1 registered members (Ciment),
123
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,983
Posts1,074,746
Members10,349
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: pizzaboy]
#413355
07/10/07 12:39 PM
07/10/07 12:39 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
ErikPflueger
Wiseguy
|
Wiseguy
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
|
First, thank you for welcoming me here and for letting me rant. Maybe I won't find many fans of the sequel books here, but I will proclaim in all honesty that I am a fan myself. And I don't think he did a poor job, and I don't think he findamentally wrecked anyone's definition of canon. As you said, it's the American way, so feel free to feel he DID do a bad job if that's what you think. But people are bagging on him to an extent that he doesn't deserve for just writing a "bad book," as you call it. It;s one thing just to say that, but to call the book a the equivalent of a "full rectal examination?" That's exaggerating it a bit too far. The book didn't suit your tastes, that's all. You didn't like it, but your ass-equivalent is still intact, I'm happy to say. No, I'm not Mark. But we DO live in the same state. Second, the dialogue in ALL the books was not-so-hot. But I think that, including "butta-beppa-dee-boppa-dee-boop" (though Winegardner didn't spell it the way Caan ad-libbed it), the dialogue was at least more appropriate for the people inhabiting the story. The terminology is more like Mafia terminology to me. Regimes are referred to at the ground-level as crews, and so on. It actually reminded me of what Scorcese did with his Mafia films, if you want a film reference. Keep in mind that, while Michael, Kay and even Geraci (among certain other characters) were college-educated and could turn a phrase, most of the characters were not. Sonny and Fredo never finished school, for instance. Revenge shows a perfect contrast by having Michael tell Eddie Paradise, "The profits are a by-product of good relationships, a good reputation that spreads by word of mouth and causes other people to come to us, seeking our services." and Eddie following up by simply saying "See, in our world, money’s just a prick. But favors – givin’ favors out, callin’ ‘em in, everything – favors are pussy." Same message, different manner of speaking. It's just one more way of showing how these people generally were never well served by the system, educational or otherwise, or else why join the Mafia? That was one of both Puzo's and Coppola's principal messages. Just ask Bonasera if you don't take my word for it... Third, you're absolutely right: in the end of the Puzo book, Michael did indeed have two SONS, not just two children, a son and a daughter. That, I'm sure, is one of Winegardner's many concessions to the films. Let's be honest here, it makes little difference to the story of the original Godfather if Michael has two boys or just one and a girl. And the films later elaborated that he had a son, Anthony, and a daughter, Mary. And because, as I said, the movies are more well known, he coudn't just ignore something that the films later made pivotal. The story of Part III would have been presumably quite different if Michael had only had sons. Evidently Winegardner decided, "Where's the harm in keeping the son-daughter thing? It doesn't harm the story I want to tell, and it keeps Part III from becoming completely invalid, especially since I'm not going that far forward in time anyway." Again, it's one thing to ignore Gardner Shaw - his scene was considered so unimportant that it was cut, after all - but it's quite another to ignore Anthony and Mary, who ended up having a LARGE impact on the saga's events. You follow? So my arguing phase is passed, and "I'm glad that we could come here and reason together." But even if you don't prefer Winegardner's work, all I ask is that you don't bash him so bad that I'll have no place here as possibly the lone proponent. I'd like to feel as welcome as you bid me to feel. Be fair to me, is all.
Last edited by ErikPflueger; 07/10/07 12:41 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: ErikPflueger]
#413362
07/10/07 12:49 PM
07/10/07 12:49 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296 Throggs Neck
pizzaboy
The Fuckin Doctor
|
The Fuckin Doctor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
|
Hey Erik, I'm a part time Floridian, myself (Delray Beach). You seem like a gentleman and it's nice having you here. As far as Winegardner, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In the word's of Ralph Kramden, "he's a BUM!!" Er, excuse me, in my opinion, he's a BUM!!
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: ErikPflueger]
#413379
07/10/07 01:03 PM
07/10/07 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296 Throggs Neck
pizzaboy
The Fuckin Doctor
|
The Fuckin Doctor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
|
Naples, land of golf courses and lots of them. Pretty much Colma East without the headstones. Too bad. You, Fredo and Winegardner could have opened up a cemetery together See, as sarcastic as I am, at least you can see I actually read the "novels."
