Talk:The Godfather Part II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Godfather Part II 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.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Yep, I made the same mistake on several other sites -- my apology. Ed Fitzgerald 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

See Talk:The Godfather Part III for discussion on the title of this article. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed error

Pentagali is clearly set up by Roth. There are heavy indications that Roth is the one who engineered Pentagali's attempted murder, and that Michael trusted Pentangeli and didn't actually try to kill him until later on when Roth used him. As such, the paragraph about the 'plot hole' involving Pentangeli's murder is divined more from the fact that it's never stated explicitly who tried to kill him rather than the fact that it's not made clear.


I don't think it is so clear that Roth set up Pentangeli. Why would the garroter state, "Michael Corleone says 'Hello'" if the hit was from Roth? Was that just to trick Pentangeli into thinking it was from Michael? If so, why bother if he's supposed to be murdered anyway? On the other hand, if it was all just a ruse to get Pentangeli to testify against Michael in the Senate, then did Roth plan everything, including the cop interrupting the garroting and the gun fight in the street? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.103.194 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Roth planned the arrival of the "cop" to interrupt the fake murder attempt so that Pentangeli would would testify against Michael. That is the central plot twist of the movie. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.143.168 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Roth had that much foresight and could plan that well? That plan is so improbable - that he could fake a garroting, without actually killing Pentangali, have a "cop" walk into the bar at the precise moment of the fake garroting, make everyone in the bar act like the "cop" is a real cop and are surprised by his presence, including the barkeep yelling, "Not in here!" when that one gangster takes out his gun, and then have a gunfight in the street. There's so many ways this plan could go wrong.

What's more probable - it's a plot hole and Puzo and Coppola forgot to address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.28 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vito's arrival to New York

Vito, as a child, doesn't fly to America, he goes in a ship.

Yes, it would have been very difficult for Vito to fly to America in 1901, since commercial air travel did not yet exist! Eganio 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-commercial flight didn't even exist -- BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.177.172 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Celebration during Don Fannuci's Murder

Does anyone know what the holiday that was being celebrated in the streets of Little Italy is called. Its that scene where Vito kills Don Fannuci, I was just wondering what holiday that was.

I believe it is the Feast of San Gennaro (Last Man Standing 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
  • It's the San Rocco Festival. VirgilCoolerKingHilts 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFI List

Isn't Godfather Part II the only sequal on the AFI top 100 list?

[edit] plot - ending

Pentangeli was never murdered. He committed suicide.--Vindicta 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


I believe that Fredo did not say the Hail Mary to catach a fish...he knew he was going to be killed.

209.94.195.181 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)July 19 2007

Maybe so, but it is OR, regardless. We really do not know what he was thinking or why he said the Hail Mary, and it is better left up to the viewer to decide, which, IMO, was the original intent of such ambiguity. Eganio 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trivia

I'm considering removing the bit where it said the reasons for Pentangeli having a change of heart during the trial is vague. There are many points in the film that stresses the reason through dialogue, and it is very obvious from the camera view of Pentangeli making a decision to change his mind.--Vindicta 21:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the section describing David Brent. Ricky Gervais and Steve Carrell play entirely different characters: David Brent and Michael Scott, respectively. Carrell's Scott is certainly modeled after Gervai's Brent, but as The Office (US) has progressed, the two characters have diverged significantly.

Terrific. Have you made those changes on the page they belonged on? PacificBoy 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis/Plot rewrite

