Ok, I'm sure this question has been asked and answered a million times, but I'm new to this site and I also don't have a lot of time to go searching around for the answer myself, so maybe one or some of you can help me.

I want to know how the book compares to the movies. I don't mean was it "good" or "bad", I mean, how much are they alike/different?

The reason why I'm asking is because I'd like to read the book if it would help me gain more understanding for the movies. There's a lot more to the movies that I'd like to know about, and if reading the book would help me, then I want to read it. But if it's almost like a completely different story, then I'm not so sure how I feel about that. Ha.

Also- if the book IS a lot like the movie(s), does it include stuff from all THREE parts or just the first?

Welcome to the boards. The only parts of the Trilogy that are also in the book are all of The Godfather and the flashback scenes in Godfather 2.

The book gives you more insight into characters such as Luca Brasi and Mama Corleone. There are parts of the bood that were (mercifully) left out of the movie, such as what happens to Lucy Mancini after Sonny's death and lots more about Johnny Fontaine.

However, Puzo is an excellent storyteller and I do recommend reading it. It will make the films more complete.

Sicilian Babe is right about the character insights. The novel also explains much of the Sicilian culture that gave rise to the Mafia. Puzo also did that in The Last Don and Omerta. I don't know how much of that is historically accurate.

But I think the GF novel has more of a pulp sensibility. Johnny Fontaine and Nino Valenti are (I assume) meant to resemble Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. I found that roman à clef approach to be distracting in the book. Harold Robbins and Sidney Sheldon used to write entire novels that way. Not only did the movie leave out most of the Hollywood/Fontaine/Mancini stuff, Al Martino looked nothing like the young Sinatra.

Other than that material and the Young Vito chapter, the book and GF1 are almost the same story. One meaningful difference for me was when Michael proposes shooting Sollozzo and McCluskey. In the book, Sonny jokes with Michael and then expresses joy that Michael had finally joined the Family, so they can work together and wipe out the Family's enemies. Another difference is the last chapter, really an epilogue, which I won't give away here.

Vito, you asked a good question, and SB and Carstonio gave you excellent and succinct answers. I'd just add my two cents:
The novel provides more rounded development for some characters. It also has some terrific stories that weren't included in the film, such as Vito's rise, Sonny's rise, Neri's introduction to the family, and how the Bocchicchios helped bring Michael back from Sicily. On the other hand, the novel has a generally rough-edged, hurriedly written quality to it, while the film is nothing if not polished.

Like Carstonio, I found the roman-a-clef aspects irritating. Puzo was one of those authors (like Ian Fleming of James Bond fame) who couldn't resist putting into his novel every bit of erudition he ever accumulated--whether or not the erudition had anything to do with the plot. Johnny Fontaine serves a highly useful purpose at the beginning by helping to define Vito's influence and the range of his caring--excellent. Thereafter, Johnny, and Nino, serve only to enable Puzo to show off what he learned about Hollywood. That Hollywood showboating BS ruined "The Last Don," IMO. And that whole bit about Lucy and Jules was designed so that Puzo could show off what he knew about her operation. Evidently a female relative or friend of his had had the operation, told him about it--and presto, it gets into the novel. It's not only boring, but after a while, you feel as though Puzo took advantage of your interest in his novel.

We had a similar discussion about this aspect of the book in another thread recently.

I disagree with TB's asessment of the imprtance of the Johnny Fontane.

I think that except for Vito & Michael, he was meant to be the novel's most important character - and indeed, a fairly hefty portion of the book is taken up by his story, not just those little "insider details" about Hollywood that Puzo had picked up over the years.

I think it was MP's intention to draw a paralell between the dishonesty, treachery, and corruption in the business of organized crime and the same characteristics in the supposedley "legitimate" business of Hollywood.

I'd agree on the 'Hollywood v. Organized Crime' parallel theory. Some of the most interesting parts of the book depict this beautifully.

