Talk:The Godfather Part II/Archive 1

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)

Title

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

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)

Tahoe assassination attempt/Fredo's culpability

Something that has always bugged my about pt ii and its implications for pt iii: Right before the hitmen start shooting Michael asks Kay why the curtains are open in a way that seems to imply that they should not and would not normally be. If Fredo opened the curtains to assist the hitmen then killing him actually seems pretty reasonable. If Fredo was killed simply for trying to make a deal with Roth and lying about it then it seems excessive. I don't know if it is addressed in the novel but I am surprised it is not addressed here as the whole arc of Michael's progression hinges upon him killing his brother. Either he is a psycho who had his brother killed just for being stupid, or Fredo essentially tried to kill him.98.249.51.38 (talk)cosine —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

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)

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)

AFI List

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

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)

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)

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)

Language

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Eganio^Talk 10:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reaction section

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

It is very clear that Vito's wife is the one visiting her family in Sicily. She is the first to alight from the train to greet her mother and her brother on the platform. Vito is then introduced, and kisses the old woman on both cheeks. This is also why, after they all return to that enormous, gorgeous villa, Vito tells the young Fredo to give his 'grandma' the small statuette of liberty -- she is his maternal grandmother. (Of course, in the end, it turns out that the trip to Sicily may have been planned simply to accomplish Vito's revenge against Don Ciccio, but no matter.) 67.71.141.21 (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Jed

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)

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)

There have been various books of commentary on the film, mentioning the final scene and Michael's mood (contemplation, sadness etc). He's also wearing makeup to make him look prematurely aged and diabetic (chronologically Michael would be about 40 - his diabetes is in the original script but not the cinema version) and by contrast with the Pearl Harbor scene in which he'd been made up to look 20. Don't have any such source to hand though so someone else will have to do the honours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.48.4 (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDb rating

Feel free to join the discussion here: Talk:The_Godfather#IMDb_rating --Madchester (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Only sequel to win Academy Award

I realize that most of the people who visit this page are Godfather fans and thus want to keep Godfather's status as the only "sequel" to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. However, the logic of disqualifying The Return of the King doesn't hold up. Firstly, it's worded terribly. Return of the King is disqualified because it's part of a "single trilogy". Godfather is a single trilogy too. So is Back to the Future. So is Karate Kid. That doesn't make their sequels "unofficial". I assume what the writer is trying to say is that the Lord of the Rings a "single enitity" ... or one movie divided into three. Some fans of the Lord of the Rings films even say such, pointing out that the books are really one novel (which is true). This, however, doesn't make the films one film. They are not. Some fans claim the films are a single film because the principle photography conducted concurrently. However, Principle photography is only a part of filmmaking. Writing and post production for each film took place separately, and each film was designed to be it's only film, each with it's only feel (Fellowship of the Ring was digitally graded to be a fantasy film, Two Towers was filmed to be a "dirty" film, and Return of the King was filmed to be a war movie,) and it's own beginning, plot, and ending. Furthermore, Return of the King is considered an "official" sequel by the industry simply because the audience was allowed to go home after the previous films and then asked to come back to see the same characters to reprise their roles. Hollywood isn't picky about what it calls a sequel. Like I said, I know Godfather fans are going to try to defend their belief that Godfather Part II is the only sequel to win until they die, coming up with some reason to disqualify any film that stands in the way, but I believe an objective person will reason the logic is flawed. (Heck, you could argue that Godfather Part II is not really a sequel because it's a prequel, or you could say Godfather Part I and II are really one movie divide into two, if you were to be as adversaril as those disqualifying Return of the King.) The Return of the King is a sequel to The Two Towers and The Fellowship of the Ring. It won the Accademy Award for Best Picture. 68.77.200.56 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of both films, I have to agree that this argument is flimsy. Not only is it flimsy the note is not supported by any sort of real data and only references what can be best called an opinion. I have seen no comment here that counters the above statement. Can anyone offer an "official" definition of a sequel or some sort of unbiased reference? If not, I am going to remove the reference. -Thebdj (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm not a fan of either The Godfather nor The Lord of the Rings. The movies are the greatest movies ever made, but they're too long for me. But, allow me to break the ice. The comment by 68.77.200.56 is true, although it could be more opinion and no citation to back him/her up. A "sequel" is a form of literature that continues a story that begun with the preceding one. Godfather Part II is the "first" sequel to win Best Picture and "Return of the King" is the first "second" sequel to win Best Picture. Here's my proof: see Remakes, Sequel 'Best Pictures' and Trilogies of [1] talk 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is gone now: a perfect end to this dispute started by some immune user's bullshit POV. If this user is not going to be warned to stop with his POV, then the entire section is going. Jienum (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

