This is a topic me and my dad have had many times
this week(The Godfather marathon Thanks HBO). Let's be honest we all know that no matter how much we love a movie/ show there's always something we didn't agree with or that irritated us. That we wish would had been different or changed.

-For me I'd have Rocco take the place of Fedro.

-Apollonia would had been seriously wounded but not killed(leaving Michael bent on revenge either way).

- Don Vito Corleone would had lived to at least move to Nevada and then causing a "Godfather 1 1/2" to occur to see how he consuls Mike (We didn't really get to see enough of that in the first one).

-Years after Mike came back to New York with his new Wife. While Kay shops she spots him in the department store with his new family Christmas shopping. *Evil Laugh* I am such a stinker.

So list your dislikes, disagreements, wishful thinking's below.

If you could rewrite/film it what would you change?

I would like to have seen a film, or maybe an extended portion of one of the existing films, that tells the Corleone family story in detail during the period from about 1925 - 1945 - roughly the time that Godfather II leaves us with the story of a young Vito having become a successful Mustache Pete in "the olive oil business"...to the point in time where Godfather I begins: With the establishment of new sources of revenue, the contours of the growing Coreleone empire, the politics, power struggles & wars with rival families, and the internal family dynamics as they developed between & among Vito, Carmela, Santino, Fredo, Connie, Michael & Tom.

(BTW, does anyone else think that Vito, as portrayed by Robert DeNiro during the early Twenties, had aged terribly by the time we catch up with him again in the mid Forties, as portrayed by Marlon Brando? I mean, at the time of Connie's wedding in 1945, Vito was only 53 years old. Yet he looked at least 15 years older than that, even more. Maybe the hard life he had lived had taken a serious toll upon him?)

I would also liked to have seen a lot more detail about Vito's early life in New York's Little Italy - that whole stretch from maybe about 1905 - 1925. I found what was contained in Godfather II to be fascinating. Just superbly done "period piece" film making.

GF1 really missed the boat when it centered the story around Michael and Vito Corleone.

A much more compelling story could have been fashioned after the nurse in the hospital who helps Michael move his father when men are coming to kill him. We should have followed her life as a put upon trauma nurse, handling patients and their families with a firm but human touch, providing care for the sick, providing support for their families. Her life was surely more colorful and unpredictable than the lives of mafioso. Did she even have time for personal relationships? How was her relationship with her own parents; were they estranged or did they support her in her noble pursuits of helping humanity? How did she unwind after a hard day, did she have a drink with friends or just go home to an empty house? Was it poignant when she plopped down in front of the TV and fell asleep, alone, a half empty bottle of wine on the coffee table?

Other than that, I can't think of much I would have changed.

Oh, and I guess it goes without saying, but GF2 should have been based around Superman.

I thought that it was?

I would have wanted to see more of Vito and Michael interactions either at the very beginning of part II and then have Vito die then shown the flashbacks of his childhood and so on. I think that would have made an even better movie.

As of part 1, I would either have had Michael and Kay divorce earlier than in part II (Why drag that miserable marriage out?) or have Kay gotten married while Michael was in Sicily and Michael would have no choice but to move on. Then Michael would meet and marry a non whining woman.

I didn't know trolling was allowed here.

I liked it all. Would not change much in I or II. Would have left III unmade.

The only thing in this threat I would mention is the ambiguity of the title "The Godfather" is intentional. Who is "The Godfather?" Michael or Vito?

What I didn't like was that all of Manolo's scenes got cut. He was the heart and soul of the Trilogy and including his scenes would have answered alot of our questions.

That's why he is the "hidden hand." Keep in mind there were plenty of Manolo scnes in "Frost/Nixon."

I would have made Michael less powerful, and made only Tattaglia and Barzini die, not Cuneo and Stracci (like in the book). Also, I probably would have made Roth whack Michael at the end of the 2nd movie, so they would be no Godfather 3 with its absurd ending. Really, no mafia boss can get away with murdering so many powerful adversaries and stay alive. Organized crime is based on balance, if a single individual tries to become an absolute dictator, he dies quickly.

I would have cut the racist statements during the meeting of the dons. It was unnecessary - the point could have been made to keep drugs away from Italians as well as the neighborhoods where the authorities would notice them without having to refer to people of color as "animals", etc.

