4 registered members (Toodoped, Montrose, m2w, 1 invisible),
141
guests, and 20
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,985
Posts1,074,831
Members10,349
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669170
10/06/12 11:52 AM
10/06/12 11:52 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635 AZ
Turnbull
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635
AZ
|
There is no such thing as a "definitive" timeline because of all the contradictions and errors in the films and in the novel. I tried to do part of a timeline on Michael's Sicilian sojourn here: http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post580389...I cited page numbers and direct quotes, but even that was contradicted by other passages in the novel. It's just all over the place. Also, Hisenberg, if you're cutting and pasting from another source, you should identify the source. It's their intellectual property.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669173
10/06/12 12:07 PM
10/06/12 12:07 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
True, but the only source that states Hagen's age is the novel. The novel also specifically states that Hagen and Sonny were the same age.
.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: SC]
#669184
10/06/12 01:30 PM
10/06/12 01:30 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
|
True, but the only source that states Hagen's age is the novel. The novel also specifically states that Hagen and Sonny were the same age. The novel makes a lot of specifications, like Vito being 25 in 1919 en then being sixty during the Dons meeting, contradicting his age. Also, the novel later states Sonny was sixteen in 1933. According to Part II, Sonny was born in 1916, so we can assume Tom was too.
"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669186
10/06/12 01:48 PM
10/06/12 01:48 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
True, but the only source that states Hagen's age is the novel. The novel also specifically states that Hagen and Sonny were the same age. The novel makes a lot of specifications, like Vito being 25 in 1919 en then being sixty during the Dons meeting, contradicting his age. Also, the novel later states Sonny was sixteen in 1933. According to Part II, Sonny was born in 1916, so we can assume Tom was too. I assume you have a point. What is it? Mine is the above timeline is wrong about the fact that Tom is six years older than Sonny.
.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669189
10/06/12 02:12 PM
10/06/12 02:12 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
My point is that the novel has numerous inconsistenties about character ages and should therefore be taken with a huge pine of salt when it comes to establishing an accurate timeline. So you don't think that Tom and Sonny are the same age as is stated in the novel? You are skeptical of that?
.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: SC]
#669192
10/06/12 02:48 PM
10/06/12 02:48 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
|
My point is that the novel has numerous inconsistenties about character ages and should therefore be taken with a huge pine of salt when it comes to establishing an accurate timeline. So you don't think that Tom and Sonny are the same age as is stated in the novel? You are skeptical of that? I'm saying that if they're the same age, then both are born in 1916 rather than 1910. I think it's kind of ridiculous that Sonny would be born in 1910, Fredo in 1915, Michael in 1920 and Connie some years later. We are to believe that Vito and Carmela only got together every five years? Or did Carmela have numerous misscarrieges in between?
"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669193
10/06/12 02:51 PM
10/06/12 02:51 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
I'm saying that if they're the same age, then both are born in 1916 rather than 1910. OK. Regardless of in what year they were born we agree that the timeline above is wrong .... and that is all I was saying.
.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: SC]
#669195
10/06/12 03:03 PM
10/06/12 03:03 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
|
I'm saying that if they're the same age, then both are born in 1916 rather than 1910. OK. Regardless of in what year they were born we agree that the timeline above is wrong .... and that is all I was saying. It's impossible to establish a perfectly accurate timeline because of the numerous inconsistenties in the novel and even the films. The novel states that Tom was 35 in 1945 and Sonny of the same age. Later on the novel states that Sonny was sixteen in 1933. You see where I'm getting at? One has to make choices in creating a timeline based on personal preferences. Puzo and Coppola never offered us a consistent timeline in the first place.
"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: olivant]
#669238
10/06/12 08:37 PM
10/06/12 08:37 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635 AZ
Turnbull
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635
AZ
|
All I know "for sure" is that the massacre took place in '51 (a little bird told me).
However, the timeline is all over the place no matter which source one uses. Maybe Puzo and FFC conspired to keep us dissecting the novel and th film 40+ years later. Oli, the reason I did the timeline for the novel was that the "little bird" in the film was Sonny's car radio playing the Dodgers/Giants final playoff game in October 1951. My reason for doing the timeline was my belief that the Five Families War couldn't have gone on for nearly five years--thus Michael had to have returned from Sicily way before that. Also, Sonny would have been driving a 10-year-old car when he got whacked. I made a case for Michael's early return based on quotes from the novel, putting his return either in late '46 or early '47, in several scenarios. But then you pointed out that, if Michael did return that early, he'd have had to be Vito's apprentice for eight or nine years, given that Vito died in 1955 (film). That would be as unlikely as my original premise: that the war couldn't have lasted nearly five years. All I can say is what you and I said earlier in this thread: it's impossible to reconstruct a definitive timeline for either the films or the novel. And thank you very much, Mario Puzo, for giving us this opportunity to bang our heads against the wall.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Turnbull]
#669243
10/06/12 09:38 PM
10/06/12 09:38 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029 Texas
olivant
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029
Texas
|
I made a case for Michael's early return based on quotes from the novel, putting his return either in late '46 or early '47, in several scenarios. But then you pointed out that, if Michael did return that early, he'd have had to be Vito's apprentice for eight or nine years, given that Vito died in 1955 (film). That would be as unlikely as my original premise: that the war couldn't have lasted nearly five years. I agree. I think the above is what causes most of the confusion. Why would both Puzo ("It was nearly ten years since there had been such a celebration of people in the house, nearly ten years since the wedding of Constanzia ...")FFC (the headstone) chose to separate Michael's exile to Sicily from Vito's death by a decade. Most impractical. Well, as you said, thank you Puzo and FFC.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669320
10/07/12 03:29 PM
10/07/12 03:29 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635 AZ
Turnbull
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635
AZ
|
Sonny, we might be able to account for that long apprenticeship by observing (as Tom told Fredo in the scene with Moe Green) that the Don was semiretired and that Michael was in charge--that he was the day-to-day Don of the Corleone Family. And, he needed his father's prestige and his counsel.