POV add

User:Jienum has been attempting to make an addition to the plot section. To the sentence:

Sonny angrily ridicules Michael's choice, while Tom Hagen mentions how his father has great expectations for Michael, and had made specific arrangements for his future.

Jienum is trying to add:

which hurts Michael deeply.

Since Michael doesn't say "That hurts me deeply", nor does a narator say "Michael was hurt deeply", nor, as far as I know, have any of the film's creators said that Michael is deeply hurt, this addition is an interpretation on the editor's part of the mental state of the character based on his external behavior. I have removed this addition as being POV material not appropriate for Wikipedia, especially in a plot section, which is supposed to be straight-forward description without interpretation or analysis. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That was POV, and I accept it. If you want something else that was POV in this article, look at the bit where it says that this film is the ONLY sequel to ever win the Best Picture Oscar, but that Return of the King is not an official sequel. I've rectified it, though. Jienum (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's been a point of controversy for a while, so I've reverted your deletion until a discussion about it can be had. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that note until just now. I've reverted it again. But let's be honest and frank here: the so-called "reference" saying that LOTR is a single trilogy is COMPLETE fancruft. It's just a statement by an editor with no proof. Someone can VERY easily say that no sequel has ever won the Best Picture award because the Godfather II is part of a trilogy. OK, Silence of the Lambs might not have been an OFFICIAL sequel to Manhunter, but the ROTK bit is definitely POV. There's no source justifying it. Jienum (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• The Godfather Part II/Archive 1 at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Coldly?

There was certainly nothing "cold" about Kay's revelation of an abortion, though her words do get considerably more malevolent afterward. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One 'sixth' of what Don Fanucci demanded?

In the third paragraph of the Vito story, there is a line that says that Vito manages to get Fanucci to take on one sixth of what he had demanded. To my understanding this is not true. The three of them had made six-hundred and Fanucci wanted only two-hundered. So the line should be changed to 'a half' instead of 'one sixth.' --The one and only leeds fan (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is correct. Fanucci demanded $200 each from Vito, Tessio and Clemenza, or $600. Vito collected $50 each from Tessio and Clemenza, then presented the $100 payment to Fanucci.71.94.1.194 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

The plot synopsis is entirely too long, and the habit of setting off the events in the past with italics is not in keeping with any policy of which I am aware. This needs to be reduced by one-third and the formatting made consistent. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthurprica's recent edits

I take objection to the recent expansion of the lede by this apparently new editor. Details about the film's reception, including its place on "best films ever made" lists, belong in the reception section. Furthermore, there is no need to say "chronicling the story of the Corleone family under Michael Corleone" (emphasis added) as this is obvious. Simply put, the lede is not the place for excessive detail, it is simply to provide a brief outline of the article.

Other changes he has made, like repeatedly changing Premiere to Premiere Magazine, after I corrected it, seem inspired by pure petulance. This is never a good sign. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not enough lede info

I know you think I'm wrong but this is my way of thinking: If Citizen Kane has three big paragraphs of info in the lede (its place on "best films ever made is also in lede) then why can't The Godfather I and II?

