Talk:The Godfather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Godfather article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Rotten Tomatoes rating

As of today 21.04.2007. The godfather is currently #1 of The Best of the Best Pictures. peetig 23:32, 21 April 2007 (CET)

can you post a link to what you're looking at? Because at this, it's still #7. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. peetig 03:35 25 May 2007 (CET)
Interesting - that list seems to be the "Best Reviewed of the "Best Picture Winners", which doesn't seem to be the same thing as the Best of Rotten Tomotoes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the position of the cast list

The presentation of information in any article, including this one, should follow some sort of logical progression, usually based on some sense of chronology. A biographical article will usually, after the lede, follow the life of the subject in a sequential way, followed by other issues. An event in history will likewise be dealt with in chronological sequence: background, the history of what happened, aftereffects, etc. The placement is not determined by importance but by chronological or otherwise logical sequence.

The same thing should generally be true with an article about a film. We start with the lede, a short intro to generally present the film. If there is background material, it should come next, then we plunge into presenting the film itself (as opposed to facts and events surrounding the film.) First, like most movies themselves do, we present the main cast, just as an audience sitting down in a theatre to see a stage play will read their playbill to find out who's in the play and what characters they're playing, and then the synopsis of the plot -- our version of showing the film or performing the play. After the film is over, we then have the libertL; L;' L; 'L;'y to talk about things about the film: how it was made, how the casting came about, when it was released, what kind of business it did, what was the critical reaction, the sequeals, spin-offs and associated paraphenalia, and finally any interesting and relevant facts about the film that didn't easily fit into other sections of the article.

In this view of the proper format of the article, the cast list should come before the synopsis, not because it's more important, but because it's the place where that information is helpful to the reader who is about to plunge into the story of the film. Sure, many times we remind the reader in the synopsis who played who, but that information is going to be easier to assimilate having seen the cast list first.

As I said before, the cast list should also come first in analogy with films themselves, the large majority of which show cast lists before the film begins -- and even those that put the full cast list at the end, put the major players at the top. It's very few movies indeed that do not present some sort of cast information before the beginning of the film proper, or over the start of the story. Since our cast list is a truncated one, not a full cast list (which I don't advocate it to be) and since we have to choose whether to put the list before or after the movie, before is the right choice, the logical choice.

Think of the article as storytelling, and it's easier to see the point I'm trying to make. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is before the right choice? the logical choice? Films never start by introducing all characters and telling us who they are and what they do. It starts with the story. It allows us to figure out who the characters are as we continue watching how the story unfolds. I would be really disinterested in a film that told me, at the begining, what the characters do. I believe the plot section should come first because it unfolds the story. Take reading a book, for example. The book never introduces all characters at the beginning. It just tells the story.
We should remind the reader in the synopsis who played who. Why is it hard to assimilate? As soon as the reader reads about Vito, is he going to wonder who played Vito's sons? OR is he just going to continue reading the synopsis to see first whether Vito has a son or not? I think we always need to assume that the reader has never seen the film before.--Crzycheetah 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid some of what you said is not correct. Many films do indeed show the main cast (which is all we have in our cast list -- it's not meant to be an entire cast list -- people can go to IMDB for that) before the film. And, again, it's on the analogy of the playbill in the theatre that people look at while waiting for the play to start. (Only in that case it shows all the actors.

The cast of a film is one of its major assets -- in the case of some films (not the Godfather, of course), the stars are the only assets. Why not put that assest right up front? It's certainly an important part of the information about the film, as attested by the fact that IMDB puts the cast list immediately after their headers (which has the director and the writers and the tag lines). People come to an encyclopedia article to find out stuff, and one of the major things they might want to find out about a film is who was in it? Why bury that information farther down the page, nearer to the more esteric information about production and releases? I could see it if the cast list was meant to be exhaustive, like IMDB's, but it's not, it's just the major players.

