The Godfather Trilogy and The Godfather Saga (1 Viewer)

[zoetmb]

This is a curiosity. Yes, I admit to watching the VHS, Laserdisc, and "event for TV versions" of the "saga", or whatever one wishes to call them. And while it doesn't really hurt parts I and III, it completely destroys the flow of part II.

Other than a mild interest in the additional footage, which can just as easily be included, and enjoyed as an extra feature on physical media releases, these "versions" only exist because Mr. Coppola needed $$$$.

It would be the equivalent of Quentin Tarantino making a "special edition" of Pulp Fiction, told in linear time. It just isn't the same.

They got these right the first time. And those are the versions I prefer to watch.

The BD extras only include some of the additional scenes, but not all. One that's missing is when Michael is in Italy, an old woman tells him about the time Luca Brazzi threw a newborn into an oven or stove and the action is shown. There are a number of others, but I'm not writing this from a location where I have that list. V

I don't prefer the chronological version, but I would have liked the BD to have had a branching option to have included the cut scenes with those scenes properly restored like the rest of the film. But even if they released that now, as much as I'd like it, I doubt I'd double dip.

Godfather I and II are among the very few films where the additional scenes help rather than hurt the film.

 

[WillG]

Personally, I'd like to have a copy of the Saga on disc myself.

On a completely unrelated note, anyone planing on recording the HBO broadcast?

 

[TonyD]

East feed has been on for 3 hours west starsts in about 10 minutes.


I'm recording east feed.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Personally, I'd like to have a copy of the Saga on disc myself.

On a completely unrelated note, anyone planing on recording the HBO broadcast?

Yes, I am recording it. I'll want to study it for a while.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's also on HBO Go - I may give this a look soon

 

[TonyD]

Tiny trivia

The Moshulu has been moored on the Phila waterfront, Penns Landing for more than 20 years and has been used as a restaurant during that time.

 

[Peter Neski]

Looks like all thats missing so far is the Novel for Television titles this is clearly not that Trilogy edited home video

 

[TonyD]

Love it.

 

[TonyD]

Looks like all thats missing so far is the Novel for Television titles this is clearly not that Trilogy edited home video

Were you thinking it would be the trilogy?

I think the 7hr block made it clear it wouldn't be.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I missed this thread, but I will be recording it when it comes on again in January. There appears to be at least 3-4 more showings.

 

[Everett S.]

opps, I didn't see the parts about the new HBO showings. The article I saw said it was 3 hrs. old. sorry I started a new topic on this please remove that one.

don't look @ me like that.

 

[Peter Neski]

"Were you thinking it would be the trilogy?"


No I knew it wasn't ,But wasn't sure which version they would give us ,the laser Trilogy laser set had the Third film ,but was missing a lot of footage

I haven't watched all of this ,but its clearly a better version than the one shown on AMC even missing the titles ,Sure hope a BR set is coming


for those who can't seem to watch Godfather 2 broke up like this ,You still can watch this version of Godfather 1 its simply the best version!!!!

 

[Bob Cashill]

What HBO is broadcasting has a 1991 copyright.

 

[McCrutchy]

What HBO is broadcasting has a 1991 copyright.

I haven't watched it yet (I'm recording a future screening), but if the quality is as good as some have claimed, then I have to assume that something has been done since 1991. That date probably represents when the work was originally created, but I'm assuming that all the film elements have been scanned since then. I doubt Paramount (or Mr. Coppola) would allow this version to be shown in 2015 with HD technology, unless they've ironed out any substantial back-and-forth chnges in picture quality.


The question I have is if the same Coppola Restoration scans were used in this new version, and if the deleted footage was also scanned at the same time, and in 4K. Or if, instead, a decision was made to scan pre-existing fim elements for this version as assembled, and then do another grading. I did hear of the AMC screenings a few years ago, but wasn't about to watch a version with censorship and commercial breaks.


The former would seem to make more sense, but it seems odd that Paramount would pay to scan all that extra footage (apparently, some 75-minutes worth of additional footage is in this version) in 4K way back in 2007/2008, if they only planned on releasing this version the way that they have. If it's all from the 4K scans, then it would be even more surprising that a BD hasn't surfaced already.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I haven't watched it yet (I'm recording a future screening), but if the quality is as good as some have claimed, then I have to assume that something has been done since 1991. That date probably represents when the work was originally created, but I'm assuming that all the film elements have been scanned since then. I doubt Paramount (or Mr. Coppola) would allow this version to be shown in 2015 with HD technology, unless they've ironed out any substantial back-and-forth chnges in picture quality.


