Godfather Part 4
brit...@my-deja.com
trilogy?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kevin
>Does anyone agree that if they make a Godfather Part 4 it will ruin the
>trilogy?
Well, many people said something like that when the 3rd one came out. But last
time I checked, the first 2 were still the same excellent films they have
always been.
Heck, I think Coppola should make a Godfather film every 5 years for the rest
of his life, especially if Gordon Willis is behind the camera. Better than
sitting around and just getting fatter. A couple of those films just might
turn out to be excellent.
--Kevin
"If you don't love Bogie, you don't love movies."
--from Filmnutboy's Movie Maxims
Clear and Present Dylan
>Does anyone agree that if they make a Godfather Part 4 it will ruin the
>trilogy?
Given the fact that it will no longer consist of three movies, yes.
Seriously, as Kevin mentioned, sequels don't physically *do anything* to
films that have already been released. I think parts 1 and 2 are great,
part 3 borders on greatness, and would love to see Coppola take a crack at a
film (*any* film) for a reason other than money.
I guess Apocalypse Now broke his spirit. :-(
Dylan
Jay Penfield
<brit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7sfslv$f9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Does anyone agree that if they make a Godfather Part 4 it will ruin the
> trilogy?
>
>
MC
Clear and Present Dylan wrote in message ...
>Seriously, as Kevin mentioned, sequels don't physically *do anything* to
>films that have already been released. I think parts 1 and 2 are great,
>part 3 borders on greatness, and would love to see Coppola take a crack at
a
>film (*any* film) for a reason other than money.
Maybe Coppola needs to be inspired by real-life events, as he was for the
previous films. I think I am the only one who appreciated the
art-imitating-life-imitating-art irony behind the third Godfather film.
You see, the very first film tossed a lot of money into the coffers of
Paramount pictures, which at the time was owned by Gulf and Western. A
massive number of G&W shares were owned by an Italian company called
Imobiliare, which benefitted greatly from the movie's success.
That firm, in turn, was set up by a crook named Michele Sindona. The Vatican
was so impressed by the money he was raking in that they let him handle the
Church's finances.
Basically, that WAS the famed Vatican banking scandal: The church's finances
were in the care of a shady operator who set up money-laundering schemes and
other unsavory enterprises for Da Mob.
Some writers have averred that Pope John-Paul I was going to blow the
whistle on all this, and thus had to be "taken care of."
A few years later, along comes Godfather III. In this film, Michael Corleone
pretty much takes on the role of Michele Sindona. He sets up a company
called Imobiliare in order to handle the Vatican's finances. The resultant
complications lead to the Pope's assassination.
The events of Godfather III were thus, at least to some degree, funded by
the profits of Godfather I. This ironic "backstory" is the reason I consider
the third film the most interesting, even though no-one else seems to feel
similarly.
Ray Nicolet
brit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Does anyone agree that if they make a Godfather Part 4 it will ruin the
> trilogy?
No, Godfather 3 did that!
Karl Rackwitz
>
> Does anyone agree that if they make a Godfather Part 4 it will ruin the
> trilogy?
>
> Before you buy.
It won't hurt the trilogy, but it just doesn't seem necessary to me. But
maybe they have a surprisingly good idea. Let's see ...
Karl
Jay
Godfather. Copolla himself verified that there are no plans for a Part 4. The
buzz pretty much died when Puzo died.
And Part 3 wasn't so bad. It was a bit talkier and overplotted than the first
two, and Sophia's performance left much to be desired, but overall I thought it
was a good sequel, and I felt it deserved its Best Picture nomination, though I
also agree it didn't deserve to win.
________________________________________________
Jay
To email me, remove "mentary" from the header address.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/PhineasBog/index.html
________________________________________________
Red Rock West
>first
>two, and Sophia's performance left much to be desired,
Much to be desired? How about EVERYTHING to be desired? I can't believe she was
the next choice after Winona Ryder dropped out. I wished they would've gone
after someone like Jennifer Connelly instead of looking to nepotism.
Michael
Jay
>the next choice after Winona Ryder dropped out.
I think they were considering putting Bridget Fonda in that role instead, but
they felt she was too WASPy.
Charles L Isbell
> >I can't believe she was
> >the next choice after Winona Ryder dropped out.
>
> I think they were considering putting Bridget Fonda in that role instead, but
> they felt she was too WASPy.
Too waspy? Whatever. They could have put Angela Bassett in that
role, and that would have been less jarring than the horror that was
Sophia. I would have done better doing all the lines in Spanish.
I swear, I've never seen one actor so ruin a movie in my entire life.
One must wonder what Al Pacino was thinking when onscreen with her.
He was probably thinking, "Acting is dead. Fuck this, I'm going to go
do _Scent of a Woman_."
--
Peace.
"The tree of liberty is refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
Admiral Bones
>You see, the very first film tossed a lot of money into the coffers of
>Paramount pictures, which at the time was owned by Gulf and Western. A
>massive number of G&W shares were owned by an Italian company called