No, I think that before the synopsis is really the best place for the cast list. 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You said it right! There are films where the stars are the only assets, but not for the Godfather. If the Godfather's story was crap, I wouldn't care who starred in it. I feel that thinking that the major asset of this film is the cast section is just disrespectful to this great piece of work. The story is the major asset of this film and should be the first section. Story >>> Cast any day. It's not like we are talking about The Postman (film) here.--Crzycheetah 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's disrespectful, it's simply a matter of presenting information in a coherent order, and in a way that presents what people might be referencing the article for higher up in the structure. I certainly agree that The Godfather is not one of those films in which the cast is the only assest, and that the story is very good -- but then so is the direction and the music and the photography, they are all excellent, and valuable assets. But still, any cast list which features Brando and Pacino and Duvall and the rest of this cast... well, it just can't be considered an insult to present actors of such quality before the synopsis. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment concerning Michael's military service

UM, Michael was part of the US ARMY, he's even waring a brown US ARMY dress Uniform, not the Deep dark Blue of a US Marine. and he Was if I'm not mistaken said to be part of the 82 Airborne, which is a US ARMY UNIT. Just a thought Therubicon 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've eliminated the specific reference to the branch of the military Michael served in, which is, in any case, irrelevant to the storyline. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Therubicon: in the very last segment of The Godfather, Part II, there is a reminiscence of a birthday party for Don Vito Corleone, before which his sons are having a discussion about the war. During this discussion, Michael announces that he has enlisted in the Marines, to which Sonny and Tom take umbrage, due to the Don's plans and arrangements for Michael to put to use his legal education in a law firm. So, yes, he is in the Marines. Besides, when watching the scene in The Godfather during which Michael is explaining some of the family's doings to Kay at Connie's wedding, you can see the bronze Marine's button on his uniform lapel. Eganio 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia, not sure where this would go...

From what I understand of Italian, it's very much like Spanish, that you use "Don" with the first name, not the last name. Thus, you would say "Don Vito" or "Don Michael", not "Don Corleone". I believe Mario Puzo was the one who ****ed it up (did not research Italian grammar) and came up with "Don Corleone", and Francis Ford Coppola actually criticized Puzo for this mistake, but it's so "ingrained" that he didn't correct it with the film version. Later real Mafia adopted the movie tradition and started using "Don" with surname instead. --?? Kschang77 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm Italian, and I can tell you that "Don" is used differently in Italian than it is in Spanish. In Italy Roman Catholic priests are usually referred to as "don" (usually written lowercase), either by their first or last name (don Mario or don Rossi). The Spanish acception to use it as a respect from (much like "Sir") is virtually dismissed in Italian, though it wasn't in the past (in I promessi sposi you can easily see both uses, with don Abbondio and don Rodrigo). In Italy the term still survives only with regard to Mafia bosses, especially because most mafia-like organizations have their roots in Southern Italy, which has been Hispanic and Bourbonic for centuries.
I don't think Mario Puzo hasn't "researched Italian grammar", since that kind of information was promptly available to him. While professional and honorary titles are ruled by the Italian law to appear before the first name (so that, for example, "On. Silvio Berlusconi" and "Berlusconi On. Silvio" are both correct, but "Silvio On. Berlusconi" or "On. Berlusconi Silvio" are not, despite their spread diffusion), there is no grammatical rule that specifies how "don" should be used, at least not that I know of. To this extent, "don" is the same as "dear" or "respectable". --Sk84 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone wasn't paying attention

The section about the Godfather Part II stated that the flashbacks detail Vito's arrival in America, rise to power, and "the births of his daughter Jessica Leigh". I don't know who put that in there, but I highly doubt they were paying attention to what they were writing at the time, because *none* of the Corleone kids were named Jessica, and unless there is something in the books, Vito didn't have any children that didn't survive to adulthood. I have corrected the sentence to read "the births of his children", as I don't remember how many of the kids they showed during the flashbacks before they got to the surprise party scene when they were all adults. LadyEternal 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Synopsis?

"The Don's oldest son, hotheaded Sonny, breaks ranks during the meeting and expresses disbelief at some of Sollozzo's promises." Isn't the issue that Sonny expresses interest in the deal with Sollozzo, not disbelief in his promises? As I recall, after Vito declines Sollozzo, Sonny says something to the effect of "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment..." -- arguing that the Corleones should make the deal, knowing their money would be secure. This is what prompts Sollozzo to make the attempt on Vito's life, putting Sonny in charge in hopes that he would make the deal. I'll go ahead and change this cause I'm pretty sure, but others may disagree.75.139.35.32 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what he said, but I was under the impression that Sonny was being sarcastic. --75.3.69.70 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I see someone edited this to "indirectly expresses interest", which is a good way to put it. My understanding is when Sonny says, "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment...", the end of that thought would be something like, "... so why should we be afraid to make this deal if we can't lose our money?" Vito, on the other hand, is considering the risk of losing not money, but prestige and political protection.75.139.35.32 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
May I attempt to clear this up? Sonny initially expresses interest in dealing with Sollozzo (as does Tom) due to the propensity for the family to make money off the narcotics trade (heroin, specifically) in which Sollozzo is involved. This occurs during a meeting between just the Don, Tom, and Sonny, immediately after Tom returns from Hollywood. Later, during the actual meeting with Sollozzo (at which all high-ranking members of the family are present, namely the Don, Tom, Sonny, Fredo, Clemenza, and Tessio), the Don refuses Sollozzo's request for capital and political/legal protection due to his fears that his political allies would not take kindly to his involvement in narcotics. This is the point at which Sonny expresses disbelief at Sollozzo's promise that the Tattaglia Family would guarantee the Corleone Family's investment, after which the Don chastises him for speaking his mind in front of a non-Family member. Does that help? Eganio 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Made several edits to the synopsis. Please review and re-edit as necessary. Eganio 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo's only son, or second son?