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: pizzaboy]
#413392
07/10/07 01:12 PM
07/10/07 01:12 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
ErikPflueger
Wiseguy
|
Wiseguy
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
|
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: pizzaboy]
#413399
07/10/07 01:17 PM
07/10/07 01:17 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296 Throggs Neck
pizzaboy
The Fuckin Doctor
|
The Fuckin Doctor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
|
And I'll be very fair here: I've never found Puzo's novel particularly well written. And I HATED the Hollywood nonsense in it, Sonny's throbbing pole and Lucy's enormous box.
BUT, unlike Winegardner, Puzo was a wildly entertaining storyteller, if not a great writer. Trimalchio Rex may have been the only thing Winegardner thought of himself. It's probably based on one of HIS books.
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: ErikPflueger]
#413475
07/10/07 03:58 PM
07/10/07 03:58 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831 New Market, MD
DeathByClotheshanger
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
|
Interesting to hear Erik's side of things. He does raise some interesting points. But I still don't agree with much of anything he said. For starters, I'd expect Winegardner to invent new characters. Hell, as I fart around with my own Part IV script, I've realized that a lot of new characters are necessary to tell stories in the GF world. So I don't fault Winegardner for creating new characters. It's just that he abandoned the original characters too much in order to follow these new characters around. And the new characters he did create weren't that interesting. Geraci and his father had a good rapport and were memorable, but everyone else blended together on the page. I couldn't tell them apart. And when he was writing about the original characters he had to mess with our images of them. We didn't like the "behold wood" line because it was too graphic, we just didn't believe Mike or Kay would use a line like that. At the end of Part I, Mike was already a cold-hearted bastard and Kay had already seen what her husband had become. I imagine their sex life as pretty lame. So I just didn't think it fit. I could give MW the benefit of the doubt, because they were still married and would still have sex, just just not in that way. We didn't like what MW did with Fredo because it cheapened Fredo's fragility. And if I were gay I would take offense to it. Fredo couldn't just be weak because the only trait he got from Vito was his sensitivity... No, Fredo had to be weak because he was gay or bi-sexual. Or whatever. All it ended up as was a cheap ploy to bring homosexuality to the GF world. My biggest problem, however, was MW taking it upon himself to change Kay's abortion to a miscarriage. Kay's admittance that she had Mike's second son aborted was a cornerstone in their relationship. It was Kay breaking free of Mike's clutches. But MW had to cheapen it. And for what? What did it bring to the story? Nadda! Then, MW fails to water the seeds that were planted for him to grow. Chief among them is Clemenza's death. We're told "that wasn't no heart attack" but MW gives him a heart attack. Very interesting. Then, when we're told that Tom died of a heart attack in Part III... and we're given no reason to think it was anything other than a heart attack, MW has Hagen killed by Geraci in a lame fashion. As for the books themselves, I found Returns to be hard to understand. MW twisted common sentences around instead of just spitting it out. Revenge was a little easier to read, but wasn't interesting. I had it out from the library, made it 150 pages through and just decided that it wasn't worth reading. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about these books. But I'm glad you're hear to bring a new perspective to the discussions. They were a tad one-sided.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: DeathByClotheshanger]
#413518
07/10/07 04:49 PM
07/10/07 04:49 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
ErikPflueger
Wiseguy
|
Wiseguy
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
|
Thanks, Death, and I have to say that of the criticisms I've read so far, yours are the most substantive. They go past Winegardner being a sonufabitch or something and speak to real issues. So I'll answer on that level: 1.) I can agree that Geraci's relationship with his grumpy-ass father was quite memorable, but there were other memorable characters as well. Mickey "Cahn-sig-liary" Shea was one; Joe Lucadello was another. Not everyone was, though. Russo could have been more interesting as a character, though the whole "Fuckface" bit did make him a little memorable. Forlenza was a total no-interest character, though, to be fair to you. 2.) The "wood" line. I'm married, and we say stupid things like that constantly. But to speak to the central point you made, you've as much as said that what bothers you about the state of their marriage in late 1955 is that it wasn't fitting in with HOW YOU SAW IT. Yes, a case could be made that, four months after realizing that Michael lied to her face and fleeing to New Hampshire until Hagen got her to come back, Kay'd be a little more cold to him still. But that's asking human relationships to be consistent and have a proper through-line, and they don't. I've only been married for eight months, and I sometimes already want out. Then the next weekend we're happy as all get-out again. But as a side note, it wasn't entirely Winegardner's own creation; Puzo has her taking up Catholicism and becoming the Corleone equivalent of a stepford wife. The precedent is there. 