Really, that's all I've got. One I am surprised has not been mentioned yet is to have Clemenza included in the non-flashback portions of II, but the Pentangeli narrative is so compelling, I personally would not have sacrificed it or altered it. I guess others agree with me.

Yes, I've always felt the same. There is a certain comic book aspect to the story.

Well why did they have Cuneo and Stracci die in the movie? just because they were competition? and I'm sorry but hell no... I'm not being a racist but have the Jew kill a Sicilian in Godfather II? that would take the whole Italian pride aspect of the trilogy away...

I'm not sure i would have changed anything, the film is perfect as it is..

Agreed. It was unfortunate that Brando didn't show up for Part II.



Not unnecessary at all as racism was very common among mobsters back then. This only added to a more realistic portrayal.

I disagree. I don't doubt that racism existed at the time, but why alienate a portion of the audience on a throwaway line or lines from a character that isn't seen before or since? I would hardly call the scene unrealistic without the slurs.

calling the colored folks animals was a lack of formal education/beliefs of the time. basically saying labor workers who at the time were probably the bigger guys would need narcotics more than the non labor workers. but if you notice.. The Don himself was never formally educated...

I didn't mind that line, because it showed a bit of the mindset of the Dons and reminded us that, for all the talk about them being "businessmen," they were really amoral scumbags only too ready to take "the souls" of people they look down upon in order to make a few bucks.

Also, don't forget that the movie is over 40 years old. Back then, there was less concern about shielding people from potentially hurtful opinions, so I don't think there was much danger of "alienating" the audience; the potentially offended portion of the audience would have been far more used to opinions like that being tossed around than they would be today.

I do not mind an accurate reflection of the mind-set of any period. When I saw the movie in 1972 or whatever it was, I found the "animals" line offensive, but an accurate portrayal of the way white people thought.

To me its like all the fuss about "N" Jim in Huck Finn. Its a part of the literature.

I am all for PC when appropriate, but if we want to show the reality of a particular time, so be it.

Odd...when the GF was filmed it was more dangerous to say the word "fuck" than it was to call a group of people "animals." Today if you go on HBO every other workd is "fuck" and the same people delicately refer to "the N word."

Its all a matter of perspective.

The words "dark people" and "coloreds" were used in place of the "N" word,although Sonny talks about the "ni**ers up in Harlem and their "policy banks". It's kind of funny,that,if FCC worried about the use of the word,then he must have gotten a kick 2 years later when "Blazing Saddles" hit the screens.

If I'm not mistaken that line is in the novel too, so it made sense to keep it in the movie.

N word was not a big deal when this book was written and the movie made. The deal was Puzo and FFC were both showing the racism that existed, not so much as the choice of words. I remember very wekk when the movie came out that there was a lot of talk about how the deal was made to sell drugs to the "coloreds" only because they are animals anyway. Vito seemed to go along with that and only wanted it away from schools and away from the Italian neighborhoods....the same thing Michael wanted in III. this is a case of our imposing our views retroactively, which does not work.

Admittedly, it is difficult if not impossible for me to avoid this, as I was not alive when GFI was released.

I have no trouble with such terminology when it is essential to the film, such as 12 Years a Slave (outstanding movie BTW). But I don't like it being used frivolously. I won't go so far as to call its use frivolous in GFI but it certainly was not essential.

More Willie cicci. Other than that, nothing, they are perfect films.

Great movies, but something such as "Goodfellas", or "The Sopranos" shows many angles and the differences in each characters position and life

The only thing I didn't like was the unautheticity. The worst example is a civilian ordering a hit on a boss of one of the Five Families without the Commission's go ahead.

I'm not sure that I would say this counts as something that I didn't like, but there is something that I couldn't completely figure out even after having read the book.

It always confused me what Vito was trying to do by having Luca try to give the impression that he wanted to trade families. Given Luca's famous loyalty it would seem to me that nobody would believe that it's possible he would do something like that. Thus, I have to wonder if the Don didn't take this into account and knowingly led his most feared enforcer into a death trap. If so then to what end did he do this?

I guess Vito just slipped up there.

I Sollozzo knew that and that he was being set up thats why he killed Luca Brasi. Don Corleone underestimated Sollozzo. Big mistake!