The wholesale rewrite of the Plot section by user Flash-Gordon was not acceptable to me, in that it substituted general description for a detailed synopsis of the plot, which, to my understanding, is the purpose of that section. I've reverted to the previous version until the purpose of having a Plot section can be discussed here and agreed on. unfutz 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked on re-writes for several synopsis (Batman (1989 film), Batman Returns, Batman Begins, Alien Vs. Predator...) and it has generally been agreed in every instance that it is not neccesary for there to be long-winded, spolier filled syopsis for films here on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an online Sparks Notes guide, storyline sections should give concise overviews of films, not these "play by play" essays. People want a general background, not a breakdown of every scene of the film. I'm happy for my work to be edited, but this formatting is more in keeping with an encyclopedic entry. Full-bore breakdowns belong elsewhere. --Flash-Gordon 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What you've provided is not a plot synopsis at all, it is a short desription of the basis for the plot. I'm reverting to the plot synopsis that existed previously, which has been worked on by a large number of contributors, until there's been a full and open discussion here, as I requested before, of which is preferred, a true re-telling of the plot of the movie, or a brief and uninformative description of the basis of the movie's plot. unfutz 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
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. 15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I incorrectly reverted an edit by The Filmaker to the synopsis, thinking that some vital information had been dropped. The Filmmaker restored it, commenting that no information was removed -- and that is correct, I was wrong. The Filmaker also comments that the synopsis needs to be shortened, and I both agree and disagree. The synopsis certainly needs to be totally rewritten for style, with compound sentences and paragraphs that hang together and are readable -- as it stands now it's a never-ending series of simple sentences that is virtually impossible to read for any length of time. Such a re-write with almost certainly be somewhat shorter, but even if it is the same length, it will seem shorter because it will be more comprehensible. On the other hand, I am very opposed to converting the synopsis into a description of the plot as was attempted earlier (see above), and would prefer to see any rewrite retain the majority of the description of the action of the film it now contains. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, a synopsis is: A brief outline or general view, as of a subject or written work; an abstract or a summary. So as you can see, the purpose of the synopsis is to describe the plot, not the artistic view. You will see with film articles, such as Revenge of the Sith and Serenity (film), that a large amount of information has been removed from the synopses. Why? Because it is not essential to understanding the plot of the film. We are not attempting to write a novelization, it is an attempt at being informative. The Filmaker 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid your defintion doesn't actually support your point. Let's look at the Wikitionary definition: a brief outline of something, especially of a written work; an abridgment, abstract or condensation. Yep, same thing -- not a description of something, a condensation of itm -- that means a reduction. Reader Digest Condensed Books weren't re-tellings or descriptions, they used the actual material and eliminated some to make them shorter. Here, since we're translating from one media to another, we necessarily have to describe what's happening before it can be condensed or synopsized, but the descriptions should be NPOV and neutral, and the process of synopsizing should be reductive and not descriptive.
Allow me to give you an example:
"At 5am, before the sun came up, Bob woke up. He showered and shaved and ate a hearty breakfast of eggs, bacon toast and orage juice, then put on his best suit -- the new gray one that his mother had liked so much. In the glomming of the early morning, he got into his battered '96 Corolla hatchback, buckled up and drove to the office via the new bypass, humming along with the Beatles tunes playing on the oldies station he enjoyed listening to each morning. Entering the building where he worked without anyone seeing him, Bob quietly walked to the office of his supervisor, old Mr. Quigley, opened the door, and immediately shot his boss in the back of the head with a shotgun."
A synopsis of that passage might be "One morning, Bob shoots his boss with a shotgun." That's a abdrigement, a condensation. On the other hand, a description of the passage might be "On what seems at first like an ordinary day, Bob surpises us by shooting his boss."
You do see the difference, don't you? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but perhaps I missed construed your suggestion. I was under the impression that you were suggesting leaving in the fine details, i.e. something akin to this "On what seems at first like an ordinary day, Bob drives to work and surpises us by shooting his boss." in this case "drives to work and" is not essential to understanding the plot. And therefore should be eliminated. The Filmaker 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that level of detail is unimportant, unless the fact he drives to work in some way figures into the plot later on in the story. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

This is in Category:Spanish-language films but Spanish isn't listed in the box. -- Beardo 05:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Question

"De Niro auditioned for the part of Michael Corleone in The Godfather. He was instead cast as Paulie Gatto, the soldier who betrays the family. Al Pacino was working on the 1973 release Bang the Drum Slowly. Feeling that Pacino was a good fit for the part of Michael, Francis Ford Coppola traded De Niro for Pacino. Remembering his talent, Coppola brought De Niro back to play young Vito Corleone in The Godfather II"

Paulie Gatto was actually played by John Martino (according to IMDB). Was De Niro originally cast as Michael and then dropped when Coppola got his first choice of Pacino, or was De Niro actually originally cast as Gatto and was forced to decline for some other unknown reason?

