Some, much, or perhaps all of III was forced. Whether FFC produced it for want of cash or pursuant to we fans' demands, or just because it seemed the thing to do, there was no natural storyline that FFC could follow as there was from I to II.

Maybe FFC figured that we fans would want to know what happened to Michael et all. If so, perhaps he could have produced a one hour documentary that answered our questions. Of course, he couldn't just do that; he had to try to produce an epic that at least attempted to emulate the previous two films.

You know, when I watch the documentaries on TV about the Mafia in the 30s, 40s, 50s (and even somewhat into the 60s), I have a certain feeling about it that is so different from what I feel when I watch a Mafia documentary about the 70s, 80s, and the present. Those latter decades documentaries (what they document) just seem so cheap by comparison. Gotti and Massino simply don't rise to the level of Luciano, Genovese, Costello, or Gambino.

Now, scum of the Earth are just that no matter during what decade they are scum. However, there was something substantial about the early decades' Mafiosi that recent Mafiosi can't even come close to. In I and II, Michael et al had that substance. In III, they just plain didn't. That's the big cognitive problem; we had I and II with which to compare III. III's plots were contrived. Murder is bad enough, but why or why incest?

So, what could have made III better? Maybe just don't make it.