Talk:The Godfather Part III/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move to The Godfather Part III

To keep in line with the naming The Godfather Part II. I propose the removal of the comma since it doesn't appear in the movie posters, etc. Google doesn't care if it's a comma, a colon or nothing; google return some 128,000 hits for each.

I don't care if the comma is removed from part 3 or a comma is added to part 2. Either way, they should be with the same naming convention.

Note that the Back to the Future trilogy doesn't have a comma: Back to the Future Part II & Back to the Future Part III. This is why removal of the comma gets my vote.

Full article names (no redirects):

• The Godfather
• The Godfather Part II
• The Godfather, Part III

Please put discussion in the appropriate section and leave votes only in the preceeding sections.

Remove comma from part 3

1. Cburnett 00:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. sjorford:// 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No moving

1. Agquarx 10:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. * Strenuously Oppose on principle until the discussion on this requested move is brought back to Wikipedia:Requested moves where it rightfully belongs and Cburnett follows the instructions for Wikipedia:Requested moves as enumerated on that page. —ExplorerCDT 23:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other votes

1. Neutral —ExplorerCDT 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) (moved from WP:RM by cburnett)

Vote changed as above. —ExplorerCDT 23:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

See also all the Star Wars series: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and so on. sjorford:// 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is slightly different. "The Empire Strikes Back" is the subtitle of the film just like "The Fellowship of the Ring". I guess I don't see "Part II" as a subtitle. Regardless, though, part 2 & 3 should be named the same, which is why I don't get Agquarx's vote of no move.

IMDb titles it The Godfather: Part III. We must decide whether the lack of punctuation as proposed by CBurnett, or followimg IMDb's lead with a colon, is the correct course of action. —ExplorerCDT 15:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• My view is that serial numbers should go immediately after the title with no extra punctuation, while subtitles should come after a colon. So, The Godfather Part II, Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Hot Shots! Part Deux, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (note that a couple of these are actually redirects to shorter titles). Of course, if there is definitive punctuation on the title card or posters of the movie, then we should follow that, but there isn't in many cases (the separate parts of the title appearing on separate lines instead). sjorford:// 16:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DISCUSSION MOVED FROM THE REQUESTED MOVES PAGE? THE PAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE DISCUSSION (READ THE TEMPLATE ABOVE), THE PAGE ISN'T INTENDED TO DIRECT EVERYONE AWAY TO DISCUSS IT ELSEWHERE. MOVE THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO THE REQUESTED MOVES PAGE WHERE IT BELONGS. —ExplorerCDT 23:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page now since there doesn't seem to be any real opposition. Cburnett 21:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a whole lotta "Who cares?" Seriously, dudes, this is NOT anywhere near important enough to waste this much digital "ink" (so to speak) about. PainMan 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved again

I've moved this back again, from The Godfather: Part III to The Godfather Part III. The situation hasn't changed from the previous discussion, but I'll particularly note:

• There's no need to blindly follow the IMDb, as they have their own rules and we have ours;
• There's no "official" colon or comma in the title - they're not seen when the title is on two lines (such as posters etc.), and only when it's run into one line;
• All of the examples I gave above stand - a colon is typically used after an ordinal, and before a subtitle; "Part II" is an ordinal.

sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This just does NOT matter. The only relevant point is that there's no reason to be slavish in following IMDb's protocol's. The name(s) of the film(s) should be the titles they were given at release (or in George Lucas's case, re-release.) Excepting that...LET IT GO. Surely there are more important things to do, such as fighting the Left-Liberal bias that suffuses Wikipedia. PainMan 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Year

I have chosen to delete the claim that it was a mistake for it to be set from 1979 onwards because it contains events shown earlier. I deleted it because the trilogy is a work of fiction. If somebody is going to claim that it was a mistake for events from 1978 be represented in this film, they should also complain that Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Copolla did not do their research to confirm that every other event in the trilogy occurred in reality. It's the same as having a trivia point being dedicated to the fact that the character Michael Corleone (as he is shown in the film) did not exist in reality. 131.170.90.2 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration

Fans of The Godfather may wish to participate in the AfD debate concerning whether the article The Godfather films in popular culture, which was spun off from this article to keep it from being too unwieldy, should be deleted. That debate can be found here. The article in question provides a place for people to note instances which illustrate the continuing influence of The Godfather and its sequels on films, TV shows and other popular culture media. Ed Fitzgerald 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michael Corleone in 97 SV.png

Image:Michael Corleone in 97 SV.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Joey Zasa