3.) OK, the gay thing. I have to admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea too. And there may be something else at work here: Winegardner's need to comment on things relevant to our time by using their equivalents in other times (no matter who the author is, every story about a certain time period is really about the concerns of the people expected to read it), in this case the issue of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church. Remember that the first mention of anything hinky is when Fredo, at ten, wants to become a priest by studying under Father Stefano, and then he suddenly emerges at thirteen strong, serious, powerful, and shy around women. One day he's just clumsy, then one day he goes off into his room for long periods of time. Finally, at sixteen, he announces that he no longer wants to be a priest and ends up joining the family business. One admittedly has to read between the lines, but it can be argued that Winegardner at least laid the groundwork. As to how it changes the character of Fredo and offers an explanation for his weakness he didn't need, I can't comment either for or against that. It's a valid opinion. 4.) The abortion/miscarriage thing, I totally agree with you; it should have remained an abortion. But the argument I could offer is that Kay was still standing up to Michael, whether the abortion was real or not. She wants out of this marriage, period. She knows she cannot stay with this man. She knows that if Michael thinks he has to, he will make her a prisoner again. He will never change. And he will never allow her to leave, unless she tells him what she has decided to tell him, even if it is a lie. And it works; the marriage is already on the rocks, and now it's ended. They divorce. It brings nothing to the story, really, but it does briong something to the color of the piece, and that may not matter, but it's all I have on that one. 5.) With Clemenza dying, that may not have been as planted as you think. The script for Godfather Part II said outright that Clemenza's heart attack was real, that it came from stress related to the troubles the Rosatos were giving to him. Pentangeli said to Michael: "Sure, Pete Clemenza died of a heart attack, but the Rosato Brothers gave it to him." He later said to one of the Rosatos: "You drove old Pete Clemenza to his grave, Carmine; you and your brother. Turning on him; trouble in his territories, you and your demands. I hold you responsible, just as though you shot him in the head. And I ain’t gonna let that go for long!" That's all in the script, if not the finished film, so it can be argued that the intent, at least, from the beginning was that Clemenza really did die of a heart attack, no matter what Cicci said (he really died from his actor being unreasonable, but what're ya gonna do?). 6.) Finally, regarding Hagen: I have seen nothing in Part III to indicate that he died of a heart attack, or any other cause of death. The only mention of Hagen dying in the film is Michael telling B.J. Harrison that he didn't live to see the ordination of his son Andrew Hagen (well played by John Savage in a brief role; he gets the Robert Duvall voice down perfectly). But that's all; the rest is an open slate. And determining that he might as well cover Hagen's established death, Winegardner chose to do so in the most heart-wrenching manner he could, and to me, it was just that. I'm sorry you felt it was lame, but I'm not sure how a simple heart attack is an improvement. Finally, not to sound like I'm lecturing, or talking down to you, but if you only read 150 pages into the book, and then gave up, can you really have the most imformed opinion you can get? Just give it another shot; you don't have to change your opinions at all if you don't want to, but at least you'll know they're fully-informed opinions. We can still disagree, but you'll have more ammo. And there's no harm in that.
Last edited by ErikPflueger; 07/10/07 04:49 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: DeathByClotheshanger]
#413540
07/10/07 05:26 PM
07/10/07 05:26 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238 The Ravenite Social Club
Don Cardi
OP
Caporegime
|
OP
Caporegime
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238
The Ravenite Social Club
|
Interesting to hear Erik's side of things. He does raise some interesting points. But I still don't agree with much of anything he said.