There's no reason to add "flair" to an article. Also the quote "The Godfather is widely considered as one of the greatest films of all time. " violates WP:NPOV

Miscellany

I removed the following trivia from the article and bring it here for discussion:

• The scene in which Vito negotiates with Don Fanucci inspired George Lucas' deleted (and later restored) scene in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, in which Han Solo negotiates with Jabba the Hutt for more time to pay the money he owes.
• The character Hyman Roth, portrayed by Lee Strasberg, is based on Meyer Lansky. Shortly after the premiere in 1974, Lansky phoned Strasberg and congratulated him on a good performance, but added "You could've made me more sympathetic."
• In an early draft of the script, Tom Hagen had an affair with Sonny's widow, causing some friction within the family. This sub-plot was soon cut from the script, though Michael refers to Sonny's widow as his mistress.
• The statue carried during the Feast Of St. Rocco is of St. Rocco and is currently located at St. Joseph's Church in New York City. The priest is Rev. Joseph Moffo, who was the pastor of St. Joseph's at the time of the filming. In addition, the altarboys and men carrying the canopy were also from St. Joseph's.
• After bad experiences directing the first film, Coppola originally sought Martin Scorsese to direct the sequel after seeing Mean Streets. Eventually, under pressure from Paramount, Coppola directed, but was also given other incentives such as a larger budget and the chance to make The Conversation in the same year.

This section has been tagged as unreferenced since January of this year and tagged as trivia since October '09. Until this is referenced and a suitable place is found in the article, it should be left out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. OlYeller^Talktome 07:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tropicana/Trocadero

To respond to a recent edit which removed the name of the casino. It really is the Tropicana. I've never read anywhere the Godfather II crew had any problems with using the name and had to change it to avoid a lawsuit. I've also never heard the casino was named the "Trocadero", so I'm really curious where this information comes from. Better yet, the Godfather II crew were staying in the hotel when they were filming the scenes in Nevada and were allowed to film some scenes in the hotel itself. You also clearly hear senator Geary mentioning the name "Tropicana" in one of the first scenes and (correct me if I'm wrong) it's also mentioned in the subtitles itself. --24.132.210.98 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I always thought they called it the Tropigala. I don't remember Trocadero at all. I'll have to watch again to see which it was. Regarding the reason for possibly using another name, I have no idea. OlYeller^Talktome 05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right about it being called the "Tropigala". It's indeed said by senator Geary and confirmed in the subtitles. So they obviously did have some problems with using the original name "Tropicana", the casino they actually refer to. They had however permission to film in the Tropicana so it suprises me that they couldn't use the name. In the final draft of the screenplay they do name the casino Tropicana, so they probably changed it to Tropigala while filming the movie. --24.132.210.98 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's "Tropigala", although said a bit indistinctly so it sounds like "Trocadero".MissingMia (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ordering of Events in Plot Section

Just a quick note: the mention of Deanna (Fredo's wife) being dragged off is incorrectly placed before the meeting with Senator Geary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.141.21 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over layout

User:Beyond My Ken is edit warring over the layout of the article. Using the edit summary: "From WP:TC: 'Certain tags can be placed at the top of an individual section, and others can be placed within the text itself'" while placing the refimprove template at the bottom of the page. Since this isn't a "certain tag" (that tag would be refimprovesection) it belongs at the top of the page as a reader warning, which is what the sentence immediately preceding his quote from WP:TC says, and he ignores.

BMK has also used the edit summary "no, the ref template is a reminder to editors that work needs to be done" which clearly shows BMK misunderstand the purpose of maintenance tags. They are a warning to readers not editors. This is a project wide consensus on warning tags. If BMK wishes to change consensus is the discussion page on WP:MOS/LEAD. The sentence he wishes to revise is: "These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article, and should be presented to the user before the article itself."

Since BMK has been told these things multiple times, and on this article the history shows he has repeatedly re-inserted his layout changes against consensus and despite their contention he is very much on the wrong side of WP:BRD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Like any tag that refers to a specific section of the article, the reference tag is most effective within the reference section, where editors who are concerned with fixing references will see it, but it doesn't get in the way of the general reader who's just come to the article to get some information, and couldn't case less about reading what are essentially post-it notes from one editor to other editors pointing out problems with the article. Since WP:TC doesn't specify what "certain" means, it's reasonable to interpret it in this manner. Schmucky the Cat, on the other hand, is consistently intransigent and inflexible in these matters, and appears to believe that once he says it, it must be heard and obeyed. This is, of course, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly stating your opinion about readers and editors and the text of the relevant guidelines contradicts you. I don't need to argue the point. On this subject I am at least as inflexible as you are annoying, neither of which relates much to project consensus about layout. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Since I've already quoted the relevant guideline, which does not support your contention, this appears to amount to a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- and please, try to remain civil. When I say that you are intransigent and inflexible, that is a description of your editing, when you say that I am "annoying", that's your emotional response, which is neither here not there. Let's keep feelings out of it, and talk about policies, guidelines and, most importantly, what's best for our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot rewrite part II

