Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
kingzoso

Star Wars or the Godfather?

Recommended Posts

This thread is becoming slightly gay...

back on topic for kingzoso's sake, imho the godfathers trump everything star wars except for maybe special effects.

Thanks for saying "back on topic". I really mean that.

I will refrain from saying anything negative about anyone in relation to this topic. I hope (a "New Hope" actually) everyone else can and will do so as well.

I knew that this topic would give some very different answers and opinions, however, I never thought that it would come down to what it has become in the past few days. If all of us can put aside our differences and just stick to the main topic, I think that we all could read some very different answers and opinions from some people who may not have made a comment so far and from those who have contributed already and smartly stayed out of the bickering.

"May the Force Be With You... Always".

"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli". (Intend this quote to be a metaphor for all the senseless bickering to stop).

Thanks...

Edited by kingzoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken ;)

In an earlier post (which somebody dismissed as film school dissertation of a film I hated anyway) I was discussing how the character of Micheal Corleone in GF3 was so far of a departure from the two previous Godfather films, as to be in effect a different person. It would be interesting to hear some opinions on that?

*WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!*

I actually liked and agreed with most of what you wrote about "Godfather III", KF...especially your take on how Francis Ford Coppola changed the roles of women in the films and their relation and access to the Family Business.

Kay and Connie were such great characters in the first two films, and Diane Keaton and Talia Shire memorable in those roles, that it felt like a betrayal the way Coppola cheapened their characters in "Godfather III". Was Coppola trying to make a comment on the way women's roles were changing in all society as a result of the growing independence and rights of women throughout the 1970s and 1980s? Was he suggesting that allowing women into previously exclusively-male domains such as the Church and the Mafia would be their downfall? One is never sure of his intentions...only that from what we know of the two women from the first two Godfather films, their actions and behaviour in "Godfather III" are quite jarring.

But I think Coppola definitely wanted Michael Corleone to appear befuddled and one-step-behind in "Godfather III"...he stripped him of his usual mastery and cold control of the situation around him. He even emasculated him somewhat by making him appear to need to lean on Connie for support and help...expanding on the subliminal-incest theme he introduced to their relationship in "Godfather II". Connie has become a predatory Lady McBeth-type figure in the Family; changed completely from her earlier self. So yes, it is a far different and ineffective Michael we see in III than we saw in I and II.

There are several reasons Coppola did this...

1) By the time of "Godfather III", it has been 50 years that Michael has struggled to make his father's dream come true; to make the Corleone Family completely legit(remember Michael's promise to Kay in "The Godfather"?). Alas, it has been a Sisyphean task and every time he thinks he has that rock pushed up that hill..."they pull me back in again." The years of struggle have taken a toll on Michael, and Coppola wanted to show that.

2) Michael's original sin of killing Fredo(hahaha, I almost typed 'Frodo'...imagine a mashup of those two franchises), and all the other ghosts of his past coming home to roost and weighing on his soul. These are decisions he has had to live with all these years and it has eaten away at him from within. It has even cost him his relationship with his only son, Anthony. And Coppola isn't about to let him off the hook.

3) Coppola wanted to make sure he would never be tempted to do another Godfather sequel for money, and since he didn't trust himself to say "no", he made sure the end was clearly the end. Fine.

There are many flaws about "Godfather III"...the awkward (Sofia Coppola) and kitsch (George Hamilton, Bridget Fonda) casting, the pacing, the lack of chemistry romance subplot between Andy Garcia and Sofia, the gratuitous character of Bridget Fonda's reporter, and more...BUT whatever Coppola's motivations truly were when he accepted the offer to make the third Godfather, at least he had the balls and foresight to end it properly and on his terms. And so, with the death of his daughter now added along with Fredo's murder and all his other past transgressions, Michael Corleone, his dream of seeing the Family legit in ruins, dies broken and alone.

There is no victory...no way forward from this. Michael Corleone will not be coming back from the dead in 3-D CGI. It is no accident that Coppola originally wanted the film to be titled "The Death of Michael Corleone", but the Paramount vehemently objected.

Coppola was lucky he made Godfather III when he did...if he had held out longer it might have been worse. For this is just before Al Pacino entered what I call his "HOO-HAH! Period"...when he started screaming, over-acting, chewing the scenery in films like "Scent of a Woman", "Devil's Advocate" and "Any Given Sunday". It was the complete opposite of the quiet intensity and intelligence he showed in the first Godfather film. I shudder to think if he had played Michael Corleone in Godfather III the way he hammed it up in "Scent of a Woman".