I don't fault Winegardner for creating new characters. It's just that he abandoned the original characters too much in order to follow these new characters around. And the new characters he did create weren't that interesting. Geraci and his father had a good rapport and were memorable, but everyone else blended together on the page. I couldn't tell them apart.
...... we just didn't believe Mike or Kay would use a line like that. We didn't like what MW did with Fredo because it cheapened Fredo's fragility. And if I were gay I would take offense to it. Fredo couldn't just be weak because the only trait he got from Vito was his sensitivity... No, Fredo had to be weak because he was gay or bi-sexual. Or whatever. All it ended up as was a cheap ploy to bring homosexuality to the GF world. Well said. My thoughts exactly. My biggest problem, however, was MW taking it upon himself to change Kay's abortion to a miscarriage. Kay's admittance that she had Mike's second son aborted was a cornerstone in their relationship. It was Kay breaking free of Mike's clutches. But MW had to cheapen it. And for what? What did it bring to the story? Nadda! Well in fairness to Winegardner, Erik does make a pretty valid point in that the Returns and Revenge are based off of The GF Novel. And I have no problem with that. But Erik, if that is the arguement that one is going to use in a debate of this nature, than I would have to counter by saying if that is the case, then Winegardner should have remained consistent. If he decided to pick and choose what he wanted to base on the novel and what he wanted to pick from the GFII movie, than he, nor anyone else, cannot use the "its based on the novel" argument. Then, MW fails to water the seeds that were planted for him to grow. Chief among them is Clemenza's death. We're told "that wasn't no heart attack" but MW gives him a heart attack. Very interesting. Then, when we're told that Tom died of a heart attack in Part III... and we're given no reason to think it was anything other than a heart attack, MW has Hagen killed by Geraci in a lame fashion. Again, this is my pet peeve with Winegardner's writing of the books. I totally understand that he needed to create new characters and needed to introduce them in the mix of the old ones. BUT, instead of wasting 3 chapters on Johnny Fontaine and Francesca's relationship, he could have given us one chapter on that and then used another or two on a character that he plucked from the GFII movie and not the novel, a character like Pentangeli, and given us a little more insight into that character. Insight that we weren't given in the movie. And by the way, concerning what Don Cardi had to say: "The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time." What? Did we read the same book? Clemenza was in a huge chunk of Returns. In fact, every major character - and several minor ones - from Puzo's book who was alive was included in this story,
Did we read the same book? Yes it's true that Winegardner did include many major characters, many minor characters, and even a good amount of Clemenza. But my beef is in the way that he used those characters. It was almost as if he dangled them in front of our faces to keep us interested in the book, never really getting deeper into those characters and never giving the insight that may have answered some of the questions that we may have had about them from seeing them in the movies. Don't you agree that a background story of a Frank Pentangelli, or a WIllie Cicci would have been pretty interesting? I've said in many of my other posts that I actually liked the Nick Geraci character that Winegardner created. Thought that he was a pretty interesting character. His creation of characters is not my beef. Every good author should inject some of his own creations even when basing his writing on another authors book. My beef is the way that, in some cases, he prtrayed the characters that Puzo created, and then in other cases the way that he did not portray the characters that FFC created, but yet chose to insert here and there in his books. In Revenge, one of my favorite parts ( yeah, I actually had a favorite part or two ) is when Winegardner is trying to portray the big sitdown in South Brooklyn. He had some really great newly created characters intertwined with some of the original characters. And he did a really excellent job of creating a picture in the readers mind of what that area of Brooklyn looked like and how the sitdown appeared. It was a point in the book where I began to really get pulled in (see my back and forth chapter by chapter posts that i made while reading the book) and then BAM! Dead end. Boring next story. Perhaps many, including myself were a bit too harsh on Mr. Winegardner. Lord knows that it took some courage to write a book based on both a novel and a trilogy that are held in such high regard. But by doing so he also took on the risk of critisizm, and should take it for what it's worth. As I said there were some spots in both books where Winegardner showed that he is a pretty good writer, and that is why I think that he could have done much much better with his storylines and with some of the characters that we were familiar with.
