Was GF II made due to the success of I, or was it planned anyhow? I heard somewhere [documentary/interview] that GFIII was made for money.

Beings most of GFII is pertaining to the novel I can only assume it was always planned to be made. The ending of GFI also leads me to believe it was planned.

As far as GFIII, Lord only knows why that was made.

$$$$

noooooo, no one makes movies for money, its all about satisfying the people

The Godfather, Part II was first announced by Paramount when Francis Coppola was still finishing the first film. Mario Puzo was the first person to sign on for the film, but producer Al Ruddy backed out. After the Godfather was released, eventually Francis joined the bandwagon, only, however, if he had full control over the project (with no studio interference). He had his wish, and most of the original film's players returned (Marlon Brando was even due to return, but apparently he was asking too much for his small role so they simply rewrote the scene at the end of the movie).

So, basically, The Godfather, Part II was made to cash in on the original's success.

Godfather III, on the other hand, was made due to an ongoing interest by fans and many studio execs. Francis eventually agreed to return and then wrote, alongside Mario Puzo, the story which would be based on the films' original characters, as well as main headline topics.

And, if you really think about it too, "The Godfather, Part III" was also made to cash in on the first two movies' success.

So yeah it was all about money.

What sequel isn't made for money?

Mick

Yes, movies are ultimately made to make money. In the case of the GF films, it is somewhat unusual for a sequel to be as good and in some peoples minds better then the original. I was just wondering if GF II would have been made if GF I wasn't so succesful?

I think much of the success of GFII is due to the fact that most of the storyline was included in the novel. GF III appears to be written haphazardly.

I disagree. Part II only has the flashback scenes from the book, and the best storyline is the one involving Michael, which was devised by FFC without he book.

Had Part I been unsuccessful, Part II would not have been made for two reasons: Coppola would not have ahd the encouragement to go through that much hassle again, and Paramount wouldn't have even signed him up anyway.

Ultimately, Paramount decided to go with PartII simply for money, but us fans are lucky that Coppola actually made it to please fans of the first too. It's rare when a sequel surpasses the first, but with a director as meticulous as FFC, Part II was never going to fail.

Mick

Yes, the flashbacks were based on incidents in the novel, and the Mike scenes were written for the film. I dont know if I disagree with you on the Mikes storyline being better. In any event you gave me a idea for a new poll .

Personally I would be hard pressed to decide which was better.

But in close cooperation with Mario Puzo. When making GFII FFC worked much closer with MP than he did with the first GF, and in fact, the story of Michael in GFII was made up primarily by MP, and FFC would take the final decisions regarding Michael's story. If FFC hadn't, it would not by far been as good as when he had done it alone.

::cough:: money ::cough::

Though I liked them both very much.

In the GF companion book, FFC said the only way to not be remembered as the guy who directed the Godfather was to make another terrible one. He was just joking though.