where exactly did george hamilton's character come from in godfather iii?? he seemed "similar" to a consiglieri, but he did have the presence of duvall. he was basically a lawyer, but i just wondered if anyone knew where he came from

sorry i meant that he did NOT have the presence of duvall

IMO he came from Coppola's imagination at the last minute because he was too cheap to sign Duvall for Part III.

BTW - You can edit your own posts (ie. add a word or change something) by simply hitting the edit icon ( ) found above the text box. That'll take you back to your original post, and you can then make the change.

BJ Harrison, I don't think, was intended to be a consigliere as Tom Hagen had been. He is only a business lawyer. His lines are simply throwaway scene filler.

He is a wasted character. He says nothing, he does nothing, that sigificantly adds to the film. That's the great thing about GF I and II - there are no wasted characters.

The loss of Hagen IMO led, in a chain reaction, to most of the other problems of GF IV. The entire script had to be rewritten in a hurry, and the power-struggle/test of loyalty between Michael and Tom Hagen, which was, I am convinced, intended to be the main theme of the movie, completely written out and replaced by the hurriedly-slapped-together Vatican/Immobilaire story line.

I think if worse came to worse, FFC should have simply recast the role of Tom Hagen if he couldn't get Duvall to do it.

The loss of "Tom Hagen" the character completely disrupted the story line. To me it was more important to the movie that "Tom Hagen" be in it than it was for Robert Duvall to be in it. (Which is not for a minute to downplay Duvall's performances in GF I and II.)

I think Michael Moriarty (shown here from Law & Order) could have played Tom Hagen instead.

He was way out of his league being in that movie. He was a waste of film space. I think he was a last minute Tom-filler, whay Hamilton was cast is beyond me.

I believe trilogies become successful by using references from the previous movies. The Godfather III had a good reference by relating the character Vincent Mancini (the Illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone, for all of you who dont know) to his father. But as for the part of George Hamilton they should have elaborated more on his part and explained where he came from. He had been a long time since the second one so I would understand why they didnt.

ALSO, the Godfather III should have talked more about the loss of the great and loyal Consiglieri Tom Hagen. Having his son become a priest was a good choice, but by doing that they should have had a back up role of Consiglieri. But then again by this time Michael lossed so many and wanted to get out he justed had George Hamilton play his lawyer. [I believe other than Vincent Mancini (who had a "temper like his father"), Al Neri is Michael's right hand and should have been Consiglieri]
"Ugh -- just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" Michael in the Godfather III

It's pretty clear that by the time of GF III, the person who is in fact acting as consigliere is Connie Corleone.

FFC and MP are great at leaving loose ends that will never be tied. The death of Clemenza, Tom Hagen, certain un answered aspects of the movie such as the drapes issue in GF II. These points are inconsequential for the plots of the movie, but they add spice to the trilogy and fire up our imagination. The bottomline is I hate movies that are spelt out for you and life is seldom like that, so I'm glad an intelligent director like FFC has decided to use his brain while making a movie.

I wonder if all of the ends were intentionally left loose, or if it was simply carelessness.

Surely MP and FFC never dreamed there would be a forum with people like us picking the films apart the way in which we do.

Buffalo Bagels on FFC!!

The only thing FFC was great at (using these two examples) was showing his arrogance - (FFC): You don't agree to my terms (salary, etc.) to appear in a sequel, you get written off in a very vague manner to show you weren't important to the story. You dare to cross me, I'll show you!

I do, however, agree that tying up other loose ends in the movies is unnecessary.

A loose end (not looking to start up the whole discussion about it again, though) which absolutely needed tying up IMO was who killed assassins in Part II.

It's way more than just a loose end. I consider it a major flaw in the plot.

Its my belief that Part II was rushed too much (to make). Still, its one of the best movies ever made.

The guard dog's ate them.

It was Fredo's men.

I always thought the Hamilton was used to give a modern look to the film. Hamilton has always been cast as slick dressing and acting type of character, thus his character lent an air of respectability to the Corleone family.

I agree totally, well he learned, GF III suffered a big loss from what it could have been from the lose of Robert Duvall which was completly a budget thing. I mean I'm sure he could have gotten another 3 actors in on GF III for the salary Robert Duvall was demanding. Live and learn I guess. Hey it's ironic that Arrogance is a theme in the GF, FFC should have listen to his own advice.

Also I agree with you SC, GF II was rushed in the making and it's lucky that FFC had the clout from GF to push for the longer time. GF III I feel suffered from a similar problem, but where GF II suffered from too much to say and too little studio time, GF III suffered from too much of a complex plot and too many themes to fully elaborate upon, which I feel are slight weaknesses of the film due to the 3 hour time limit that was alotted.

Man, I'd love to sit FFC down and talk to him about what part III was to be about before Duvall was out. This is really starting to intrigue me.

Maybe Geoff can make an open invitationt to FFC's people....

And then I'd like to go back in time and make the movie with Duvall in the movie.

But of course I'd want to keep the version that was made too...

----------------------------------------------------

However, Harrison could have worked. Pentangeli's character flourished in Part II, the same could have happened in Part III. Who knows, Harrison could have been fleshed out and been against the family and then Michael could have been like "Tom would have never done this to me... and I pushed him away..." Another scene of regret when he talks to the cardinal.

Harrison was a lazy character bringing nothing with him. It could have worked, even without Duvall.

You never know, you could go back in time, and wehen you get back to the present, it might rain dounuts, or you might live in a pyramid.

I think Hamilton was good for the part. But the name? I find it hard to believe Michael Corleone would hire a man named "BJ" to handle his hundreds of millions of dollars.

Well, maybe, but in order to make Harrison a character anybody cared about, there would have to have been some script time invested in some kind of back story explaining how he rose to a trusted position in the family.

Otherwise, the character is just what he ended up being: just kind of a smiling face standing there. Can Michael trust him? Who knows, who cares?

The GF III plot was convoluted enough, with the kitchen-sink approach to the Vatican-Immobliare story line, I can't see they could have spent a half-hour MORE screen time setting up why we should care about B.J.Harrison.

I still betcha the original concepts for GF III were mainly centered on Michael and Tom's clashing ideas of how to move the Corleone family into legit business - and ultimate pressures on Tom by both the feds and other families, to finally roll over on Mike.