The question I have is if the same Coppola Restoration scans were used in this new version, and if the deleted footage was also scanned at the same time, and in 4K. Or if, instead, a decision was made to scan pre-existing fim elements for this version as assembled, and then do another grading. I did hear of the AMC screenings a few years ago, but wasn't about to watch a version with censorship and commercial breaks.


The former would seem to make more sense, but it seems odd that Paramount would pay to scan all that extra footage (apparently, some 75-minutes worth of additional footage is in this version) in 4K way back in 2007/2008, if they only planned on releasing this version the way that they have. If it's all from the 4K scans, then it would be even more surprising that a BD hasn't surfaced already.

I wonder who could answer these questions?

 

[Nick*Z]

It's an interesting notion to run the history of a beloved 'crime family' in chronological order - and Coppola's involvement ensured at least partial integrity to the TV edit. Personally, I prefer the movies as they exist for a couple of reasons: (1) as a purist of cinema art, The Godfather movies were designed for the big screen - not a TV miniseries format. I'll concur, having seen it both ways, the TV edit actually does work on an entirely different level. But I would never want it to become a substitute for the way these movies were first seen theatrically. I'm not adverse to this TV edit getting a Blu-ray release or to directors tinkering with their classics, except when they refuse to allow the rest of us the right to choose which version we would prefer. Dear George Lucas...are you listening?!? Apparently, not.


But back to Coppola's re-envisioned Godfather. My second reason for supporting the original franchise, as opposed to this re-imagined version, is to maintain a sort of continuity in support for history's sake. Art is art - period! As I've said before and will state herein again, you wouldn't go back to the works of Rembrandt, Michelangelo or Da Vinci and start to rethink their genius, simply because burgeoning technologies make it possible to make further manipulations. You wouldn't rewrite Fitzgerald or Hemingway just because the ending of their novels as they currently exist are not to your liking. You wouldn't ban Disney's Song of the South merely to satisfy mis-perceived and severely flawed contemporary ideologies about racism in America....oh, right! But I digress.


The point is, cinema art is never given the same consideration as other forms of human creative self-expression. Novels stay novels. Paintings retain their original hues on canvas. Marble statues are not dismembered with a new attack from the chisel. No, art is art - period!


Why the same consideration is never applied to cinema art is frankly, beyond me. History may be flawed. A film maker may reflect on the tribulations from the time in which he crafted his art, wishing he could go back and redo portions or even the whole given the skill set, technologies and life-experienced opinions acquired since. But honestly, once a work of art is 'out there' for public consumption and has been embraced by the public - beloved in whatever form it was originally presented to the public - there really is (or rather, should not be) any going back to reinvent the wheel. The movie goers have spoken. They loved what they saw. They were satisfied by what they saw. They don't want another version. They want the one they grew up with.


Excluded from this discussion are bastardized versions of a film maker's art: eg. Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time In America - the theatrical cut vs. the director's cut. Herein, Leone never intended the theatrical cut to see the light of day. This was assembled without his viewpoint or permission. So a director's cut was not only warranted but expected.


But consider this, Tchaikovsky hated his Nutcracker Suite. He thought it the worst piece of music he'd ever written. Alas, under pressure to debut this masterpiece, he gave it the ole Joe College try and was ironically surprised when the symphony took on a life of its own. Given the composer's adversity to the work itself, one might suspect he would have gone back to the drawing board to redo The Nutcracker just as soon as time permitted, if for no other reason, then to satisfy his own artistic temperament (something, contemporary film makers seem to be readily drunk on).


But no. At some point Tchaikovsky realized his audience had spoken. They adored his work and did not consider it inferior. He went back to his sheet music alright, but to do something else. Aren't we fortunate today that he did? Wouldn't we be extremely fortunate if film makers took their cue from Tchaikovsky instead of George Lucas? Hmmm.

 

[ahollis]

I have watched half of the HBO presentation and I am very impressed with the quality. The rest of this version will be consumed tonight with a spaghetti dinner.