I don't know that I particularly buy this story (I'd love to see a citation for it), but the way I read what's been posted, Coppola engineered a "trade", so that Pacino (who was cast in "Bang the Drum Slowly") came to "The Godfather" and De Niro (who was cast as Paulie) went to "Bang the Drum Slowly", making it necessary to cast another actor as Paulie. For both De Niro and Pacino, such a trade would have been a move upwards (for De Niro from a minor role to a major one, and for Pacino for a part in a meatier film), so it makes sense for them, but why Paramount would have agreed, or the people in charge of "Bang", I don't know. As I said, I'd like a citation. unfutz 05:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation has been posted, and I've slightly re-written the entry to better comport with the information in the citation. unfutz 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocco Lampone

Is he killed when he is shot after killing Roth? Or is he just wounded?

Unclear, as far as I know. I think it's intentionally left that way, because it really is a minor detail. Rocco was always little more than a side-character, even as a caporegime. Eganio 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Overly long plot" tag

I moved the "plot" tag from the article to the talk page. While I agree that the synopsis is much too long and needs significant editing, the "plot" tag is really addressed to people who edit Wikipedia and doesn't need to be seen by the general public. In fact, in general articles are tagged much too often for things which are of interest only to editors and not to users -- those tags are more appropriates placed on the talk page rather than in the article. An overabundance of tags makes Wikipedia articles ugly and more difficult for the user to read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I do agree that tags are too often used and can clutter up articles, but the point stands that the plot is grossly bloated and attention must be drawn to it. Aesthetics cannot and should not be used as a legitimate reason to remove this template when its purpose is to categorize the article into Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention; it is not meant to categorize the talk page. (By the way, that's how I came here.) It doesn't belong here. I think it best for it to be integrated back into the article. Hopefully someone will cut down the plot relatively soon and the template will no longer be needed. María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of who the tag is addressed to, the people who use Wikipedia as a reference or the people who edit Wikipedia articles. There are certainly tags that it can be argued are addressed (at least in part) to the reader, but the "plot too long" tag is not one of them. The ordinary reader of the article doesn't have any interest in knowing that, and there's little reason to point it out to them (it can only make them think worse about the article than they might otherwise) -- having that tag in the article just gets in the way. The people that the "plot too long" tag is addresses to are the people who edit Wikipedia articles, and they'll either see it on the talk page, or they'll realize it themselves on reading the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, aesthetics has nothing to do with it because it's about categorization. It comes down to this: the plot is too long and needs to be trimmed, the template must be utilized in order to categorize it as needing assistance, and therefore the template must be attached to the article, not the article's talk page. Personal likes and dislikes aside, the suggestion that articles need to be beautified for a greater audience is, frankly, silly. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and all articles are under constant construction, ugly tags or no. There are almost six hundred articles listed at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, with only four articles that link to a talk page (one of which is also linked in the article). I'm sorry, but you're in the minority. If you need further explanation, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, which states "Unless otherwise noted, [templates] should be placed at the top of the article." You can also always ask an admin for their opinion. For now I'm going to integrate the template back into the article. María (habla conmigo) 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not at all silly - and it's not a matter of making the article "pretty" (although that's nothing to be sneered at), it's about functionality. Although Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, in point of fact there are people who simply use it as a resource (and perhaps occasionally try a tweak or two), and people who get involved with editing on a more consistent basis, and the "plot too long" tag is most definitely aimed at the latter -- the former cares not a whit about it, and its existence in the article inhibits the use of the article by those who don't edit.

You see it's a question of functionality, not aesthetics. Suppose you were to walk into the local public library and pull out a volume of an encyclopedia, and found that the pages were marked up with notes from one editor to another: "we need to add more citations here", "we've got to trim this section down, it's too long", "this article doesn't come up to our ideal specifications for one of this type" and so on. It's true that this messages from one editor to another don't obscure the text, but they are, to put it mildly, very annoying, and sooner or later the person using that encyclopedia as a reference is going to switch to another one, one that just presents the information clearly and concisely, without exposing the nuts and bolts of encyclopedia-constuction to the general user, whose only interest is to find out a fact or get some basic knowledge about a subject.

