LIKE A MAN!" SMACK! "What's the matter with you?! Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finnochio that cries like a woman? 'Whaaah-hah-hah! My BB brothers don't love me no more! What can I do? What can I do?' What is that nonsense. Ridiculous."


**Cardi walks into the room and Erik glances over at him and then continues:

"You spend time with your gangsterbb family? Because a man that doesn't spend time with his gangsterbb family can never be a real man."
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:02 PM

"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em." You know, I should know what movie that's from, but I'm ashamed to say I don't. All I can think of is the guy in Road House who taunts Swayze with "I used to fuck guys like you in prison!" Probably not the same thing...
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:04 PM

**Erik kisses the ring of Don Cardi.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:04 PM

That's Batts at the bar in GOODFELLAS!!

After his initial argument with Tommy, when he's talking to the bearded guy.

What'sa matter wit u?
Posted By: whisper

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:05 PM

 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy
That's Batts at the bar in GOODFELLAS!!

After his initial argument with Tommy, when he's talking to the bearded guy.

What'sa matter wit u?


PB the know it all... \:p
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:08 PM

 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy


"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em."



Did you use Michael's Wood?
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:09 PM

 Originally Posted By: Don Cardi
 Originally Posted By: pizzaboy


"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em."



Did you use Michael's Wood?


Nah, he broke it off on Kay at the movies. He was diabetic anyway, long before Viagra.

He didn't need it.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:12 PM

That's the old Pizza! Sorry, the "shine box" jokes distracted me from the inee ass line...
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 07:13 PM

And he couldn't use the wood anyway, it isn't my fifth anniversary ;\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 08:33 PM

You're alright, Erik.

C'mon, let's be friends.

I have a private message for you in the spoiler window. No one else look, k?
Warning, Spoiler:
TURD \:p
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 08:45 PM

Stronzo \:\)
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/13/07 08:45 PM

Thank you.
Posted By: ErikPflueger

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER - 07/14/07 02:20 AM

You're welcome. ;\)
Posted By: jpierre

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 07/16/07 05:22 PM

I love Tom Hagen, too. One reason why is because he reminds me so much of Vito Corleone. Tight-lipped, calculating, humble, and not as blood-thirsty as Michael. I think if Tom Hagen would have been born Italian, he might have made a legitimate bid for Don after Vito Corleone. After all, he was the only Irish consigliere of his time.
Posted By: Binnie_Coll

Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* - 08/29/14 07:58 PM

hi,pb been reading this forum just now got in,
© 2024 GangsterBB.NET