As much as GF3 has been debated here,as far as the writing and even the plot there's one question that kind of sticks out in my mind. First off i believe that GF3 was made in such a way that a GF4 would be nearly impossible as GF3 seems to be a completely different film. But my question is why did FFC and Puzo completely disregard the book and bring in Vincent the illegitimate son of Sonny and Lucy? In the book Lucy is covered quite extensively. Introducing a new character like Vincent seemingly would be a bit of a turn off to those who were fans of the book also. Im not saying Andy Garcia didn't play his role well because I thought in fact that he did a strong job of acting. It just seems more plausible that instead of introducing a new character that had nothing to do with the book, Andy Garcia could have played one of Sonny's sons Frank or Santino Jr. Maybe it's just me but it seems a bit unnecessary to veer so far away from the book. Any thoguhts?

Plenty of material in II wasn't in the novel, either--but it was just handled better.

I'm guessing that FFC and Puzo introduced Vincent because they thought it'd be more interesting to bring in an heir-apparent out of the blue, so to speak. If Michael was really intent on "legitimizing" himself and the family, it wouldn't do to have any of the "legitimate" nephews succeed him. But Vincent was sufficiently detached from the family (even Connie refers to him as "Sonny's boy," not "your nephew") to make a happy medium. Plus, he shares Sonny's violent temper, which makes for some drama.

Although Part II is an excellent movie (which Part III most definitely is not!), I was a little disappointed that Coppola apparently decided to make the story of Michael a "tragedy," something it wasn't in Puzo's novel, partially because of criticism that Part I glorified the Mafia. While the life of a Mafia don was certainly a dangerous one (and today the dangers are much greater because of stronger law enforcement), it's simply dishonest to suggest that choosing a life of crime has inevitably lead to an unhappy end. It may be morally satisfying to many people, but it's inaccurate. As head of the Chicago Outfit, Tony Accardo certainly did very ruthless things (for example, having Gus Greenbaum's sister-in-law killed when Greenbaum refused to come out of retirement to rescue the Riviera, the Outfit's big Las Vegas hotel and casino, from financial ruin). Yet Accardo ruled for almost 50 years, spend only one night in jail (or none, depending on the source), and seems to have had a happy family life (interestingly, Accardo had a non-Italian wife, like Michael, although Accardo's wife was Polish, not WASP like Kay). On his terms, his life was very successful.

If Coppola simply chose to make his continuation of Michael's story the way he did for artistic reasons, then fine. As Shakespeare showed multiple times, tragedy can make for incredibly compelling stories. But I don't think one should feel compelled to tell a story a certain way to strengthen a moral argument. If there are strong enough reasons to object to a way of behaving, the case against that behavior should be able to be made without falsely saying or suggesting that those who engage in it will inevitably suffer negative consequences.

A lot of great art takes a moral point of view. FFC really didn't like what he saw as the incorrect glorification of the Mafia lifestyle in some responses to GF1 and went to pains to correct that in GF2.

While one can get into all sorts of debates about what is "crime" and so on, for most people a life of crime doesn't lead to optimal results for them.
This isn't just in terms of external events like murder or prison but also in stress related diseases or conditions like heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, ulcers etc. Some mobsters tend to compensate for that stress by abusing alcohol or drugs or via poisonous relations with their wives, girlfriends or children. Spending one's entire life having to worry about incarceration or murder and being unable to trust anyone has a cost for most people, even if you manage to avoid prison or early termination.

But as far as FFC I don't think that he makes movies for didactic reasons.

While I can see your point I just dont go along with Micheal being really really intent on legitimizing the family. I fell that his efforts to legitimize applied to him and his children and Sonny's nephews would have been fine to take over. But I can see what you're saying about having a nephew detached from the family.

I guess they can usually trust their mothers (and other blood family members who aren't involved in crime).

Of course, in the Sopranos Tony's own mother, Livia, tried to kill him. Even the FBI felt sorry for him when that happened. I can see how someone could literally be driven mad learning that their own mother, the person they're supposed to be able to trust more than anyone else in the world and the person who's supposed to love them no matter what they do, tried to have them killed. It could easily make someone into a Nixon or Stalin, extremely suspicious of everything and everyone. If your own mother betrayed you in the most extreme way possible, why shouldn't you assume the worst about everyone else?

I think FFC was trying to make his daughter a movie star - and it cost the trilogy its third movie.

She was awful. The move would have been 200x better without her...even if it still wouldn't have been as good as the first two.

I read that Winona Ryder was cast as Michael's daughter but dropped out.
Sofia was doing her father a favor because they couldn't recast with the time and money constraints which they had. That's what I heard anyway..

True story, Lilo. That is a fact.

What they were thinking was either consciously or subconciously was to make a bad movie that culminnated in ichael's death and basically the end of the line for the Corleones. This was so they would NEVER have a studio
ask them to make a GF IV.