It has begun. I believe it was something like 2,500 words. I managed to cut it down to about 1,300. Also, the flashbacks, should we restructure them? --JTBX (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut down plot to 1080 words. --JTBX (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather Effect

I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this Welshman has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know who it is, but I don't know many editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm ... is it worthy of retaining ... not in my opinion as a section. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This section, dealing entirely with a third-party book and its contents, appears in all three film articles, and appears to be, for lack of a better term, bookspam. Im sure there have been other books on the subject, and none of these deserve a full section treatment in these articles. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, [[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo], and this subject has already been broached before. Now, with additional support, I shall remove the section from all three articles and we can wait for a reaction.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

compare to/with

To identify either the similarities or the differences between two things, use "compare to." To identify both the similarities and the differences, use "compare with." University of Hawaii

Structure of the plot section

The way the plot keeps switching between the past and contemporary storylines is slightly piecemeal. I appreciate why it has been written this way, but would it not be better to summarise the two storylines separately as per Memento (film)? It's not like the editing of the two storylines impacts on each other is it? It's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if the essence of the story can be presented in a less convoluted manner. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Memento is the rarest of cases. Seems like the italics make it clear and as efficient as it could be for a three hour film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We are, after all, summarising the plot as the film unfolds its story. It would depart from the very essence of writer/director Francis Ford Coppola's initial premise, if we were to tell two separate stories ,one after the other. The indenting and italic text work well in my view. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Vito's birthday party date

Is it Pearl Harbor Day? December 7, 1941. They say that 30,000 enlisted that day. Any other signs or evidence? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Pentangeli lives: Moving to article Talk page

Having watched last night with just this point in mind, I now know you to be wrong in the assertion that the viewer is left uncertain whether Pentangeli dies - he is shown to have survived the garrotte attack. Please watch your DVD of Godfather 2 and then revert your alteration of my edit. You're off beam on this one. Ironman1104 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am moving this to the article's Talk page. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Kindly reply here, as promised.Ironman1104 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am moving this to the article's Talk page so that all interested editors can be involved. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspecting that Roth was behind the assassination attempt, Michael meets with Pentangeli and asks him to help take his revenge. As part of his plan, Michael insists that Pentangeli capitulate to the Rosato brothers, so that Roth will not suspect that Michael is conspiring against him. Pentangeli, preferring open warfare against Roth and the Rosatos, is again very aggravated by Michael's demand that Pentangeli give in to them. However, he reluctantly agrees to comply with Michael's wishes. Back in New York, Pentangeli arranges a meeting with the Rosato brothers. At the meeting, Tony Rosato (Danny Aiello) ambushes Pentangeli with a garotte, telling him, "Michael Corleone says hello." A policeman passes by and the attack degenerates into a shootout in the street. Pentangeli disappears and is believed to be dead