"Sofia Coppola as Michael Francis Rizzi — the only son of Carlo Rizzi."

"...baptism of Connie's and Carlo's second son, for whom he will be godfather."

I'm not too familiar with the story, so could somebody fix this? 69.220.2.188 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion/lack of note references

Though there is references to notes littered throughout the article, there is no corresponding note section (much less actual links) for each of these references, and as such the numbered links lead nowhere, and most of the claims are unsupported. If there was a note section at some point (which there must have been for the references to be present) I don't know why it would have been deleted, and it ought to be returned, or else the claims made in the article should be referenced to new links in a new note section, or at the very least, the references should be deleted and replaced with indications that citations are needed, as not to fool readers into thinking that the article has supported claims. Lego dude88 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Just as a throw in the the orange legend. An Orange is offered to Michael at the beginning of the sequel and he refuses, he doesn't die in the ensuing assasination attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?! No one offers Michael an orange in The Godfather. In The Godfather Part II, Johnny Ola gives Michael an orange from Miami when visiting him in Lake Tahoe, but Michael does not refuse it. To what "orange legend" are you referring? Eganio 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted a couple hastily added sentences.

Deleted: "this is one of the most shocking scenes in the entire film.", "This scene alone makes you so angry at the Tattaliga's." ClickClickDerp 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "differences" section

Critic #1 says Movie A is "Funny". Critics #2 says Movie A is "Not funny." I write: "Critics disagree whether the film is funny or not."

This is not "original research", this is observation.

Book B says Character C has blonde hair. Movie B made from Book B depicts character C with red hair. I write "The movie differs from the book in the color of Character C's hair."

This is not "original research", this is observation.

The best source of information about a media object -- book, recording, film, whatever -- is the object itself, which can be examined by anyone to confirm what's been written about it. There is no need for another party to make observations that the editor can make directly. (Conclusions about the meaning, purpose, or reason for such differences are another matter -- as they are not direct observations.)

For these reasons I have reverted the deletion of the "differences" section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocco Lampone — not a caporegime

Rocco was not a caporegime in the Corleone family. In the time frame of the movie Tessio and Clemenza were the only caporegimes. Why was this edit undone? --Kenhullett (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocco became a de facto caporegime when Michael started to build a force of men (a "regime") seperate from Tessio and Clemenza in preparation for the move to Las Vegas and the settling of family scores. Tom Hagen complains about this to Michael in the scene where Tessio and Clemenza ask to break off from the family, and Tom Hagen is told that he is no longer consigliere. Hagen noticed the secret regime being built under Rocco, that the men are too good for their jobs and are being paid more than they're worth, and Don Corleone remarks to Michael "I told you this wouldn't escape his eye." A new regime, with Rocco as the head ("capo") makes Rocco a caporegime, although only the Don and Michael (and Hagen) know it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace

Instead of turning this into a lame edit war, maybe it's a good idea to discuss if additional whitespace after the lead is needed. I don't believe it is, but let's get some consensus on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss it!

One of my primary concerns in editing on Wikipedia is to improve reader usability. It seems to me often the case that little thought is given to the fact that Wikipedia exists for the user and not for the editor, and therefore anything which helps to improve the readability of an article is a positive thing, as the easier it is to read, the easier it is to use. I follow this precept not only in the many copyedits that I do, attempting to make sure that the text is clear and says what it means to say (as well as saying what is accurate, of course), but also in looking at an article's layout, use of whitespace, size of images and so on. Anything that improves the flow of the article for the reader is (all other things being equal) good, and anything that detracts from that flow is bad and should be changed.

