Coppola's Godfather quote

[K.C.]

They talked about it on the show last week, which is where I heard it first. Finally got around to reading it:

"I don’t think Godfather ever should have had more than one movie, actually. It was not a serial, it was a drama. The first movie wrapped up everything. To make more than one Godfather was just greed. Basically, making a movie costs so much money that they want it to be like Coca-Cola: you just make the same thing over and over again to make money, which is what they’re doing now. But Godfather was not really a serial, you know?"

I disagree. If you look at the Godfather series, the first movie on its own conveys the story of Michael's transformation.

The second is much much more layered. It's much more personal to the psychology of Michael, and is really a fantastic rise and fall story.

They're very different, I think.

The third was probably a bit much, but I love very end montage flashing through all the women of his life, and then the death scene.

[epo]

This seems to be something I've seen old directors do before. The greats seem to have an intellectual honesty about them when they look retrospectively over their career. I remember Hitchcock talking about Sabotage, a movie in which an innocent child dies...that caused him great distress...but he defended at the time. In retrospect with Francois Truffaut he admitted:

I agree with that; it was a grave error on my part.

And I can agree with Coppola about the Godfather series. It was unnecessary, but 2 was great and 3 was a piece of shit.

[KnoxHarrington]

Yeah, I agree: the ending of 1, of Michael having his ring kissed and then the door being closed in Kay's face, would have been utterly perfect if that's where we left off.

But 2 is brilliant. Possibly a better movie than 1 in a lot of ways. It's just that 1 could have stood alone perfectly.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, I agree: the ending of 1, of Michael having his ring kissed and then the door being closed in Kay's face, would have been utterly perfect if that's where we left off.

But 2 is brilliant. Possibly a better movie than 1 in a lot of ways. It's just that 1 could have stood alone perfectly.

Yeah, I could have stood on its own, but nothing beats the end of II. So fucking bleak.

[sailor]

The third was probably a bit much, but I love very end montage flashing through all the women of his life, and then the death scene.

thanks for ruining the ending.

[K.C.]

Yeah, I could have stood on its own, but nothing beats the end of II. So fucking bleak.

The look on Pacino's face sitting in the chair...fucking amazing.

[IamFogHat]

Is there a second book? I agree with Ron, slightly, that the first is the better film, but it's mostly attributed to the impact that it had on me as a guy who had been entrenched in the hype and then saw it and went 'oh my god, this is no bullshit, I understand why everyone thinks this is the greatest movie of all time'. I love the second film, I think it's amazing, but it is not better than the first. And I don't care in this case about the quote, because the film was so good, it is literally on in a million, no other film made for commercial purposes has been or will ever be this good.

[K.C.]

One of my favorite scenes in any movie ever:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0OKIQ16a7VE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0OKIQ16a7VE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TripleSkeet]

And I can agree with Coppola about the Godfather series. It was unnecessary, but 2 was great and 3 was a piece of shit.

Well of course if it was actually necessary, that wouldve meant Part 1 wasnt as great as it shouldve been. As far as sequels to great movies go, this can always be said. I think the difference is unlike most sequels, this one was as good as the original.

[EliSnow]

Is there a second book?

There may be, but Godfather II was not based off of it. If I remember right, there is a portion of the book Godfather showing Vito Corleone's rise to power that was used in Godfather II, but the rest is original.

And I do agree with Coppola. Godfather II is unnecessary. First, it's structure was similar to Godfather I so it's not that original. Second, the story of the Godfather is the fall of Michael Corleone. You see a man, an army hero, who says that his world is not the same as his family's, but due to loyalty to his family and his love for his father, he adopts that world and becomes a murderer. One who even kills his godson's father.

You know at the end of Godfather that he has fallen. All Godfather II shows is how far he has fallen. It's sort of similar to the Matrix. At the end of the Matrix, Neo has realized his abilities and his destinies and tells the computers, he's going to change things. You know at the end of the Matrix, that he will change things. All Matrix II and III do is show how he did it.

The big difference is that Godfather II was a great, great movie whereas the Matrix movies are shite. So GII brilliant, great, etc, but in terms of the story, it's unnecessary.

[Kublakhan61]

I really need to see the second movie.

[TheMojoPin]

How is the structure of GF I and GF II similar?

[EliSnow]

How is the structure of GF I and GF II similar?

I may have been overstating, but I was thinking of how in each the family is attacked by other mob families, etc. and forced the family to "retreat." The family then regathered and multiple entites were killed in montage type scene near the end.

[TheMojoPin]

I may have been overstating, but I was thinking of how in each the family is attacked by other mob families, etc. and forced the family to "retreat." The family then regathered and multiple entites were killed in montage type scene near the end.

When do they "retreat" in GF II? Michael never backs down. And there really isn't a "montage" in II at all at the end. Everything is much more paced, selective, personal and deliberate.

[EliSnow]

When do they "retreat" in GF II? Michael never backs down. And there really isn't a "montage" in II at all at the end. Everything is much more paced, selective, personal and deliberate.

After the attack at his house, he sort of goes on the run. He leaves Nevada, and stays moving to make the business deals. He also tells Pantagellis not to strike back against the family linked to Roth that was encroaching upon his territory.

As for the montage, I'm talking about the scene where you see all of the the familiy's enemies killed at the same time. In GI, it occurred during the baptism. In GII, you see Roth, Fredo, and Pantagelli (suicide) meet their end. And while it's not a site I like to point to, this is from wikipedia:

The film reaches its climax in a montage of assassinations and death, reminiscent of the end of The Godfather:

[TheMojoPin]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]After the attack at his house, he sort of goes on the run. He leaves Nevada, and stays moving to make the business deals. He also tells Pantagellis not to strike back against the family linked to Roth that was encroaching upon his territory.

That's a pretty huge stretch. In GF I the Family is clearly reeling and on the ropes because of the Don being shot. It takes a desperate move by Michael to get out of it and he has to flee the country. In GF II Michael is never out of control. The head of the family isn't knocked out and they're always two steps ahead of everyone. If anything, it's the opposite of how GF I went down after an attack on the Don.

As for the montage, I'm talking about the scene where you see all of the the familiy's enemies killed at the same time. In GI, it occurred during the baptism. In GII, you see Roth, Fredo, and Pantagelli (suicide) meet their end. And while it's not a site I like to point to, this is from wikipedia:

They're completely different. What occurs in GF I is a montage, complete with swelling church music. Everyone is offed by hitmen (many of whom we don't even know) working for Michael. It's very cold and mechanical. What occurs in GF II are three very seperate and drawn out scenes shaped around each character and their storylines. The only thing that comes close to the montage of I is Roth's death, but there is far more emotional investment in these three deaths, both in who is dying and how we've gotten to that point.

Structurally speaking they're VERY different films.

[ChrisTheCop]

My god, this week I watched 88 Minutes AND Righteous Kill.
Watching that GodfatherII clip, one has to wonder what happened to Pacino?!?!