What's new

Ejanss

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
2,789
Real Name
EricJ
Yeeeeeah this reeks of a desperate studio trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of one of its beloved franchises. Nothing wrong with that in principle but the movie’s not salvageable.

Five bucks and a donut that Paramount, in search of a competing 70's-80's brand name, said "Let's reboot/legacy The Godfather", for which they needed Al Pacino to be the Old Franchise Survivor, and nobody remembered that Michael died at the end of G3.
And that started the old discussions about why nobody really remembers G3 except for Sophia Coppola's short acting career.

If Godfather had been a Warner movie, we wouldn't be ASKING why this was being made...
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,989
Real Name
Robert Harris
”.....restoration team began by searching for over 50 original takes to replace lower resolution opticals in the original negative....”

talk about going the extra mile.

This is something that we touched upon (of necessity) when my team did the digital restorations in 2007.

Apparently, the film was on an extremely tight post schedule, and also had a confluence of interesting factors.

It was shot S35, so that prints would have to come from a reduction negative, itself derived from an IP.

A decision was made to cut and conform single strand, so no A/B rolls.

The film is filled with printer functions, and apparently all of those functions were produced by the optical house dry gate, which should not have been a problem.

However, every dupe is poorly resolved, many are dirty, and some are damaged.

We found these original elements - keep in mind that there are two for each dx -during our work, but only had the time and budget to replace the most agregious.

This is a great deal of work, and I couldn’t be more pleased that it was performed. The film was literally put back into post-production mode.

Having seen Coda, it’s a worthwhile film to experience.
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
5,087
Real Name
Joel Henderson
So does it start with Archbishop Gilday this time like the film was supposed to? (the scene got shuffled to the middle)
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,804
Real Name
Rick
How can anyone defend this film? I will never understand it, frankly, unless it's that they feel an auteur can do no wrong. There is so much wrong here, and the attempts to make it into something it simply cannot be is, well, is. He made the movie he wanted to make. Nobody pressured him or forced him to do what he did.

It can only be defended by how much it entertains its viewers, and that is such a subjective thing that you can't really criticize people for liking or defending it. I have always been a big Coppola fan, but I am not a completist. I do not like a number of his films, and that is entirely due to my personal likes and preferences. That you personally cannot defend Part III, Bruce, does not preclude others from having legitimate views of the film contrary to your own.

Personally, I like GODFATHER PART III other than the choice to insert Sofia into a role intended for a much more accomplished actor (Ryder). I totally forgive Sofia because she was almost certainly pressured into taking on a part she was uncomfortable with, plus she became a rather terrific director shortly thereafter. She does bring the movie down somewhat in the role (although even she has a few effective moments), but she doesn't kill it.

Structurally, the film is similar to the first two entries in the series. And the cast (other than the aforementioned) is strong, and the script a logical extension of the first two films. But anything coming out in the wake of the brilliant GODFATHER PART II is going to suffer regardless of casting.

Be kind and tolerant, sir.
 
Last edited:

willyTass

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
750
Poor Sofia . Much maligned IMHO. I thought she realistically portrayed a girl in love with the local hoodlum. And she adored her father in the film which was realistic too.

i for one am grateful they didn’t cast a skank in the role
 

willyTass

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
750
This is something that we touched upon (of necessity) when my team did the digital restorations in 2007.

Apparently, the film was on an extremely tight post schedule, and also had a confluence of interesting factors.

It was shot S35, so that prints would have to come from a reduction negative, itself derived from an IP.

A decision was made to cut and conform single strand, so no A/B rolls.

The film is filled with printer functions, and apparently all of those functions were produced by the optical house dry gate, which should not have been a problem.

However, every dupe is poorly resolved, many are dirty, and some are damaged.

We found these original elements - keep in mind that there are two for each dx -during our work, but only had the time and budget to replace the most agregious.

This is a great deal of work, and I couldn’t be more pleased that it was performed. The film was literally put back into post-production mode.

Having seen Coda, it’s a worthwhile film to experience.

and thank you for preserving these masterpieces
 

Sam Favate

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
10,018
Real Name
Sam Favate
I really want to see a comprehensive UHD/Blu-ray collection of all the films and their various versions (including the "Godfather Saga") with seamless branching. Come on, this is perhaps the greatest of movie series. It deserves a definitive home video collection.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,142
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
I don't think Coppola did his daughter any favours by casting her in the film, but I've never thought Winona Ryder was much of an actress, either. She was fine in Beetlejuice and Heathers, but forgettable in more adult roles. I thought she was pretty bad in Coppola's Dracula (though not nearly as awful as Keanu).
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,018
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
It can only be defended by how much it entertains its viewers, and that is such a subjective thing that you can't really criticize people for liking or defending it. I have always been a big Coppola fan, but I am not a completist. I do not like a number of his films, and that is entirely due to my personal likes and preferences. That you personally cannot defend Part III, Bruce, does not preclude others from having legitimate views of the film contrary to your own.