The insistence on putting what are essentially in-house clerical tags on an article, as opposed to on the talk page (the equivalent of an intra-office memo for our real-world encyclopedia editors) raises the interests of the editors above the interests of the consumers, and what, after all is the purpose of the encyclopedia anyway, to serve the people who use it or the convenience of the people who edit it? (Please, don't tell me that those groups are one and the same, that's true only in theory, not in actuality.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we both agree that the synopsis is too long, so I think it might be time better spent editing it rather than bouncing this back and forth between us. I'm going there now to try and do some trimming. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie in years; I wouldn't feel comfortable tweaking the plot at this time. When I came across this page, I was looking through the category to see what plots I could trim, and noticed that this talk page incorrectly linked. Regardless of whatever personal crusade you may be on to redefine Wikipedia standards, you are still ignoring several key points, some of which I will reiterate but will not spend more time attempting to convince you of your errors: templates are not merely "tags," Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, any reader is a potential editor, and there are thousands of articles (not talk pages) that are tagged as needing clean-up, mainly due to common sense. It's the article that needs clean-up, not the talk page. If you have issues with any of these, take it to a help desk or general discussion page. I'll leave this article alone for now, but please do not interfere with templates on other articles in a similar way; The Godfather seems to be your baby, which is cool, but you must adhere to the norm and what is considered correct formatting on Wikipedia. As I said, you're in the minority. You also have a lot more to learn here on Wiki. Good luck. María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop wrangling over the plot synopsis being too long. The film itself is 200 minutes in length, and covers two rich, detailed story lines. We can therefore expect a synopsis to be quite long as well. In fact, considering the length of the film, and the incredible detail that accompanies the story lines, I'd say the synopsis does a damn good job of summarizing everything without being overly long. Others may disagree, but it seems to me that the major points are there, and any effluvium has been selectively omitted in the interest of brevity. I did some editing myself, mainly correcting misconceptions and removing/adding detail where necessary, but I think the synopsis is as concise as it can be. Eganio 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have a synopsis here, you've a point-by-point recitation of the plot. None of it has been summarized.--Lepeu1999 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, good point. I think I was in denial of this inescapable truth, owing to the daunting nature of summarization of the plot, which will be quite an undertaking...stay tuned. Eganio 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of plot section

I removed some formatting from the plot section, explaining in the edit summary that the formatting made the section unreadable. The edits were reverted without any comment. I'm not going to repeat my removal of the bolding and italicising (and indent), but my comment stands; it makes the section unreadable. Furthermore, per my edit summary, I think that if fancy formatting is necessary in order to make a plot summary understandable, it's not a very good plot summary. A good summary should be clear and concise enough that it doesn't need special formatting in order to be understood. Anchoress 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version, also repeating the removal of the the redundant warning tags around the clearly marked Synopsis, previously removed by David Gerard and Kusma, and twice restored without a proper edit summary by Ed Fitzgerald. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The formatting is essential. The spoiler discussion is ongoing and the result should not be preempted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, no formatting on Wikipedia is 'essential'. The thrust of our content should be communicated through tight, scintillating prose, not through formatting wizardry. Anchoress 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'm more interested in practical results than in rhetorical overstatement. Certainly prose is, in the vast majority of cases, more than sufficient to adequately present a synopsis, but in this case, with two complex interwoven storylines, connected thematically but not overlapping, presention of both storylines in a manner similar to the film is essential to properly describe the movie. I've chosen this particular way to do it, but there are certainly others -- if someone has a practical idea for the presentation, I'm all for seeing it, but you cannot simply do away with the current formatting and walk away and call it a day. Without the visual cues the formatting provides to set off the two storylines, the text makes no sense at all. If there's no separation by formatting, you have to add in descriptive phrases on the order of: "In the modern story..." "Returning to the flashbacks..." or their equivalent. Doing this simply increases the size of the synopsis without providing any more information than the formatting supplies, and at the cost of additional length to what is (still) a somewhat long synopsis -- besides which it's incredible clumsy and boring. The formatting will remain until someone comes up with a viable alternative.
As for the spoiler warnings -- there is an ongoing discussion about spoilers and how (and if) they should be used. Removing them before a consensus is determined is a pre-emptive action that goes against Wikipedian mores. Until the consensus is reached, the status quo should prevail, and that means spoler warnings will stay. I cannot restore the literally hundred of spoiler warning that a small group of people have seen fit to unilaterally take away, prejuding the end of the spoiler debate, but I will continue to do so for every article that I've taken a direct interest in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


