Talk:The Godfather/Archive 1

message: 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) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, and my apology Ed Fitzgerald 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration 

message: There is a whole huge addition of characters I have never heard of, and some guy named Frank Falcone (who is a real minor actor, not a Godfather character.) I highly doubt these characters were in this movie or have any affiliation to it.
:Where are you seeing them? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism 

message: I just re-watched this movie, and although Vito Corleone takes the name of his town Corleone, his father's name was Alberto Antonini. At least I think. If someone wants to check that one out.
:His father's name was Antonio Andolini.
:("My fathers name was Antonio Andolini... and this is for you!")  72.200.136.66 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake by the guy at Ellis Island. "Vito Andolini from Corleone". And the other guy says, writing down in the book, "Vito Coreleone." Sorry it's late. Not a very good explanation. TommyBoy76 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a very common occurence in those days, and I'm glad the writer made mention of this. Many surnames were changed due to clerical error in those days, or even simplified to something easier to spell or pronounce. And these clerical errors resulted in new names that carried on for further generations in the U.S. --Fightingirish 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I'm thinking that the See Also section ought to be used for the more notable among the cast, e.g. Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola and of course Marlon Brando. Perhaps a selective cast list could go under the Casting section, to avoid clogging up the bottom of the article? Rob Church Talk | Desk 10:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List 

message: I'm now in the awkward position of trying to fill up the References section for this article. As I didn't write most of the content (forked from another article), this is going to be difficult. All help is therefore welcome. A brief read-through suggests references for the following claims will be needed, at the very least:
*Pacino was only granted the role after Coppola threatened to quit the production.
*It was voted greatest film of all time by Entertainment Weekly, and #3 of all time by the American Film Institute. It is consistently, and currently, ranked #1 on IMDB's Top 250.
*Coppola stated that the horse's head was delivered to him from a dog food company; a horse had not been killed especially for the movie.
*Mafia families began a "real life" tradition of paying respect to the family don by kissing his ring, in imitation of the opening scene of The Godfather.
All pointers welcome. Rob Church Talk | Desk 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Would it be a good idea to add (either here or on the entry for the novel) a run down of the differences between the film and book? 83.70.42.212 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that was created in response to this discussion was deleted by an editor, citing it as "original research", but I believe this to be an invalid argument (see below) and have restored the section with some edits and additions. Ed Fitzgerald 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from the novel? 

message: I feel the soundtrack is an incredibly important part of the film also, it is equally deeply beautiful, haunting, moving and forboding. Does anyone else think it should have greater acknowledgement in the main The Godfather article ? Dirk Diggler Jnr 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Soundtrack 

message: I changed the statement: It has repeatedly been voted as the greatest movie ever made by users at the Internet Movie Database. There are a number of problems with this statement. Firstly, all films on IMDb are voted for only by users who choose to vote for the film, which is convenience sampling. It is misleading to claim it is voted 'by the users at the IMDb': it is voted by a subset, and quite likely a very selective one. Secondly, the 'rating' method on IMDb of a single 1-10 vote is simplistic and does not meet the most basic of psychometric criteria, so any claim about how any group has 'rated' this film based on such a method is dubious: the claim cannot be verified according to any accepted criteria. It is giving a lot of credence to a poorly conducted poll to mention it at all. Holon 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fair to say it is the highest ranked film on IMDB, if that is in fact true. john k 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, which is basically what I have changed it to. My issue was that the previous version was prone to misinterpretation. I agree with you, just wanted to be clear about the reason I've altered the statement. Cheers. Holon 08:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your edit. If you look at the Top 250 list you will see that only the votes of regular voters are counted. The Filmaker 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the Top 250 list doesn't work the same way as the main page of the film. In the Top 250 both have 9.1 points. It is discussed frequently in Imdb forums, not only with these films but with many others. However the article still says The Shawshank Redemption is number one, should I edit it out? -- McAbucha 21 January 2007)
The Godfather article claims that IMDB rated it "the greatest" of all time.  But this isn't true, and it was I who put in the quip that the Shawshank Redemption out-ranked it because it is false to say that The Godfather is "the greatest" according to that list.  It's not true.  I believe that the administrators at IMDB.com are a little upset that a movie has finally out-ranked The Godfather, even though it has been a long time coming if you kept up with The Shawshank Redemption's progress.  I will continue to put this up, and revert any changes to it.  Contact me if you have question or post your complaints here please. Fdssdf 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At the top of the IMDB Top 250 list you will see this disclaimer "For this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered." this is why The Godfather does in fact outrank The Shawshank Redemption, in terms of IMDB's rating system. This disclaimer has been there for years, much longer than Shawshank's supposed trumping of Godfather. The Filmaker 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rebuttal to that claim, why doesn't this "disclaimer" appear on the "bottom 100" list?  Why is it only for the TOP movies?  And why should only regular voters be credited?  I speculate that IMDB anticipated The Shawshank Redemption's rise of popularity on their website, so they just rigged up some phony loophole system so that The Godfather could stay on top, even though technically they are both number 1. Fdssdf 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, your position is purely speculative. You have no evidence to support your claim. You merely theorize that IMDB for some reason has something against The Shawshank Redemption becoming number 1 on the Top 250. It's original research. Wikipedia is not a place for your theories on the inner workings of IMDB. The Filmaker 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What irks me, though, the most, is that The Godfather is 9.1 on the list and 9.1 on its own movie profile, like everyone who has voted for it is this "regular voter".  I understand that there is nothing to do except wait and see if The Shawshank Redemption overtakes it (it probably will).  I think that IMDB is unfairly treating Shawshank because I doubt every voter for The Godfather is "regular".  I just wanted to point that out. Fdssdf 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb 'rating' 