Personally, I like GODFATHER PART III other than the choice to insert Sofia into a role intended for a much more accomplished actor (Ryder). I totally forgive Sofia because she was almost certainly pressured into taking on a part she was uncomfortable with, plus she became a rather terrific director shortly thereafter. She does bring the movie down somewhat in the role (although even she has a few effective moments), but she doesn't kill it.

Structurally, the film is similar to the first two entries in the series. And the cast (other than the aforementioned) is strong, and the script a logical extension of the first two films. But anything coming out in the wake of the brilliant GODFATHER PART II is going to suffer regardless of casting.

Be kind and tolerant, sir.

I offered my opinion, just as you do. For ME, I don't understand how people can defend this film. They do, clearly, but I don't understand it. Nothing to do with kind and tolerant and everything to do with the fact that I saw the film just before it came out and thought it terrible and as disappointing as disappointing can be. I was not alone in feeling this - the entire industry audience I saw it with felt this way and you could feel it all during the screening. And some of the reviews, as you know, were hardly kind and/or tolerant, even the ones that thought they should like it but couldn't hide the disappointment, like Ebert. It's all good - everyone can buy it and be happy, and those who don't care for the film won't. I've tried to like it over the years - I've bought every new attempt - but I'm done.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,753
I will be looking forward to this.He always said he was rushed by Paramount who wanted a Christmas release so it's great they now have given him a chance to for fill his vision.

But why the heck wait 30 years for his "vision"?

Coppola had the clout to do a re-edit of the movie decades ago. I'm profoundly mistrustful of filmmakers who come out many years later to "fix" their movies - at least those that weren't held back by technology.

While I disagree with Lucas's changes to the "Star Wars" movies, I understand why he felt technology allowed him to better fulfill his "original vision".

That's not an issue for "GF 3" - or "Apocalypse Now" as reworked. FFC didn't need CG to "fix" the latter - he could've put out "Redux" or "Final Cut" in 1979.

And I assume that this 2020 "GF 3" could've come out decades ago as well.

So I don't buy that FFC couldn't have made "his version" of "GF 3" until 2020!
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,753
On its own, It's not bad movie, but it had an impossible legacy to live up to. Sort of like 2010.

In 1990, I thought "GF 3" got too much crap.

In 2020, I don't think it gets enough crap. I think people so expect a terrible movie that the fact it's mostly okay means it gets overpraised.

I do admit the movie would work better if it was about other characters. I just can't accept that the Michael of "GF 3" is the same guy as in the earlier movies...
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,753
IMO, I don't think the third film is as bad as some you feel it is. It's mediocre, but I've seen a lot worse than Godfather III.

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to compare a Coppola movie to something from an obviously inferior filmmaker.

We know FFC once was a great filmmaker. Comparisons to his good movies makes "GF 3" look bad...
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
18
Replace not only Sophia with Winnona but get rid of George Hamilton as well. The 2 biggest mistakes. Just goes to show what the wrong casting can do to a film. Music as well. Think about how the wrong composer and score destroyed Never Say Never Again!
 

DVBRD

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
300
Real Name
Andy
I can only hope that Coppola's doing it for the money (that or he has a lot of free time on his hands), because that is the only way I could see him doing a remastered version of "The Godfather Saga" or the "Godfather 1901-1980" version that was released on VHS in the 90s. He reportedly only did the "Saga" to raise more money for "Apocalypse Now", and given the state he was in financially in the 90s it wouldn't surprise me if Coppola did "1901-1980" for the money, too.
 

ahollis

Premium
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,051
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
It will be interesting to see what Coppola does to this. I think he did a good job on the Cotton Club redux. In my opinion, he changed a dull movie into one that sparkled.
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
6,797
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
I think this is being done because it is following in the footsteps of Coppola revisiting pictures he was not quite satisfied with. He has fiddled with Apocalypse several times, he finally got to go back to The Cotton Club and it seemed people liked the results of that. Now he gets to revisit Godfather III which he apparently did because the studio wanted it, he did not want to make this third film or at least did not want to make it as he did make it...now he gets to see what he can do with it years later.

Obviously, I don't think anybody feels he needs to go recut the first two Godfather pictures but this one...well...maybe he can make something better by revisiting it.

I read comments from him last year that he was going to make a return attempt at doing Megalopolis but I have serious doubts that will happen...so, recutting his older pictures is keeping him busy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
347,083
Messages
4,801,908
Members
141,991
Latest member
MarvelManiac68
Top