After Khartoum is killed, a good chunk is devoted to what's going on in Woltz's mind...what would posess Corleone to do such a thing, what his message was, what would be the result if he continued to refuse to give Fontaine the part in the picture. As the story continues we see MUCH intertwining of the two worlds with regard to the continuing careers/lives of Johnny and others. Even the Lucy/Dr. Jules story which at the surface I could've done without...contains some very intricate background that most definitely intertwines with the Corleone world.

I won't go into detail because VitoIsntDead will probably end up reading the book (without anybody having to give it to him). Suffice to say that Puzo was sharing much more than sordid Hollywood tidbits he learned along the way.

Apple

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Turnbull:
[QB] the novel has a generally rough-edged, hurriedly written quality to it, while the film is nothing if not polished.
[QUOTE]

Yes, I also got that impression. I was both interested and dissapointed to learn that Puzo had intended to write one more draft before it was completed. Oh well, what ya gonna do? bada-bing bada-bum. At least he got the oppertunity to do this with the screenplay...

About the book, Puzo describe more accuratly Al Neri, some kind of little "biography". In the movie, you only see him during Barzini's hit.

Some minor differences:

Sonny watches Vito kill Fanucci in the book; not so in the movie.

Calo, Mike's Sicilian bodyguard, was killed by the same bomb as Appolonia in the book; he survives in the movie.

Sonny and Tom Hagen were six years older in the book than they were in the movie.

The only reason Calo 'survives' in the movie is that the actor who played him was still alive by the time GFIII was made.

Otherwise, it probably would've been assumed that the car bomb killed him as well.

Apple

isn't he on the other side of the estate, eating or something when he tell's Michael Fabrizio is missing or something like that right before the bomb goes off? (in the movie)

Putting Michael closer to the explosion than he.

stavka...in the scene you're referring to, Michael approaches Calo in a little 'room' outside the house, where he is 'snacking' on wine & cheese.

After telling Michael where Appolonia is and then saying she'll make a 'good American wife' (making Michael genuinely smile for one of the few times in both films), he says he'll put the bags into the car.

When we do see Appolonia in the car shouting to Michael that she'll drive him, Calo can be briefly seen bringing the bags to the trunk.

It seems virtually impossible that he could've loaded the suitcases and walked far enough from the car to survive the explosion which happened only seconds later.

That is why the only serious explanation for his 'survival' was the chance to bring another GF actor back to play a 'reunion' role in Part III.

Apple

Nothing beats Don Volpe's appearance in Atlantic City - or maybe Carmine Rosato entered the Witness Protection Program and the US marshals placed him with another mafia "family".

Probably a job he'd be good at I suppose

I agree, Stavka.

That's something I never understood.

For the same money, they could've had Carmine Caridi reprising the role of Carmine (or was he Tony?) Rosato, adding another character from one of the first two films.

The only indication we are given in GF II regarding the fate of the Rosatos was that, according to Hagen, they were "on the run".

They certainly could've regrouped and rebuilt their power base, especially with Michael out of New York and Pentangeli out of the picture.

They even could've given him a little bit of "Rosato Dialogue", like they did to identify some of the other minor characters from the first two films.

Instead, they unnecessarily cast Caridi to play a different role entirely.

I wonder why.

Caridi appeared as Frank Costello in "Bugsy." He was portrayed as incredibly, comically stupid, when in fact Costello was the smartest of all the NY Mafia Dons.

Mostly everything's been covered here already, but one major difference between the book and the movies which I would remark upon would be the existence of Vincent Mancini. In the book, Lucy Mancini's life after Sonny's demise is spelled out in great (I would say too much) detail, and it's terribly obvious that she wasn't carrying Sonny's seed when he kicked off. In the film trilogy, this obviously isn't the case. Presumably, in the universe of the films, she was never shipped off to Vegas to become a semi-big deal at the casino, but instead stayed in the NYC area and raised old Vincenzo on her own.

I'm kind of new here so please be patient with me if I ask an obvious question or two.
Wasn't the BIGGEST contradiction between the book and the the two movie sequels the existence of Mary Corleone?
Love her or hate her, she became a pivotal character in parts 2 and 3.
Yet, according to the book, Kay gives Michael another son.

I don't know if it was the biggest, but it was pretty big.