Talk:The Godfather Part III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Godfather Part III article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Other languages This portal has been identified as having a featured counter-part at the French language Wikipedia. You may be able to improve this article with information from fr:Le Parrain, 3ème partie.

Contents

[edit] Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration

Fans of The Godfather may wish to participate in the AfD debate concerning whether the article The Godfather films in popular culture, which was spun off from this article to keep it from being too unwieldy, should be deleted. That debate can be found here. The article in question provides a place for people to note instances which illustrate the continuing influence of The Godfather and its sequels on films, TV shows and other popular culture media. Ed Fitzgerald 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Don Lucchesi

On the Director's Commentary track on The Godfather Part III DVD, Francis Ford Coppola mention that the character of Don Licio Lucchesi was based on a well-known Italian public figure that he never names; it seems to me it would be Giulio Andreotti, former prime minister, convicted in link with the mafia, but I am not 100% sure -- does anyone know better?

[edit] Move to The Godfather Part III

To keep in line with the naming The Godfather Part II. I propose the removal of the comma since it doesn't appear in the movie posters, etc. Google doesn't care if it's a comma, a colon or nothing; google return some 128,000 hits for each.

I don't care if the comma is removed from part 3 or a comma is added to part 2. Either way, they should be with the same naming convention.

Note that the Back to the Future trilogy doesn't have a comma: Back to the Future Part II & Back to the Future Part III. This is why removal of the comma gets my vote.

Full article names (no redirects):

Please put discussion in the appropriate section and leave votes only in the preceeding sections.

[edit] Remove comma from part 3

  1. Cburnett 00:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. sjorford:// 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add comma to part 2

[edit] No moving

  1. Agquarx 10:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. * Strenuously Oppose on principle until the discussion on this requested move is brought back to Wikipedia:Requested moves where it rightfully belongs and Cburnett follows the instructions for Wikipedia:Requested moves as enumerated on that page. —ExplorerCDT 23:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other votes

  1. Neutral —ExplorerCDT 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) (moved from WP:RM by cburnett)
Vote changed as above. —ExplorerCDT 23:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

See also all the Star Wars series: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and so on. sjorford:// 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is slightly different. "The Empire Strikes Back" is the subtitle of the film just like "The Fellowship of the Ring". I guess I don't see "Part II" as a subtitle. Regardless, though, part 2 & 3 should be named the same, which is why I don't get Agquarx's vote of no move.

IMDb titles it The Godfather: Part III. We must decide whether the lack of punctuation as proposed by CBurnett, or followimg IMDb's lead with a colon, is the correct course of action. —ExplorerCDT 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DISCUSSION MOVED FROM THE REQUESTED MOVES PAGE? THE PAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE DISCUSSION (READ THE TEMPLATE ABOVE), THE PAGE ISN'T INTENDED TO DIRECT EVERYONE AWAY TO DISCUSS IT ELSEWHERE. MOVE THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO THE REQUESTED MOVES PAGE WHERE IT BELONGS. —ExplorerCDT 23:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I've moved the page now since there doesn't seem to be any real opposition. Cburnett 21:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a whole lotta "Who cares?" Seriously, dudes, this is NOT anywhere near important enough to waste this much digital "ink" (so to speak) about. PainMan 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved again

I've moved this back again, from The Godfather: Part III to The Godfather Part III. The situation hasn't changed from the previous discussion, but I'll particularly note:

  • There's no need to blindly follow the IMDb, as they have their own rules and we have ours;
  • There's no "official" colon or comma in the title - they're not seen when the title is on two lines (such as posters etc.), and only when it's run into one line;
  • All of the examples I gave above stand - a colon is typically used after an ordinal, and before a subtitle; "Part II" is an ordinal.

sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


This just does NOT matter. The only relevant point is that there's no reason to be slavish in following IMDb's protocol's. The name(s) of the film(s) should be the titles they were given at release (or in George Lucas's case, re-release.) Excepting that...LET IT GO. Surely there are more important things to do, such as fighting the Left-Liberal bias that suffuses Wikipedia. PainMan 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Plot Review

I have just recently finished the complete editing of the Plot section of the three films, The Godfather, and Part II and Part III. I considered that such an influential trilogy required a more delicate and extensive treatment.