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vito's return to Sicily

Since the year of Vito's return to Sicily has been changed back and forth I want to state some of the facts. First, the timeline of the DVD lists Vito's return to Sicily, as well as Connie's birth year, as 1927. Whether the director made this timeline or someone else at Paramount is unclear, but it was made for the 2001 DVD box and consists of several errors. When Vito returns to Sicily, you see him holding a toddler in his arm, which is Michael. You also see a young Sonny (played by Roman Coppola) as well as Fredo and baby Connie. The novel states Michael was 21 years old when Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. This means that Michael could have been born no later than 1920. In 1927 he would have been six or seven years old, while the toddler Vito is holding in his arm looks about 2 or 3 years old, certainly not six or seven. In fact, the original trailer of Part II specifically states that the Sicily sequence takes place in 1921. Peter Cowie, who had access to Coppola's personal notes, states in his The Godfather Book that Vito returned to Sicily in 1922, while Harlan Lebo states 1923. Personally I think 1923 is the most plausible year, because the toddler Michael looks about three years old. Anyway, someone requested for a proper source, so here it is. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Who is Harlan Lebo?
2. Both the novel and the trailer are at best dubious sources for the plot summary. We should use internal evidence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious sources because you think so? The films and novel are all the same since they're both written by Puzo. The first two films are based on the novel as well as the timeline. Harlan Lebo is the athor of The Godfather Legacy. A quick Google search would have also provided you with this answer. Lastly, I suggest that the date should be removed entirely as there is no evidence whatsoever that suggest those sequence took place in 1925 either. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are to be commended for your investigation but in the end the plot summary must take the film for its source. There are several discrepancies between the novel and both films and no film of the book is expected to mirror its inspiration exactly –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am grateful for the research, 95.96. And I agree that if we can't determine a good date, we probably should not have a date at all. The internal evidence is the ages of the children, combined with something foundational about when anyone was born. Maybe all our dates are suspect? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The internal evidence is that according to Coppola's notes Vito and his family returned to Sicily in the early 1920s. But I agree that due to the slight discrepency between Cowie's and Lebo's statements a specific year is difficult to determine. However, the timeline of the DVD states that Michael was born in 1920, which is corroborated by the novel itself. So imo there is little doubt that the final Sicily sequence took place in the early 1920s. My explanation why the date was later changed to 1927 was because someone apparantly thought that it was more realistic if Connie would have been 18 when she married, and by doing this messing up the correspondence of the timeline. The thing is, starting in 1925 the fascist were aggresively pursuing the Mafia in Sicily and you don't see any sign of this in the film. As a matter of fact, you don't see any references to the facists at all, while the first two Godfather films are immensely rich in detail. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree that 1927 is too late. First, I should have been more clear that 'internal evidence' refers to what happens on-screen. Coppola's notes, as interesting as they are, are trivial compared to the action of the film. Both the novel and the DVD timeline are interesting only to the extent that they get the film right. If the film is different, we go with the film. We can't ignore that the filmmakers may have fudged some facts (e.g. Connie's age at the time of her marriage might not be congruent with the rest of the story). The issue of the fascists is also a great one, but how would we expect to see evidence of their anti-Mafia activity in the limited context of the film? So I'm not sure how far we take that. Perhaps we can't be more specific than early 20s? That is how far it seems we can go based on what we have discussed. The only foundation we have at the moment is Pearl Harbor and Michael's enlistment. That puts his birth in 1919-20 and the trip to Sicily just a few years later. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sicily sequence is based entirely on the director's notes and the screenplay. So if a director states in his notes a specific date, this can be considered internal evidence. But like I said, due to conflicting statements it's difficult to determine which one was accurate. You're right that the sequence is too short to show the fascists anti-Mafia activity, but there isn't any sign of fascism at all. And fascism would most definitely be visible in Sicily by 1925, when they effectively came to power. Anyway, in case one chooses to state a specific year, the sources I provided are pretty much all we got and are credible enough in my opinion. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Internal evidence = what's in the film. The plot summary reflects what's actually in the movie. We don't have to specify a year if the film doesn't; in fact, it would be inaccurate to do so. Michael's age in the Sicily sequence combined with his enlistment after Pearl Harbor provide some basis to get it right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The plot summary reflecting what's only in the movie makes sense and so I agree. But in case you do want state a year, you can use one of my sources, because believe me for saying that's the best you gonna get. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been most helpful and it is appreciated but I believe it will be less confrontational if we remain neutral and keep the paragraph it is now — undated. Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a conflict between the 1921 supposition and Michael's 1920ish birth year. 1. Are we sure he enlists at 21? I don't think the movie says so. 2. Is he a one year old in the 1921 sequence? I don't remember. He seems older. So then what about 1922? I see no conflict on that. 1923 might be plausible. Lastly, I note that Wikipedia's article on Michael specifies no year of his birth. I think we don't know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 1921 might be a bit too early, as the little boy does look a little older. Most plausible would be 1922/1923. The novel specificly states he was 21 years old when World War II erupted (note that WWII started in Dec. 1941 for America), and the DVD timeline states he was born in 1920. But since the movie doesn't state a specific year, the plot summary doesn't necessarily need to either. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)