I agree with SR on one thing he mentioned...if Coppola had spent more time exploring the Vatican bank angle and less on the awkward romance and some other inconsequential subplots, it might have made a better movie. The Vatican and La Casa Nostra are the oldest institutions in Italy...that is no coincidence.

There is one similarity between the two trilogies that I see...both groups of fans consider the first two installments superior to the third. But, even though it is inferior to Godfather I and II, thanks to Coppola's integrity, Godfather III at least is an honourable disappointment(to call it a failure seems too churlish) and it is better overall than "Return of the Jedi", which really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

Just think of how each Godfather film ends on scenes of quiet power and impact...Al Neri closing the door on Kay as Michael receives tribute as the new Don in "The Godfather"; Michael reflecting on when he told the family he had enlisted for World War II in "Godfather II"; and Michael's death in "Godfather III".

Meanwhile, the endings of the Star Wars movies are like a nightmarish "Up With People" orgy...with Ewoks.

For all these reasons and more, the Godfather Trilogy reigns supreme over Star Wars. It will always be discussed and analyzed in film schools and among film aficionados for decades and will always be a presence in the Top 10 Films of all time. Star Wars will still be popular among a certain subset of fans, but its influence and popularity will continue to wane as the years go by and the Star Wars brand becomes neutered and diluted.

Regarding our earlier tiff, Killing Floor, why don't we just agree to disagree about SR's usage of the gay remark and leave it at that. Let bygones be bygones. I apologize for any hurtful remark I directed to you.

Edited by Strider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

< SNIP >

Off topic, but what are YOU doing up??? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic, but what are YOU doing up??? LOL

I usually don't get to bed until 2 or 3am-ish, TypeO. What are YOU doing up so early yourself? Hehe.

Edited by Strider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't get to bed until 2 or 3am-ish, TypeO. What are YOU doing up so early yourself? Hehe.

LOL, My new hours are 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., an hour earlier than they were for the last 7 years (my kids are in Middle School now, and are out the door by 6:30 each morning, as opposed to 8:00 a.m. when they were in Elementary).

I was actually in real early this morning because I had to drop the wife and kids at the airport for a day trip to Atlanta.

So I was at work about 6:40 a.m. this morning. :zzz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone who chooses the "Godfather" over "Star Wars" know why Fredo Corleone (Don Corleone's second son after Santino) was not as skillful and tactful and hot-tempered as Sonny and not as wise and cunning as Michael Corleone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone who chooses the "Godfather" over "Star Wars" know why Fredo Corleone (Don Corleone's second son after Santino) was not as skillful and tactful and hot-tempered as Sonny and not as wise and cunning as Michael Corleone?

I believe he was either the runt of the litter or dropped on his head by Vito one too many times.

Seriously though, in most movies of this type they have a very Shakespearian tone and story arch with similar characters updated. As fact the movie has been described as an updated King Lear. You have the strong, hot tempered one, the gentle naive one, and than the quiet but wise and eventually powerful one. In this setup the gentle, naive one is always made into a type of sacrificial lamb or a symbol for the wise characters loss of that element which kept him / her grounded and human. Further back one can argue most of Shakespeare's ideas were simply updated Greek tragedy plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone who chooses "Star Wars" over the "Godfather" know if C-3PO ever introduced R2-D2 to Steely Dan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he was either the runt of the litter or dropped on his head by Vito one too many times.

Seriously though, in most movies of this type they have a very Shakespearian tone and story arch with similar characters updated. As fact the movie has been described as an updated King Lear. You have the strong, hot tempered one, the gentle naive one, and than the quiet but wise and eventually powerful one. In this setup the gentle, naive one is always made into a type of sacrificial lamb or a symbol for the wise characters loss of that element which kept him / her grounded and human. Further back one can argue most of Shakespeare's ideas were simply updated Greek tragedy plays.

I think that is was because Fredo caught a bad cold when he was an infant as seen in the early Vito Corleone years in GF II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone who chooses the "Godfather" over "Star Wars" know why Fredo Corleone (Don Corleone's second son after Santino) was not as skillful and tactful and hot-tempered as Sonny and not as wise and cunning as Michael Corleone?

Yes.

That's an awkward way of wording that question, by the way. Are you suggesting that those who choose Star Wars over Godfather wouldn't know? Heck, one doesn't even have to have a preference at all, or even see any of the Star Wars films. All it takes is a knowledge of Godfather II.

Does anyone who chooses "Star Wars" over the "Godfather" know if C-3PO ever introduced R2-D2 to Steely Dan?

No.

I do know he introduced him to WD-40, though. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly the funniest Triumph clip ever.

Jump to 7:00 - "and which of these buttons calls your parents to pick you up?" LULZ

I roared at that one.