AND the movie is much larger than wat it should hav been considering Godfather Part III to be a commercial film unlike the earlier parts.

If you think that the Plot section is too long, you should consider that each film is almost three hours in length, which is larger than most commercial movies. However, I think that it is long enough just to cover two complete screens. That is, in a monitor with a display resolution of 1280x1024 you should be able to read it while scrolling the screen only twice. A smaller, or not as complicated, movie could very well fit in just one screen.

You could post your comments here once you have heavily edited the Plot again, and the reasons for it. If you edit something small, correct the orthography, fix the markup or the links, or rephrase a paragraph while maintaining the same ideas and length, then there would be no need to post.

Just remember, this is NOT a forum.15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am totally upset with the new Plot Revision that user Tommyt and 67.104.30.194 started since the beginning of November 2006.
I think the revision is weak and too short. I can only think that they did this beacause they don't like the movie, and thought that a lesser section would suffice. The new version lacks a lot of information and links. I could imply some vandalism.
VANDALISM??? Why??? Since Wpedia is the "online encyc that anyone can edit" I made some changes. I'm actually kind of insulted you'd suggest that I was trying to vandalize the article. I went thru the synopsis & tried to clean up the grammar. If you look in the history file at the vers before my 1st change you'll see that someone actually inserted the word "Ouch." after mentioning that Vincent bites Zasa on the ear. Totally stupid. There were also unnecessary phrases & a few places where the grammar could be tightened up so the article doesn't sound so bloated. Also, inserting quotes in a synopsis is usually unneeded, take a look at the history for Apocalypse Now (not to get a Coppola theme going here...) you'll see that someone inserted the entire speech Kurtz gives near the end, totally unnecessary to the synopsis. Also, about the article being too short, we're talking about a plot synopsis here, not a complete rehash of every single moment of the film. We don't have to write an entire novel; details like Vincent biting Zasa's ear are fine but incl a whole speech or quote from the film is irrelevant to explaining the plot. Tommyt 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I will wait to see if I can switch back to an older version. You can help by viewing, in the history, the last version of October 2006. 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just read the plot review on this page today (June 7th, 2007) I think someone needs to elaborate on the Immobiliare aspects of the plot.


I've made a few minor changes to the final paragraph of the plot section - i removed the sentence which said that he dies from "a heart attack or stroke"..If there's anything that anyone disagrees with, please feel free to change itAlpha Five 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, made several edits to the plot synopsis: cleaned up some grammar, corrected a few misinterpretations, and added a little more meat to the Immobiliare section. Please review and edit where appropriate. Eganio 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year

I have chosen to delete the claim that it was a mistake for it to be set from 1979 onwards because it contains events shown earlier. I deleted it because the trilogy is a work of fiction. If somebody is going to claim that it was a mistake for events from 1978 be represented in this film, they should also complain that Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Copolla did not do their research to confirm that every other event in the trilogy occurred in reality. It's the same as having a trivia point being dedicated to the fact that the character Michael Corleone (as he is shown in the film) did not exist in reality. 131.170.90.2 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Cage

What? He's not listed in the IMDB, either in Godfather III or in his own. I think someone is mistaking Nicholas GAGE, an Executive Producer for him. Jachra 03:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Michael Corleone in 97 SV.png

Image:Michael Corleone in 97 SV.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Zasa

Although the article states that Zasa is similar to Gotti, I have always thought the relsemblance was more to Joe Columbo. Columbo was always publicly claiming that there was no mafia and that it all was a plot by the FBI to impinge on the civil rights of Italian Americans. Like Zasa, Columbo was publicly gunned down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)