The second paragraph under "Plot" is indented and italicized. I can see no reason for this. I have never seen the film; is this info displayed on screen or spoken by a character? If so, the paragraph should be identified as such. Otherwise the special formatting is merely ... odd. Typically indented paragraphs should be reserved for direct quotes of over 50 words. There are 5 more paragraphs with the same inexplicable formatting which are clearly NOT quotes from the movie. Can somebody please either explain it, cite it, or correct it? (Upon reading this discussion more carefully, I see that I am not the only proponent of cleaning this up. I throw my support behind the proponents of a clean, readable style.)Kjdamrau 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau
While I agree that the formatting is cumbersome, it is intended to separate the two story lines that comprise the film. One story takes place during the 1950s, while the other takes place almost half a century earlier. Because the film itself jumps from one time period to the other in order to mesh the familial storylines together, the indented italics are meant to avoid confusion as one is reading through the synopsis. Maybe we can find a better way to do this...perhaps pre-empting each section with a temporal description of some sort??? Eganio 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought italicizing the Vito Storyline was more readable and distinguishable for parallel story lines. Just a thought. Changing it back to normal font for both seems just too much.bkkimm

[edit] Plot

The plot section of this article is much too long. The Wiki-film project guidelines suggest 900 words or less for a plot summary.--Lepeu1999 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary isn't even a summary in any sense of the word. It's an attempt to describe the entire movie, from the point of view of a particular viewer. Relatively important elements are left out and important ambiguities are removed (for instance, when is it clear that Michael "knows" Roth set up the hit? Not for a long time, at least in my opinion.) The viewer is meant to be deceived about the origin and outcome of Pentangeli's "murder" all the way up until he emerges as a witness in the trial. ANd so forth. The author here is opinionated and certainly eager to display knowledge of the film, but such a summary is of little use to a person who wants to find out what the movie is about. It should be noted that important instances of indirect communication are also mishandled, and that a film with dialogue of this kind requires delicate handling. For instance, the viewer is often aware of what a character says without knowing for certain what that charater thinks or believes. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.143.168 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roth's Religion

While it does become relevant later in the film (when Hyman Roth attempts to emigrate to Israel), his religion is otherwise unimportant. Referring to him as a Jewish gangster is inappropriate, especially in light of the fact that the religions of the other protagonists are not expressly made clear elsewhere in this entry.

I don't really see how it's inappropriate. It is meant to distinguish him from the Sicilian gangsters who dominate the film's landscape. In fact, his attempt at claiming aliyah at the end of the film is certainly not the first reference to his being Jewish. The very fact that he is Jewish, and not Italian, is actually a source of tension between Michael Corleone and Frank Pentangeli, and presupposes the relevance of Hyman Roth's ethnicity to the plotline. Eganio 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish and Italian gangsters have operated in uncomfortable symbiosis since they overcame the dominance of the Irish gangs in the early 20th century. Ethnic allegiances have always ben important in American organized crime (and to this author's knowledge, outside of the USA too.) Another point to make is that the Catholicism of the Italian characters is featured prominently, though not necessarlty as a "plot point." Final note: many major characters in the film are based, however loosely, on real people. For instance, Moe Green is based on Bugsy Siegel, while Roth is based on Meyer Lansky. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.143.168 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot "Summary"

As Lepeu1999 pointed out here and here, the plot synopsis is anything but. We've basically condensed the entire film into 27 paragraphs, yet have fallen quite short of a genuine synopsis. Sadly, this is true for the entire Godfather trilogy on Wikipedia, a fact I find rather disturbing. I will be working on summarizing the plots to the 3 films, and would greatly appreciate any help! Eganio 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The plot length is fine as it is. These films are long and tell a complex story that requires some length to do them justice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Michael Corleone 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] Remove IMDB

I propose we remove all mentions of how the movie does on IMDB rankings board. They are not very dependable, no serious critic acknowlages them and nearly all other movies on wikipeda have no mention of them in their article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.45.226 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about the undependability of rankings on IMDB, but it would be better applied to a film in the middle of the pack. "The Godfather" has been at the top of the listings for quite a long time, and I think that's significant enough to be included. I oppose removing this information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Leave the info. EganioTalk 10:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast errors

Sorry if this isn't the propper place/method to bring this up but its my first correction. I don't know enough to fix it but it should be pointed out that most of the cast members are listed as "himself" or "herself". I'm not sure if this is some sort of vandalism or just a bug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X022098 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I keep a pretty close watch on this page, but it somehow slipped by me. I've corrected it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Godfather part ii.jpg

Image:Godfather part ii.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that that someone has added a fair use rationale for this image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction section

The reactions section is very well written but cries out for citations!--Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fact" tags