message: The Godfather trilogy had a huge impact on The Simpsons. Other wikipedia movie entries document the episodes with references.
Maybe a link should be inserted to:
http://www.duffzone.co.uk/content.php?title=refgf
Who cares? Do we have to have a Simpsons reference on every single article? Sheesh! --Fightingirish 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons Impact 

message: I have removed the following sentence from the "Production" section, because it does not make any sense as written:
:Elements of the film's crew were also against Coppola, mid-way through shooting several key members of the production team including the Assistant Director who Coppola accused of being 'traitors'.
There clearly something missing from this statement to flesh it out.  I suspect that it might mean something like
:Mid-way through the shooting, elements of the film's crew were also [reported to be] against Coppola, including the Assistant Director and key members of the production team, whom Cappola [had]accused of being 'traitors'.
But I have no independent knowlegdge of this being true.
Is Copolla referring to all the dissenting production team members are "traitors", or only the Assistant Director"?  What's the significant of "mid-way through shooting?" -- does something happen then?
I just don't understand the reference, and I wish that someone with knowledge of what occured wouls correct it and reinsert it. unfutz 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production: reference to "traitor" elements in the crew 

message: I think that films of this magnitude and importance should have some discussion of their meaning and/or interpretation(s).
Is there a way to begin this without starting a long chain of competing reviews?
:Greatest movie ever made. That's my review. TommyBoy76 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine, too. Mcflytrap 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: I failed the GA nominations for the following reasons
* Few refs
* Images need a fair use rationale
* Needs a strong copyedit 
* Remove the trivia section
Jaranda wat's sup 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: In the Production section of the article it claims that realistic lighting was forced on Coppola because of budget constraints.
In the Trivia section, it says the exact opposite: "The film was shot with regular lighting, not because of budget reasons and a tight schedule, but Coppola wanted a more realistic tone to the film."
I'd fix it if I knew which was correct...
72.192.247.146 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrary statements: lighting/budget 

message: 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.15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Review 

message: That section on oranges is pretty much pure speculation, and it doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedic entry. I'd like a little feedback before I act, but my instinct is to remove it. Woodstein52, 05.54, 17 November 2006
:The subject of the oranges is a well-known fact among film enthusiasts. I believe that Coppola himself mentions it in commentaries for Godfather II and III. Right now it could be easily construed as speculative, so the best act would be too find citations. The Filmaker 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oranges 