In this instance, for some reason I've never quite understood, the system automatically places the table of contents extremely close to the end of the lede, and the visual impact of that is, to the discerning eye, interruptive. The lede is exactly what it says, the beginning of the article, a nugget (although some are rather oversized nuggets!) which should be able to stand alone and tell the reader a minimally sufficient amount about the subject so that they know they've come to the right place, and can decide if they want to go on. A good lede will answer many of a reader's immediate questions about the subject, but not drown them in details.

Because it can stand alone, it should indeed visually stand very slightly apart from the body of the article, and this is hard to do when the TOC is bumping right up against it from below. It's visually disruptive and not ... well, aesthetically pleasing is really the best way to describe it. I find that a couple of blank lines at the end of the lede help to move the TOC away from the end of the section, and provide the visual balance that I think is called for.

I'm not a maniac in proselytizing this belief, I haven't (as I've seen others do with their pet issues) created a robot to wander aimlessly throughout Wikipedia inserting blank lines at the end of every lede. In fact, I don't even do it myself to the vast majority of articles I've edited. However, there are some articles that I've taken a special interest in, and have worked diligently on over the years, and for those articles, I do like to insert those extra lines and create some "breathing room" (if you will) for the lede.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. They may be daft, but they are at least (I hope!) coherent. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One further thought, if I may -- to call it a "whitespace" issue is, I think, somewhat misleading. I am very aware that many articles have too much whitespace in them, mostly because of misplaced images, and whenever I come across it I take pains to fix the problem. I know that too much blank space is just as disruptive as too little, but what I'm looking for is a balance between the two. In this instance, the space I'm trying to insure between the end of the lede and the top of the TOC is really no more disruptive than the space between one section and another. In the latter case that space is automatically created by the system software, but in the former it is not, and needs to be inserted by hand. Imagine how unreadable articles would be if all those spaces were collapsed and every section began immediately after the one above! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see also that an argument has been made that "there is no point to putting this whitespace here, if anything it looks odd to the reader who has been viewing other articles that lack this whitespace". I think I've sufficiently laid out the reasons I believe there is a "point" to the extra blank lines (which incidentally, the system compresses to about the equivalent of a line and a half of print) where I've inserted them, but the second part of the argument is also unconvincing -- that a reader, used to the visual relationship between the lede and the table of contents in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, would come across one where I've inserted extra lines, and be... what, struck by the oddity of it?! To the extent that it would inhibit their reading of the article? Or something like that.

This is just plain silly, really, because most readers will not notice it one way or the other, just as most readers do not notice effective layouts in magazines, advertisements or other media. The effect is subtle, and not one that most people will be aware of -- but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to readability! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mirrored

i don't know how to change this but the image of the godfather is mirrored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.31.198 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've flipped it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing credit

I don't know if Robert Towne was an uncredited writer for The Godfather or not -- if he was, if would be good to have it in the article -- but since it's an unsual piece of information which has never been mentioned before, you're going to need a reference to back it up, some authoritative source to cite which says that Towne was involved. Continuing to add the information without the citation isn't going to help, because it's going to continue to be deleted without some sort of backing. Get a cite, and you're in! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation in a reliable source (the New York Times), so I restored the information, with the cite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Ford Coppola

He directed four previous features: Dementia 13, You're A Big Boy Now, Finian's Rainbow and The Rain People. Who ever keeps changing it to 8 films is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.84.218 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I pointed you to IMDB before, but you apparenly haven't been there:

  • The Godfather (1972)
  • ... aka Mario Puzo's The Godfather (USA: complete title)
  • 1 The Rain People (1969)
  • 2 Finian's Rainbow (1968)
  • 3 You're a Big Boy Now (1966)
  • 4 Dementia 13 (1963) (as Francis Coppola)
  • ... aka The Haunted and the Hunted (UK)
  • 5 The Terror (1963) (uncredited)
  • ... aka Lady of the Shadows
  • ... aka Roger Corman's The Terror (USA: uncensored intended title)
  • ... aka Roger Corman's The Terror: Original Uncut Version (USA)
  • ... aka The Castle of Terror
  • ... aka The Haunting (USA: TV title)
  • 6 Tonight for Sure (1962)
  • ... aka Meet Me Tonight for Sure (USA: bowdlerized title)
  • ... aka Tonite for Sure
  • ... aka Wide Open Spaces
  • 7 The Bellboy and the Playgirls (1962)
  • ... aka Mit Eva fing die Sünde an (West Germany)
  • ... aka The Playgirls and the Bellboy
  • 8 Nebo zovyot (1960) (as Thomas Colchart) (re-edited version with new footage)
  • ... aka Battle Beyond the Sun (USA)
  • ... aka The Heavens Call
  • ... aka The Sky Calls
  • ... aka The Sky Is Calling

That's eight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] color blue for cast

I added Julie Gregg as Sandra Corleone to the cast list, but while all cast members are in blue, mine is a sort of grey. I used all the same descriptions in the edit. What's making the blue? Jlawniczak (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing blue. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Speak Softly, Love" is the main theme?

