Talk:The Godfather Part III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Godfather Part III article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This portal has been identified as having a featured counter-part at the French language Wikipedia. You may be able to improve this article with information from fr:Le Parrain, 3ème partie.

Contents 1 Question on Don Lucchesi 2 Move to The Godfather Part III 2.1 Remove comma from part 3 2.2 Add comma to part 2 2.3 No moving 2.4 Other votes 2.5 Discussion 3 Moved again 4 Plot Review 5 Year

[edit] Question on Don Lucchesi

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

[edit] Move to The Godfather Part III

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

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

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

Full article names (no redirects):

• The Godfather
• The Godfather Part II
• The Godfather, Part III

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

[edit] Remove comma from part 3

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

[edit] Add comma to part 2

[edit] No moving

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

[edit] Other votes

1. Neutral —ExplorerCDT 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) (moved from WP:RM by cburnett)

Vote changed as above. —ExplorerCDT 23:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

• My view is that serial numbers should go immediately after the title with no extra punctuation, while subtitles should come after a colon. So, The Godfather Part II, Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Hot Shots! Part Deux, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (note that a couple of these are actually redirects to shorter titles). Of course, if there is definitive punctuation on the title card or posters of the movie, then we should follow that, but there isn't in many cases (the separate parts of the title appearing on separate lines instead). sjorford:// 16:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Moved again

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

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

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

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

[edit] Plot Review

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

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

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

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

I am totally upset with the new Plot Revision that user Tommyt and 67.104.30.194 started since the beginning of November 2006.

I think the revision is weak and too short. I can only think that they did this beacause they don't like the movie, and thought that a lesser section would suffice. The new version lacks a lot of information and links. I could imply some vandalism.

VANDALISM??? Why??? Since Wpedia is the "online encyc that anyone can edit" I made some changes. I'm actually kind of insulted you'd suggest that I was trying to vandalize the article. I went thru the synopsis & tried to clean up the grammar. If you look in the history file at the vers before my 1st change you'll see that someone actually inserted the word "Ouch." after mentioning that Vincent bites Zasa on the ear. Totally stupid. There were also unnecessary phrases & a few places where the grammar could be tightened up so the article doesn't sound so bloated. Also, inserting quotes in a synopsis is usually unneeded, take a look at the history for Apocalypse Now (not to get a Coppola theme going here...) you'll see that someone inserted the entire speech Kurtz gives near the end, totally unnecessary to the synopsis. Also, about the article being too short, we're talking about a plot synopsis here, not a complete rehash of every single moment of the film. We don't have to write an entire novel; details like Vincent biting Zasa's ear are fine but incl a whole speech or quote from the film is irrelevant to explaining the plot. Tommyt 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will wait to see if I can switch back to an older version. You can help by viewing, in the history, the last version of October 2006. 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year

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