Triumph at Bon Jovi concert is also very funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horses for courses and all that I will sit this one out (on the fence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horses for courses and all that I will sit this one out (on the fence).

Speaking of horses, how about that scene of Khartoum's head in Jack Woltz's bed.

Woltz told Tom Hagen that Khartoum was worth $600,000 (I believe it was).

One thing that the movie does not show or explain was who exactly cut off Khartoum's head and put it in his bed. One might assume that Tom Hagen did it because he was around earlier that day but Tom was a lawyer and consigliere for the Corleone's, not a "muscle" man. Tom must have paid off one of the stable hands to do this deed.

http://youtu.be/q2CX20bBNJE

Edited by kingzoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that it was Luca Brasi..

He helped Johnny get out of the bandleaders deal by "holding a gun to his head while the Don assured him that his brains or his signature would be on the contract."

As far as what's a better movie series.. my vote goes to The Godfather.

I loved Star Wars when I was a kid though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that it was Luca Brasi..

He helped Johnny get out of the bandleaders deal by "holding a gun to his head while the Don assured him that his brains or his signature would be on the contract."

As far as what's a better movie series.. my vote goes to The Godfather.

I loved Star Wars when I was a kid though.

'Luca Brasi swims with the fishes'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that this is supposition on my part, but if it was Luca Brasi who did indeed cut off and put Khartoum's head in the bed of Jack Woltz, that would mean that Luca Brasi was with Tom Hagen when he went to Los Angeles. There is no proof of this in the movie. I think that a (supposedly loyal) stable boy would have a better chance of entering Jack Woltz's mansion. That seems more plausible than Luca Brasi doing it (to me).

That is why I think that Don Corleone and/or Tom Hagen paid off one of the stable hands to do this. Offering a stable hand to betray his Master is one thing, offering to "pay off" a stable hand with a lot of money (back then probably thousands), to do this seems more realistic to me.

Regardless, it is only a movie, however, a movie that I think is the Greatest Movie of All-Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone who chooses the "Godfather" over "Star Wars" know why Fredo Corleone (Don Corleone's second son after Santino) was not as skillful and tactful and hot-tempered as Sonny and not as wise and cunning as Michael Corleone?

Admittedly, it's been many years since I've read "The Godfather", but if memory serves, there is no single event that contributes to Fredo's makeup. As with "real life" families, siblings have different personalites. He's one of the kids sandwiched in the middle. (That could a topic for another thread I suppose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Vito Corleone knew his son Fredo was weak, or at least different in a negative sense. In The Godfather II Fredo complains to Michael that he was "stepped over" (Fredo being older than Michael). Michael responded with, "that's the way Pop wanted it."

As it turned out Fredo was a dangerous liability to the family. Fredo was too stupid to see how he was being used by Hyman Roth in the attempt to assasinate Michael Corleone. Fredo was probably sheltered and given meaningless tasks his whole life by his father because the Don knew that a stupid child could be easily exploited by the Don's enemies.

Fredo was sent to learn the gambling business in Las Vegas as a sort of "banishment" from being directly involved in the Corleone business in NYC (which He was a liability).

In Vegas, away from the "Family", he became more a degenerate because he was "banging cocktail waitresses two at a time. Players couldn't get drinks at the table". That is why Moe Greene had the audacity to slap Fredo around with impunity which Michael Corleone took as a big affront to the respect of the "Family". Fredo approves of and is supportive of Moe Greene in this scene. That is even more proof that Fredo was incompetent and his allegiances were misguided because he was not that Smart too begin with.

http://youtu.be/xKTNEd6h8Dw

CLASSIC PLOT AND ACTING ALL AROUND!!!

Edited by kingzoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fredo was sent to learn the gambling business in Las Vegas as a sort of "banishment" from being directly involved in the Corleone business in NYC (which He was a liability).

In Vegas, away from the "Family", he became more a degenerate because he was "banging cocktail waitresses two at a time. Players couldn't get drinks at the table". That is why Moe Greene had the audacity to slap Fredo around with impunity which Michael Corleone took as a big affront to the respect of the "Family". Fredo approves of and is supportive of Moe Greene in this scene. That is even more proof that Fredo was incompetent and his allegiances were misguided because he was not that Smart too begin with.

http://youtu.be/xKTNEd6h8Dw

CLASSIC PLOT AND ACTING ALL AROUND!!!

"Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you...but don't ever take sides against the Family again. Ever."

I love that sequence in Pt 1, it sets things up for Pt 2 brilliantly. You just knew that one way or another things were going to end very badly for Fredo...

John Cazale was taken too soon. A very short career in films, but, man, what a career:

The Godfather/The Godfather Part II

The Conversation

Dog Day Afternoon

The Deer Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...