There is not a single article on Wikipedia, even including those with extensive citations, which one could not go through and label every uncited fact with a "fact" tag, but it would serve no useful purpose. What you have done here is to abuse the tag egregiously, which is why I've removed them all. If there are particular and specific facts that you have serious concerns about, that's one thing, but the number of tags you threw onto this page indicates something else entirely. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale changes made without consensus

An editor is making wholsesale changes in the way that dates are formatted in the article, without first discussing it to get consensus for the change. I've reverted the change to restore the status quo and have requested that the editor discuss it here before proceeding to make the change again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-specific dates (ie, years on their own) should not be linked. A link should be inserted only where it will " significantly add[s] to readers' understanding of the topic" MOS:LINK. You also reverted an altered link from Erin Brokovich (film) back to the person, where the text actually refers to the film. Removal of unnecessary links is fine and does not necessarily need consensus. See also point 3 here Nouse4aname (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When a link adds to a reader's understanding is a judgment call, which requires at the very least a personal evaluation of the link's context in the article. The evaluation cannot be done when the process is automated via AWB, and all links are being undone eithout regard to their function in the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in some situations, but year-only-dates are extremely unlikely to be of any significance and tend to clutter an article and detract from the links that may be of value. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflct) I don't believe that's necessarily true. Especially as you get farther back in time from the current date, the reader may be expected to need help in establishing the historical context of a date, which otherwise is simply a number.

I've now gone through the article, personally, and have evaluated the dates there and have restored links to those which I feel significantly help the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Just saw your edits, your compromise seems fair. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we can close the book on this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so. I think you're right about more historic dates, linking probably will bring more context. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was the editor who made the changes that started this discussion, and I protest at the way my good faith edits have been treated. Ed Fitzgerald simply reverted my changes, adding an offensive edit summary, then when I reinstated them along with a request for discussion, he reverted them again without explanation. When I left a message on his talk page threatening to take action against him him under WP:3RR if he did it again, he then accused me of making changes without consensus - which, as has been pointed out, is not necessary for change of this kind. What monstrous arrogance to write "I think we can close the book on this" without ever having asked me why I made the changes I did. They were made through AWB but they are not 'automated' - I made a personal choice to unlink the years, and my opinion deserves respect, even if not agreement. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Personal arrogance? Threatening me with 3RR?

Tell me, did you specifically choose in each instance of a linked year to undo the link based on its context, or did you make a general choice to unlink all years of a certain type and then use AWB to do it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from your contributions page I'd say it was the latter, since you've unlinked dates in over 400 articles in the last 7 days. There's no possible way that you are reading those articles, looking at the dates, evaluating their usefulness and then unlinking them. Instead, you've determined for yourself that all dates of a certain type should be unlinked, and you're using AWB to automate the unlinking of them. In point of fact, you're acting like a bot without a bot license, and you're using AWB to make edits which are not non-contentious as was required when you were granted a license to use AWB. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm making inquiries as to where to request a review of your use of AWB, which may be in contravention of the license. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, this seems to have been blown out of all proportion. For my part, I am sorry for not waiting for a response from the original editor, this would have been correct and polite, and thus I apologise for this. However, I think that Ed Fitgerald has a point that in certain contexts, dateless years may actually be helpful to be linked. For example, in this article, it may be useful to learn about the time period concerned, and thus linking such years may well be helpful. In other instances where the year is mentioned only in passing and has no real bearing on understanding then a link is probably not needed. I think the compromise that has been acheived is suitable in this instance. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(out) I just want to say that I did request a review of User:Colonies Chris's use of AWB, but that I've withdrawn the complaint, with apologies, after the evidence failed to support my conentions. The fault here is my own. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tahoe Mansion Location

I am not sure if this is germane, but the Tahoe scenes were filmed in California, not Nevada. The mansion was the Kaiser, located near Homewood, CA.

The Plot says "his Lake Tahoe, Nevada mansion". I'm not sure if that was the representation in the movie (in which case it's OK) or if the state was not identified in the movie (in which case it's an error).

Donnernv 4 March 2008 209.244.31.93 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Vito's mother killed?

A couple of attempts have been made to say that when Vito goes back to Sicily he is reunited with his mother. The latest edit cites a check of the DVD and says that the elderly woman at the family feast is Vito's mother. I checked my own copy, and I don't know how the editor can be so sure. Vito's mother is shot at point-blank range with a shotgun, and none of the women at the feast are facially distinctive enough for me to be certain that it's intended to be the same woman.