message: On 11/29/2006 Closer69 added the following line to the plot synopsis: "While there, he marries a local girl who is subsequently murdered during an attempt on Michael's life."  The Filmmaker removed the line as not being essential to the plot.  I restored it, as being essential to the development of Michael's character. Filmaker removed it again, saying "it may be a strong event in the character, but it is not essential to the plot, this is a plot synopsis not a character synopsis".
A plot synopsis consists of important events which occur during the unfolding of the film's story.  They can be important because they advance the storyline, or they can be important because they advance the development of the character -- neither type of information should be excluded, because they are both significant. Indeed, some films have virtually no plot points at all, everything that occurs is intended to show something about the development of the characters.  That's certainly not the case with "The Godfather", which has plenty of plot, but it's shortsighted to remove important information simply because it seems (to that editor) not to advance the storyline.
The marriage of Michael when he's in exile in Sicily, and the death of his wife in a botched assassination attempt is a major event in the film.  Even with everything that's happened to him, and that he's done, Michael when he goes to Sicily still has some softness and innocence about him.  Falling in love and having his wife murdered, an innocent bystander to the life he's taken on himself, hardens himm and changes his outlook tremendously.  When he returns, his attitude and stance is so hard and insular that he is virtually unrecognizable as the same guy we met at the beginning of the film.  Virtually everything that occurs from then on -- all the other elements of the "plot" -- only happen because of this transformation of Michael.  It began with the shooting of his father, progressed through his own choice to take retribution, and is capped by the death of his beloved beautiful young wife, which completes this transformation -- which is the underlying theme of the film.
Not to include this incident because it's not important to the "plot" is ridiculous.  It should remain in. unfutz 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion/Exclusion of Michael's first marriage 

message: In scene 20 "I never wanted this for you".  While youre watching the funeral of the Godfather Vito Corleone, Tessio comes up to Micheal to arrange a meeting. From the moment Mike gets up to talk to him, to the moment he sits down, you can see a girl's face on the bottom right side of the screen.  Is this just in the Box dvd collection? or can you see the girl on any copies of the Godfather movie? And WTF is up with that?!!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.189.192 (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I *think*, but do not know for certain, that what you're seeing is an optical reflection either in the lens or off some other part of the camera caused by the angle of the light and the dark background -- or something like that.  (Someone with expertise in this area should look at the scene and report back.)  I'll have to look at the scene again, but it's not just one face, it's a number of them, and they may be people who are behind the camera or to the side of the scene.  In any case it's certainly not just on the DVD since I've only seen broadcast or cable versions. unfutz 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery Girl in the Movie 

message: Though it's hardly as glamorous as the more recent, flashier adaptation, anyone interested in taking on mention of the earlier 1991 Godfather game? Pseudo Intellectual 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "other" video game 

message: The opening line "I love America" spoken by the funeral home owner and the diaglogue between himself and Don Corleone should be included in the plot, along with the name of the actor who played the funeral director.
I recall in the book that he receives justice in the form of a couple of thugs beating up the men who assaulted his daughter, but this not appearing in the film.  However, the "service" the Don asks him to perform is a part of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.86.236.146 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening scene 

message: There are scenes missing from the box set and TV versions...Michael killing the man who killed his first wife, when Tom H comes back to the house after being held by solozo etc.  do you know where I can get a full version?
Thanks
Dave Wolf
davew75@hotmail.com
:I know that the scene where Michael gets revenge for his first wife was not included in the theatrical version of the movie.  If you have the DVD, I do believe it is on the last disc of extras as a deleted scene.  Most likely the same with the other one. Mcflytrap 15:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many additional scenes included on the Bonus Features disc in the DVD Trilogy set. Several of them pertain to the finding and murder of Fabrizzio. The Hagan scene is also there, as are many, many others. It's worth getting if you're a Godfather fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fightingirish (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: It doesn't all fit so well. I did some edits, nothing major. I don't think the Ratings table is very necessary, and I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic. In any case, I don't think it would belong in the Reaction section. Millancad 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction section 

message: Here's the diff for the symbolic usage of oranges, so if a larger section for film analysis can be developed, the information about oranges can be re-included. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film analysis 

message: Who came up with it? Vitriol 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The puppeteer logo 

message: The release date material (as well as the rating matierial) is hardly essential to this article, but I've got no particular objection to it being in there as long as it doesn't detract from or distract from the surrounding information.  The colorful flag icons originally included with the release date, which I deleted, are terribly distracting, as is all the bolding in the formatting, and that is the reason I deleted them.  The article is not about Japan or Germany, it's not about international events in which countries feature prominently, it's about a motion picture, and the focus should stay on what's important about that film.  In a piece that's probably just long enough, additional and not terribly essential information shouldn't go out of its way to pull focus (as we call it in the theatre). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country icons in release date material 