The article names "Speak Softly Love" as the main theme, but it's noted in the CD that is considered the love theme. The actual main theme, as I know it, is "the Godfather Waltz". Why? Several reasons. "Speak Softly Love" is only played in the scenes in Sicily, and represents mostly the love between Michael and Apollonia and Sicily itself ("Sicilian Pastorale" is the first track to feature the love theme), but this isn't the main core for the movie. This not only happens in the original, but also in part III. The Waltz serves as a theme for Don Vito Corleone and as a new theme for Michael, after he's the head of the Family. So it represents the Godfather itself, that is, his power and presence. You can notice it in all of the openings for the three movies, although part II features the theme morphing into Michael's theme ("The New Godfather"). I'm no specialist in music, but I think it's wrong to consider "Speak Softly Love" as the main theme. --Surten (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Surten


[edit] Vandalism

There is some mindles vandalism in the box with the details of the film. E.g. Director: Samuel L. Jackson. 58.174.40.240 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Length of Plot

I just have a suggestion: As a reader I would like to get an idea of the plot within a few seconds. Therefore I would recommend to include - besides the very detailed description of the plot - a short summary what's the film about. This would be a more "encyclopedic" style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.199.96 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brando vs. Pacino

marlon brando before alpachino?

i just think thats micheal corlone is more of an important character than vito colerone because vito isnt even in half the movie so im changing the way the cast lists.

Brando was an established star at the time, Pacino was not. Brando had top billing, Pacino did not. Vito is "the Godfather", the titular character for most of the movie, Michael is only "the Godfather" for the last part. I've reverted your edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ed, it goes without saying that your revert was correct. But to whom the term "Godfather" refers is subject to some question. I mean, who is the key character of Star Wars? If you only saw the first movie (Episode IV) you would clearly believe that the movie was about Luke Skywalker. But seen en toto, the Star Wars saga is clearly the story of Anakin Skywalker. Similarly, the term "Godfather" appears to be about Vito, seeing only this movie. But taken as a single entity (Parts I, II, and III), it seems clear it is the story of Michael Corleone, methinks. None of this is relevant to the issue of the revert, however, since a) this article is about this particular part of the movie, and b) it is up to the studios, not Wikieditors, to determine billing. (who else would've given James Cagney lead billing in Ragtime?) Unschool (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis 100% - I'd say that by the end of even the first film, it's reasonable to see "The Godfather" as referring to Michael, and not Vito. But, as you say, that doesn't change the realities of billing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a crime film?

Earlier this month, I changed an edit that called The Godfather a "crime drama" in the opening sentence. I felt that his was too narrow a perspective, besides which, I thought, it made it sound like a weekly TV series on the par with Cagney & Lacey. Anyway, a well-intentioned anon has just made the wording a "crime film". I still think that this is way too limiting. The Godfather is, yes, about crime, but it is just as much about family, it is about the ethnic experience in America, etc.

I don't find the current version using "crime film" as bad as "crime drama" was, but I still don't like it. I am wondering what others think. Unschool (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I thought I'd reverted that, but you must've beaten me to it! Anyway, FWIW, I reckon it's too limiting to describe it as a "crime film" as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Crime film still appears at the start of the Godfather article. It cross references to the entry on crime film which gives the Godfather as one example of a crime film. So if crime film is removed from the Godfather, then the Godfather should also, for consistency) be removed as an example of a crime film. The Godfather is certainly a crime film using those words in their ordinary English usage, but I agree that to pigeonhole it into a genre of "crime film" is limiting. Seems like a close call to me, but I'd probably take it out, Jlawniczak (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired By Films

Shouldn't there be a note about other films that were inspired by it, most recently the Indian Sarkar and Sarkar Raj? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.202.33 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- why don't you add that to the article?

BTW, new comments should go on the bottom of the page, and you should sign your comment by using 4 tildes (~). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)