 

[Peter Neski]

It's an interesting notion to run the history of a beloved 'crime family' in chronological order - and Coppola's involvement ensured at least partial integrity to the TV edit. Personally, I prefer the movies as they exist for a couple of reasons: (1) as a purist of cinema art, The Godfather movies were designed for the big screen - not a TV miniseries format. I'll concur, having seen it both ways, the TV edit actually does work on an entirely different level. But I would never want it to become a substitute for the way these movies were first seen theatrically. I'm not adverse to this TV edit getting a Blu-ray release or to directors tinkering with their classics, except when they refuse to allow the rest of us the right to choose which version we would prefer. Dear George Lucas...are you listening?!? Apparently, not.


But back to Coppola's re-envisioned Godfather. My second reason for supporting the original franchise, as opposed to this re-imagined version, is to maintain a sort of continuity in support for history's sake. Art is art - period! As I've said before and will state herein again, you wouldn't go back to the works of Rembrandt, Michelangelo or Da Vinci and start to rethink their genius, simply because burgeoning technologies make it possible to make further manipulations. You wouldn't rewrite Fitzgerald or Hemingway just because the ending of their novels as they currently exist are not to your liking. You wouldn't ban Disney's Song of the South merely to satisfy mis-perceived and severely flawed contemporary ideologies about racism in America....oh, right! But I digress.


The point is, cinema art is never given the same consideration as other forms of human creative self-expression. Novels stay novels. Paintings retain their original hues on canvas. Marble statues are not dismembered with a new attack from the chisel. No, art is art - period!


Why the same consideration is never applied to cinema art is frankly, beyond me. History may be flawed. A film maker may reflect on the tribulations from the time in which he crafted his art, wishing he could go back and redo portions or even the whole given the skill set, technologies and life-experienced opinions acquired since. But honestly, once a work of art is 'out there' for public consumption and has been embraced by the public - beloved in whatever form it was originally presented to the public - there really is (or rather, should not be) any going back to reinvent the wheel. The movie goers have spoken. They loved what they saw. They were satisfied by what they saw. They don't want another version. They want the one they grew up with.


Excluded from this discussion are bastardized versions of a film maker's art: eg. Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time In America - the theatrical cut vs. the director's cut. Herein, Leone never intended the theatrical cut to see the light of day. This was assembled without his viewpoint or permission. So a director's cut was not only warranted but expected.


But consider this, Tchaikovsky hated his Nutcracker Suite. He thought it the worst piece of music he'd ever written. Alas, under pressure to debut this masterpiece, he gave it the ole Joe College try and was ironically surprised when the symphony took on a life of its own. Given the composer's adversity to the work itself, one might suspect he would have gone back to the drawing board to redo The Nutcracker just as soon as time permitted, if for no other reason, then to satisfy his own artistic temperament (something, contemporary film makers seem to be readily drunk on).


But no. At some point Tchaikovsky realized his audience had spoken. They adored his work and did not consider it inferior. He went back to his sheet music alright, but to do something else. Aren't we fortunate today that he did? Wouldn't we be extremely fortunate if film makers took their cue from Tchaikovsky instead of George Lucas? Hmmm.

well they are not showing this version in the theater ,and for now all that's on Blue Ray is the original films ,But the clear fact that nearly all the extra scenes where cut for time for the first run of a theater,and had little or nothing to do with the Quality or the art of these scenes Watching these at home is a different matter ,like you said

 

[Kyle_D]

I watched about 2/3 of the HBO presentation on Sunday night. The AV quality was okay, better than the original DVD, but nowhere near the level of the 4K restorations on Blu-Ray.

If you've internalized the theatrical versions, the recut is a novel way to experience the story. You can see most of the deleted scenes on the DVD and Blu-Ray, but it's fun to see them integrated into the films. The consensus is right though: the theatrical cuts are the definitive version of the story. I don't mind the recut being available, but it should remain a curiosity.

 

[Peter Neski]

I watched about 2/3 of the HBO presentation on Sunday night. The AV quality was okay, better than the original DVD, but nowhere near the level of the 4K restorations on Blu-Ray.

If you've internalized the theatrical versions, the recut is a novel way to experience the story. You can see most of the deleted scenes on the DVD and Blu-Ray, but it's fun to see them integrated into the films. The consensus is right though: the theatrical cuts are the definitive version of the story. I don't mind the recut being available, but it should remain a curiosity.

well I do feel the BR Picture is tops but the extra scenes on the BR are dreadful ,these are a lot better ,not to mention all the scenes missing from the BR ,They do have the end credits footage something not included in this TV version