message: UM, Michael was part of the US ARMY, he's even waring a brown US ARMY dress Uniform, not the Deep dark Blue of a US Marine. and he Was if I'm not mistaken said to be part of the 82 Airborne, which is a US ARMY UNIT. Just a thought
Therubicon 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've eliminated the specific reference to the branch of the military Michael served in, which is, in any case, irrelevant to the storyline. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: In the novel, it is noted that Vito pulled strings to make sure Michael made it to Officer Candidate School, and was given a combat posting in the Pacific (to avoid family conflicts). This was part of Vito's overall plan for Michael to eventually enter politics, rather than the 'family business'. --Klantry01 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment concerning Michael's military service 

message: The section about the Godfather Part II stated that the flashbacks detail Vito's arrival in America, rise to power, and "the births of his daughter Jessica Leigh".  I don't know who put that in there, but I highly doubt they were paying attention to what they were writing at the time, because *none* of the Corleone kids were named Jessica, and unless there is something in the books, Vito didn't have any children that didn't survive to adulthood.  I have corrected the sentence to read "the births of his children", as I don't remember how many of the kids they showed during the flashbacks before they got to the surprise party scene when they were all adults.  LadyEternal  23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was likely a case of vandalism, rather than someone believing this was an actual character name.PNW Raven (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone wasn't paying attention 

message: "The Don's oldest son, hotheaded Sonny, breaks ranks during the meeting and expresses disbelief at some of Sollozzo's promises."
Isn't the issue that Sonny expresses interest in the deal with Sollozzo, not disbelief in his promises? As I recall, after Vito declines Sollozzo, Sonny says something to the effect of "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment..." -- arguing that the Corleones should make the deal, knowing their money would be secure. This is what prompts Sollozzo to make the attempt on Vito's life, putting Sonny in charge in hopes that he would make the deal. I'll go ahead and change this cause I'm pretty sure, but others may disagree.75.139.35.32 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what he said, but I was under the impression that Sonny was being sarcastic. --75.3.69.70 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone edited this to "indirectly expresses interest", which is a good way to put it. My understanding is when Sonny says, "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment...", the end of that thought would be something like, "... so why should we be afraid to make this deal if we can't lose our money?" Vito, on the other hand, is considering the risk of losing not money, but prestige and political protection.75.139.35.32 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I attempt to clear this up?  Sonny initially expresses interest in dealing with Sollozzo (as does Tom) due to the propensity for the family to make money off the narcotics trade (heroin, specifically) in which Sollozzo is involved.  This occurs during a meeting between just the Don, Tom, and Sonny, immediately after Tom returns from Hollywood.  Later, during the actual meeting with Sollozzo (at which all high-ranking members of the family are present, namely the Don, Tom, Sonny, Fredo, Clemenza, and Tessio), the Don refuses Sollozzo's request for capital and political/legal protection due to his fears that his political allies would not take kindly to his involvement in narcotics.  This is the point at which Sonny expresses disbelief at Sollozzo's promise that the Tattaglia Family would guarantee the Corleone Family's investment, after which the Don chastises him for speaking his mind in front of a non-Family member.  Does that help? Eganio 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Synopsis? 

message: "Sofia Coppola as Michael Francis Rizzi — the only son of Carlo Rizzi."
:"...baptism of Connie's and Carlo's second son, for whom he will be godfather."
I'm not too familiar with the story, so could somebody fix this?  69.220.2.188 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlo's only son, or second son? 

message: Though there is references to notes littered throughout the article, there is no corresponding note section (much less actual links) for each of these references, and as such the numbered links lead nowhere, and most of the claims are unsupported. If there was a note section at some point (which there must have been for the references to be present) I don't know why it would have been deleted, and it ought to be returned, or else the claims made in the article should be referenced to new links in a new note section, or at the very least, the references should be deleted and replaced with indications that citations are needed, as not to fool readers into thinking that the article has supported claims. Lego dude88 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about?! No one offers Michael an orange in The Godfather.  In The Godfather Part II, Johnny Ola gives Michael an orange from Miami when visiting him in Lake Tahoe, but Michael does not refuse it.  To what "orange legend" are you referring? Eganio 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this referring to the claim that in every scene where someone is killed oranges (the fruit) are visible?PNW Raven (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion/lack of note references