But personal observation aside, both Allmovie.com ("In the early 1900s, the child Vito flees his Sicilian village for America after the local Mafia kills his family") and Filmsite.org ("As her son runs away, the Don's guards grab her arm, push her away, and kill her at close-range with the blast of a shotgun) disagree that she survived. (Neither IMDB or TCM have a full synopsis. Referring to the original source, the novel, doesn't help, as the storyline is set up differently, and the mother isn't shot.)

Unless someone can come up with something official by way of a citation which says that the mother survived, or that the actress in the family feast scene is the same as the one in the earlier scene, I don't think this should be added to the plot. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency with Julie Gregg article

Hello, I notice that Julie Gregg is listed as part of the cast of Godfather II, in the role of Sandra Corleone. This is a bit inconsistent with the unsupported statement in the Julie Gregg article:

"She played the role of Sandra Corleone in The Godfather, and reprised her role in The Godfather Part II, but the scene was subsequently cut. It does appear in The Godfather: The Complete Novel for Television.[citation needed]"

Can anyone shed some light on this matter so that either this article including Ms. Gregg can be changed or the Gregg article can be changed? Thanks Jlawniczak (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither TCM nor All Movie list her in the cast, only IMDB does. The only scene she might have been in is the flashback at the end, and she doesn't appear there (although her voice might). In any case, if she *is* in the film, her appearance is very minor and doesn't warrant listing in the cast list here, which is not supposed to be all-inclusive. I've removed her. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in the future, please don't put tags on articles concerning minor matters like this. Raising the issue on the talk page is sufficient. Thanks.

Thanks Ed, appreciate the quick response and advice. I'm new here and not very aware of the procedures and policies and so appreciate your advice. You're the first person here that I've actually "talked" to. Don't know what to do on the Julie Gregg page though, so if anyone can confirm that Ms. Gregg was hired to do Godfather II but then didn't make it through the edits into the final picture, I'd appreciate hearing about it so that it can be added to the Gregg article. Jlawniczak (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, welcome to Wikipedia. I've had another look at the flashback scene, and it seems likely to me that the woman in the scene who has no lines but it helping to set the table is Sonny's wife. She's in the room (to the side) when Sonny has his brief tussle with Michael, and then when the kids in the other room are saying "Mama, Daddy's fighting again," she's no longer there. That's pretty good circumstantial evidence that it's Sandra, but whether the part is played by Julie Gregg or no, I can't tell, since I can't see her face very well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lamenting in SIlence

Hey so at the end of the plot section we should add that Michael is 'sitting alone, "lamenting" in silenced as opposed to sitting alone, in silence. Clearly he is lamenting to some degree as indicated by his haunted facial expression ans well as sitting poisiton as well as the swell of the score just before credits. Editor who deleted the word lamenting says there's no evidence to his 'lamentation'. Hmmm. --Topclaw (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it may look like lamenting to you, but that's not proof of anything. I, myself, see no indication of it. Without any dialogue or voiceover to pinpoint his emotional state, it's really impossible to tell what he is thinking. He may be contemplating the changes in his life that got him to that place, he may be considering his next move, or he may be experiencing gastric distress from eating too many Ring Dings (although this last seems unlikely considering that there's no tell-tale chocolate ring around his mouth) -- there's just no way to tell from the film itself.

Now, if there was some evidence that could back up the contention that he is lamenting, such as, say, commentary from the director or the writer or the actor involved, that would be different, but absent such a confirmation, it's not clear what exactly is going on there, the "swell of the music" notwithstanding. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am watching this discussion, as an interested reader (i.e., the consumer of the article). I am not a fan of the Godfather series (although I saw the movies originally in the 70s). I agree with the second point of view -- a report on what happened in the movie is all I'm looking for, I can draw my own conclusions. In fact, even if there is director evidence of what the was intended, I'm not sure I'm all that interested in that. I recall an author a long time ago who responded to an inquiry about what he intended in his book with a comment that his view would only be what one person thought. The idea is that once a work of art is put out, it stands for itself and it's up to the viewer/reader to decide. So I would be against adding "lamenting" here. The only thing that might make sense (and I'm not advocating it) would be to add something like: "and it is left to the viewer to determine what he is thinking about." Jlawniczak (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)