Do you think it would've lived up to the expectations of I and II? I honestly don't think it would've. All the previous characters were so old and it was kind've sad to see them like that. Why wasn't a Part III made by 1980? -Pat

NO- Duvall would not have made the movie any better then it was. It is that plain and simple.

Had Duvall signed on for GFIII, the plot probably would have been very different, no doubt better. A possibility: Continuation of the theme we saw at the end of GFII (Michael increasingly doubtful of Hagen's value; Neri ever-more ambitious, especially with Rocco out of the way; Hagen having a mistress and other job offers). Intriguing stuff.
The long lapse between II and III: FFC had other projects to pursue, and didn't want to be defined solely by the GF films. This was the era of "One From the Heart," "Apocalypse Now," etc. He went boom and bust, his son Gio died--lots of distractions. Paramount persisted in wanting a GFIII, and finally, with the promise of more money and more control over the film, FFC agreed.

It was Paramount that needed the movie.
and of course if they changed the movie then it wouldn't be the same. They you would have to wonder if it was the change in the movie or was it Duvall being included.

Duvall wouldnt have been in GF3 no matter where it was made, he was absent because of money disagreements, right?

As I understand it, Duvall bailed out of GF III because Pacino, Shire and Keaton were all to be paid considerably more.

I've stated many times on many different threads - I think the original concept for GF III was supposed to focus on the conflict between Tom Hagen and Michael, and when Duvall bailed out, the entire script had to be rewritten on an emergency basis, making the convoluted Vatican/Immobilaire story line the main focus.

So I think GF would have been much, much better with Duvall (or, if necessary, someone else) playing Tom Hagen.

I've read that Duvall admitted that he shouldnt be payed as much as Pacino, but he didnt agree with half of his salary...

I also read somewhere that the movie would still be about the Vatican in some ways, and that Duvall would be assasinated in the beginning...

Casting Duvall in GFIII would not have made it better than GFI & II but it certainly would have made it better.

I like to imagine a script where Michael reluctantly gets in the middle of a power struggle between Tom Hagan and Al Neri.

I've read many times about the script being altered due to Duvall being written out. It looks to me like his duties were split between BJ Harrison (doing the legal maneuvering) and Al Neri (the consgliere type duties, such as sending the message to Joey Zasa after the massacre).

I doubt the end result would have been any different with Duvall in the film. You would still have the large time gap, the modern age story, the convoluted plot, and Sofia Coppola as Mary.

Now with Duvall AND Ryder in the film, then we are getting somewhere.

And I would have hated to see Hagen assassinated. He should have been there on the steps with Mike at the end. I doubt there would have been a power struggle between Neri, etc... it was barely there in Part II and Mike in Part III was already a changed person, filled with regret and probably would have clinged to Tom as the last brother he had.

EDIT: I actually think having Hagen slowly die of cancer would have worked. Have him on his deathbed could have resulted in some awesome flashbacks between Mike and Tom. Couple the loss of Hangen with the death of Mary would have been a far more complex one two punch for Mike to deal with.

Duvall in Part III would have been great just to see him as Tom again.

Having Tom Hagen die of cancer in GF III would have been an interesting parallel to the death of Genco Abbandando in GF I (the scene of which of course, didn't make the final cut.)

Maybe early on in the movie, Michael and Tom would be talking over the olden days, and flashback to the Genco scene and set up Hagen's own deathbed scene later in the movie.

Well, who knows.

From what I understand there really wasn't that much that would have been different had Tom been in the movie. the George Hamilton character just replaced the character. The Godfather companion talks about this.

Also in the commentary on the DVD, Coppola notes that had Hagen been in the role of the lawyer it would have been better because it would have shown how far that character had come that he was dealing with the vatican. he didn't say anything in the commentary about any changes that would have been made had he stayed on and probably would have mentioned this had the original script called for a Micheal vs. Tom storyline.

Keep in mind he was pretty much negotiating with Duvall up until close to the filming began so I don't think there was that much change made, probably just small rewrites here and there and obviously a lessening of the BJ Harrison role.

Duvall, on David Letterman pointed out that he wanted to make at least half of what Al was making for the film but instead they were offering 1/5th. I think it takes away from the film him not being there, but overall it's not that much worse than it would have been because the overall story would have been the same.

I certainly don't think, given the generally hostile critical reception for GF III, that FFC would have gone into any significant discussion of how he *might* have done the film differently, because that would be handing all his critics a loaded weapon.

I base my opinion that Michael vs. Tom (not necessarily a mortal battle, maybe just a battle of wills) was going to be a primary story line of GF III mainly upon analysis of GF II, making notes of little plot points, the way Tom's loyalty was being tested and questioned, the way Michael was alternately hostile and trusting toward him. To me, the role of Tom Hagen toward the end of GF II was definitely being set up as a possible conflict for a sequel.

And the Vatican/Immobilare story line just has always struck me as not adequately thought through, as if it were rewritten in a frantic rush.

The B.J. Harrison character had no substantive role, no substantive lines, whatsoever in GF III. He just sits there and smiles and says 'yah OK' when Michael says something.

If that's the way the Tom Hagen role was written for GF III, then it's just as well Duvall didn't do it.

Unless they had Hagen die of cancer, get assassinated, or go against the family, Hagen's role would have been a lot like Harrison's.

Sure, there would have been more to it, but nort by much.

However, I believe they would have done something with the character. Mike and Tom's storylines were dangling out there at the end of Part II and it would have needed to be tied up in Part III.

And if Paramount needed a Part III so freaking bad, why didn't they just give Duvall what he was asking? I mean come on, he was in Part I for crying out loud!!!

Shame on you Paramount, shame on you!!!

It would have not only changed the complexion of the film it have made it emensly better. For starters it wpuld have elimnated that garbage charecter "B.J Hamilton" (boy does he suck). We would also recieve answers for some of our questions from part II

I think it would've been better.. just the presence of another star could've slightly improved the film.

If you think about it, in the third film, there were no James Caan, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Robert DeNiro and John Cazale.

Even Al Pacino wasn't at his best.. Robert Duvall could've probably played a decent supporting role there.. but that's just my opinion.

I don't agree that Duvall's part would have been the same as B.J.'s. B.J. was boring, uncomplex, with no personality. Hagen was exactly the opposite. It was a huge mistake not paying him what he wanted. I think FFC kicks himself for it even if he won't admit it.

How much did Duvall ask for salary and got rejected by FFC?