Don Cardi Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: ErikPflueger]
#413559
07/10/07 06:07 PM
07/10/07 06:07 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831 New Market, MD
DeathByClotheshanger
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
New Market, MD
|
Thanks, Death, and I have to say that of the criticisms I've read so far, yours are the most substantive. They go past Winegardner being a sonufabitch or something and speak to real issues. So I'll answer on that level: 1.) I can agree that Geraci's relationship with his grumpy-ass father was quite memorable, but there were other memorable characters as well. Mickey "Cahn-sig-liary" Shea was one; Joe Lucadello was another. Not everyone was, though. Russo could have been more interesting as a character, though the whole "Fuckface" bit did make him a little memorable. Forlenza was a total no-interest character, though, to be fair to you. 2.) The "wood" line. I'm married, and we say stupid things like that constantly. But to speak to the central point you made, you've as much as said that what bothers you about the state of their marriage in late 1955 is that it wasn't fitting in with HOW YOU SAW IT. Yes, a case could be made that, four months after realizing that Michael lied to her face and fleeing to New Hampshire until Hagen got her to come back, Kay'd be a little more cold to him still. But that's asking human relationships to be consistent and have a proper through-line, and they don't. I've only been married for eight months, and I sometimes already want out. Then the next weekend we're happy as all get-out again. But as a side note, it wasn't entirely Winegardner's own creation; Puzo has her taking up Catholicism and becoming the Corleone equivalent of a stepford wife. The precedent is there. 3.) OK, the gay thing. I have to admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea too. And there may be something else at work here: Winegardner's need to comment on things relevant to our time by using their equivalents in other times (no matter who the author is, every story about a certain time period is really about the concerns of the people expected to read it), in this case the issue of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church. Remember that the first mention of anything hinky is when Fredo, at ten, wants to become a priest by studying under Father Stefano, and then he suddenly emerges at thirteen strong, serious, powerful, and shy around women. One day he's just clumsy, then one day he goes off into his room for long periods of time. Finally, at sixteen, he announces that he no longer wants to be a priest and ends up joining the family business. One admittedly has to read between the lines, but it can be argued that Winegardner at least laid the groundwork. As to how it changes the character of Fredo and offers an explanation for his weakness he didn't need, I can't comment either for or against that. It's a valid opinion. 4.) The abortion/miscarriage thing, I totally agree with you; it should have remained an abortion. But the argument I could offer is that Kay was still standing up to Michael, whether the abortion was real or not. She wants out of this marriage, period. She knows she cannot stay with this man. She knows that if Michael thinks he has to, he will make her a prisoner again. He will never change. And he will never allow her to leave, unless she tells him what she has decided to tell him, even if it is a lie. And it works; the marriage is already on the rocks, and now it's ended. They divorce. It brings nothing to the story, really, but it does briong something to the color of the piece, and that may not matter, but it's all I have on that one. 5.) With Clemenza dying, that may not have been as planted as you think. The script for Godfather Part II said outright that Clemenza's heart attack was real, that it came from stress related to the troubles the Rosatos were giving to him. Pentangeli said to Michael: "Sure, Pete Clemenza died of a heart attack, but the Rosato Brothers gave it to him." He later said to one of the Rosatos: "You drove old Pete Clemenza to his grave, Carmine; you and your brother. Turning on him; trouble in his territories, you and your demands. I hold you responsible, just as though you shot him in the head. And I ain’t gonna let that go for long!" That's all in the script, if not the finished film, so it can be argued that the intent, at least, from the beginning was that Clemenza really did die of a heart attack, no matter what Cicci said (he really died from his actor being unreasonable, but what're ya gonna do?). 