But, realistically, Vito admitted that his agreement to protect drug trafficking at the Commission meeting was a sign of weakness. And, the novel tells us that the other Dons, and even Tess and Clem, thought Michael "lacked force." Michale himself was feigning weakness to buy time. Over a period of seven or eight years of that, the other families would have taken advantage of that passivity to reduce the Corleone holdings to insignificance. As Tess said in the "fish tank" scene: "Pretty soon I won't have a place to hang my hat."
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: olivant]
#669341
10/07/12 10:29 PM
10/07/12 10:29 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635 AZ
Turnbull
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635
AZ
|
One should also consider that waiting almost a decade to exact revenge might invite the following: Michael and/or Vito's murder or death otherwise (his, it did) Treachery (which waiting just a few years did invite) Very strong points, Oli. When you're bleeding in the water, the shark doesn't wait for you to expire before closing in for the kill.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Turnbull]
#669369
10/08/12 07:49 AM
10/08/12 07:49 AM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773 Pittsburgh, PA
The Last Woltz
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773
Pittsburgh, PA
|
All I know "for sure" is that the massacre took place in '51 (a little bird told me).
However, the timeline is all over the place no matter which source one uses. Maybe Puzo and FFC conspired to keep us dissecting the novel and th film 40+ years later. Oli, the reason I did the timeline for the novel was that the "little bird" in the film was Sonny's car radio playing the Dodgers/Giants final playoff game in October 1951. My reason for doing the timeline was my belief that the Five Families War couldn't have gone on for nearly five years--thus Michael had to have returned from Sicily way before that. Also, Sonny would have been driving a 10-year-old car when he got whacked. I wouldn't read too much into the use of the audio from the Giants-Dodgers 1951 playoff game. That is one of the only (if not the only) extant long-form baseball broadcast from that era, so if FFC wanted to have Sonny listen to a baseball game, he wouldn't have had much of a choice. Fun fact: That broadcast is known for Giant announcer Russ Hodges's manic "The Giants win the pennant!" call. But it only survived because a Dodgers fan (one of the few people with recording equipment in 1951) taped the game with the intention of taunting Hodges and other Giants fans with it when the Dodgers won. A pivotal moment in broadcast history was preserved only because of a somewhat petty fan.
"A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!"
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: olivant]
#669401
10/08/12 01:08 PM
10/08/12 01:08 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 95 United States
Hisenberg
OP
Button
|
OP
Button
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 95
United States
|
Without any doubt the biggest contradiction in the entire timeline is the 55 massacre being said to take place in 51
This makes no sense because:
1. Vitos tombstone says 55 2. if we go by the timeline said in the second movie of the Turk killing in 47 then its saying that Michael left for Sicily, came back, married Kay, and had a 3 year old all in less then 4 years. This is pretty far fetched because we know he spent at least a year in Sicily and didn't see Kay for at least a year coming back to america
Last edited by Hisenberg; 10/08/12 01:09 PM.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Hisenberg]
#669404
10/08/12 01:30 PM
10/08/12 01:30 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
Without any doubt the biggest contradiction in the entire timeline is the 55 massacre being said to take place in 51 I agree 100% despite olivant's and Turnbull's protestations. Part II starts in 1958, at Anthony's first communion. He was born in 1951, and was already 3 years old reading the funny papers when Vito died. The massacre could not have been 1951. That aside, the whole timeline is a weak, poorly written part of the movie/novel.
.
|
|
|
Re: The definitive timeline
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#669406
10/08/12 01:44 PM
10/08/12 01:44 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635 AZ
Turnbull
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,635
AZ
|
I think the reason FFC changed Sonny's death to 1948 during production was for the same reason as we've discussed, and so to make the timeline more consistent.
Sonny, some people here anchor their belief that Sonny died in '49 to the presence of a "Dewey for President" poster on a wall when Sonny beats up Carlo. But, Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican Presidential candidate in '48, also was their candidate in '44, so the poster could be part of support for an earlier date for Sonny's death.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
|