6.) Finally, regarding Hagen: I have seen nothing in Part III to indicate that he died of a heart attack, or any other cause of death. The only mention of Hagen dying in the film is Michael telling B.J. Harrison that he didn't live to see the ordination of his son Andrew Hagen (well played by John Savage in a brief role; he gets the Robert Duvall voice down perfectly). But that's all; the rest is an open slate. And determining that he might as well cover Hagen's established death, Winegardner chose to do so in the most heart-wrenching manner he could, and to me, it was just that. I'm sorry you felt it was lame, but I'm not sure how a simple heart attack is an improvement. Finally, not to sound like I'm lecturing, or talking down to you, but if you only read 150 pages into the book, and then gave up, can you really have the most imformed opinion you can get? Just give it another shot; you don't have to change your opinions at all if you don't want to, but at least you'll know they're fully-informed opinions. We can still disagree, but you'll have more ammo. And there's no harm in that. I just watched Part III last night even then I missed it. You're right, Michael does say that Hagen never lived to see his son ordained. Nothing about a heart attack. I totally missed that one. If you are right about the original Part II script and Clemenze in deed dying of the heart attack, then I might owe MW an apology since it would be the way that FFC and Puzo intended, but like you said about the Gardner Shaw scene, it was cut from the film so all we have to go on is the theatrical version. I disagree with that, however. I think that there is so much to the GF world that even deleted scenes hold some weight in the grand scheme of things. Why did MW have to invent Geraci out of thin air? He had the Corleone family tree at his disposal... he could have just used the Nick Geraci character he had created and just changed the name so that it was one of the guys on that family tree. He could have done the same thing with Bill Van Arsdale. Just make him Gardner Shaw. All in all, these are small things, but done the right way they make the reading and viewing experience all that more rewarding. And that's my biggest beef with these books. MW knew he had to sacrifice some of his artistic integrity to write these books. Anyone writing a GF novel or 2, would have to realize that there are already things that exist, that cannot be changed, whatsoever. But a lot of times MW ignored this and just rewrote things as he saw fit. He should have thought about the fans more. Even in minor cases, like changing Geraci's name to someone on the billboard. And finally about the book/movie thing. I can understand why MW would keep Cuneo and Stracci around if they were an integral part to the story... but they weren't. MW only mentioned them in passing... so why not defer to the films in this case? Doesn't it seem odd in Revenge when MW is referring to Cuneo and Stracci as the Corleone's oldest friends? I can't get passed stuff like that. MW could have done a better job making these books more integrated with the films. That is probably my biggest beef. He does some good things in these books... but because he changed around too much and didn't include other things, I will always call these books failures. Maybe I will re-read them though. I had forgotten so much stuff from Returns when reading Revenge that I wanted to do that. We'll see. As it stands now I just don't have much motivation to.
|
|
|
Re: Book Discussion *SPOILERS* FINAL CHAPTER
[Re: Don Cardi]
#413561
07/10/07 06:13 PM
07/10/07 06:13 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
ErikPflueger
Wiseguy
|
Wiseguy
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 37
|
I'm glad everyone is trying to answer my questions substantively - including Pizza Boy, sorry if I unknowingly implied otherwise. Thank you for agreeing not to be so hard on Winegardner personally and getting to the meat of your issues. I think the problem may also have been that I came into this long after such substantive arguments had been said and replaced with just "he sucks" comments. If I helped to get us there, I'm happy, but I doubt it was me - it's becoming clear that such deep means of discussion were already there, and just needed to be revived.
And yes, I would love a Pentangeli/Cicci story. In fact, like you, I believe that the Godfather mythos is still crawling with stories that have been implied and need telling. What was Antonio Andolini's problem and how did he end up dead? What was Ciccio's backstory? Or Fanucci's? How about Roth's relationship with Moe Greene? Talking about Fredo's betrayal of the family, what did he REALLY do? What was up with the people that tried to hit Michael in Part II, and how did they end up dead? At who's hand? What about Vincent's backstory? Does the whole P2 conspiracy with Lucchesi and Altobello need fleshing out? Michael's late years in Sicily as an old man? Vincent's years as boss? What about Tommasino's backstory? What about Sergio Lupo's writing career? What about the years between 1964 and 1979? Anthony stories? Mary stories? There are any number of stories that could use a telling or two.
What's the solution? Well, I listed too many story ideas to be fit in one book. But what about a collection of short stories, an anthology? Call it "Tales of the Godfather," something like that. There's room for Winegardner or any other author who fits the Puzo estate's qualifications to write stories for such a book. Ther's no reason that there can't be enough potential to have a Godfather expanded universe not to different from the Star Wars publishing license (though probably not THAT many books). As long as there's a continuity editor who knows his Corleones...
|
|
|
|