Although the article states that Zasa is similar to Gotti, I have always thought the relsemblance was more to Joe Columbo. Columbo was always publicly claiming that there was no mafia and that it all was a plot by the FBI to impinge on the civil rights of Italian Americans. Like Zasa, Columbo was publicly gunned down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Please do not edit the genre tags without discussion. I've cited allmovie as a source which I think is valid. If any questions are raised feel free to edit it here. Please note that we do not consider IMDb as a source by WP:Film standards. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For a note on allmovie. it's a source used by The New York Times and it's writers are film experts who have written reviews for TV Guide and have done commentaries for The criterion collection dvd series. They are a valid source for genre in this case and should not be reverted. I'll supply sources on that if it's questioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on Don Lucchesi

On the Director's Commentary track on The Godfather Part III DVD, Francis Ford Coppola mention that the character of Don Licio Lucchesi was based on a well-known Italian public figure that he never names; it seems to me it would be Giulio Andreotti, former prime minister, convicted in link with the mafia, but I am not 100% sure -- does anyone know better?

I think there is much more than a hint to Andreotti. The phrase "Power wears those who do not have it" is almost iconic for Andreotti in Italian culture, and he actually wears the same glasses as Lucchesi. Attention: he was never convicted for links with the Mafia, but was indeed sued and eventually (amidst much clamor) acquitted. However, some think that the truth will never be completely known.194.39.218.10 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot Review

I have just recently finished the complete editing of the Plot section of the three films, The Godfather, and Part II and Part III. I considered that such an influential trilogy required a more delicate and extensive treatment.

AND the movie is much larger than wat it should hav been considering Godfather Part III to be a commercial film unlike the earlier parts.

If you think that the Plot section is too long, you should consider that each film is almost three hours in length, which is larger than most commercial movies. However, I think that it is long enough just to cover two complete screens. That is, in a monitor with a display resolution of 1280x1024 you should be able to read it while scrolling the screen only twice. A smaller, or not as complicated, movie could very well fit in just one screen.

You could post your comments here once you have heavily edited the Plot again, and the reasons for it. If you edit something small, correct the orthography, fix the markup or the links, or rephrase a paragraph while maintaining the same ideas and length, then there would be no need to post.

Just remember, this is NOT a forum.15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am totally upset with the new Plot Revision that user Tommyt and 67.104.30.194 started since the beginning of November 2006.

I think the revision is weak and too short. I can only think that they did this beacause they don't like the movie, and thought that a lesser section would suffice. The new version lacks a lot of information and links. I could imply some vandalism.

VANDALISM??? Why??? Since Wpedia is the "online encyc that anyone can edit" I made some changes. I'm actually kind of insulted you'd suggest that I was trying to vandalize the article. I went thru the synopsis & tried to clean up the grammar. If you look in the history file at the vers before my 1st change you'll see that someone actually inserted the word "Ouch." after mentioning that Vincent bites Zasa on the ear. Totally stupid. There were also unnecessary phrases & a few places where the grammar could be tightened up so the article doesn't sound so bloated. Also, inserting quotes in a synopsis is usually unneeded, take a look at the history for Apocalypse Now (not to get a Coppola theme going here...) you'll see that someone inserted the entire speech Kurtz gives near the end, totally unnecessary to the synopsis. Also, about the article being too short, we're talking about a plot synopsis here, not a complete rehash of every single moment of the film. We don't have to write an entire novel; details like Vincent biting Zasa's ear are fine but incl a whole speech or quote from the film is irrelevant to explaining the plot. Tommyt 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will wait to see if I can switch back to an older version. You can help by viewing, in the history, the last version of October 2006. 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just read the plot review on this page today (June 7th, 2007) I think someone needs to elaborate on the Immobiliare aspects of the plot.

I've made a few minor changes to the final paragraph of the plot section - i removed the sentence which said that he dies from "a heart attack or stroke"..If there's anything that anyone disagrees with, please feel free to change itAlpha Five 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, made several edits to the plot synopsis: cleaned up some grammar, corrected a few misinterpretations, and added a little more meat to the Immobiliare section. Please review and edit where appropriate. Eganio 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there is still a sign that says the plot is too long and too detailed, I trimmed down the first four paragraphs. So if many people disagree, we can return them to the way they were, and I'll stop the 'trimming'. I removed some of the details on the Immobiliare deal. Some people would like a long and detailed description of the plot, others would like something simple. I'm neutral, but it seems to me that wikipedia wants it more simple. I have seen this movie more than 30 times, but I know many people, not obsessed with the Godfather, would like to read a more simple description. The real fans, like me, can get details somewhere else (if that is the wish of wikipedia). For example, The link to download the script is a great idea and I can't wait to start reading it. The Cinebooks Review synopsis is about half the length of what we have here. Tempus90 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

forget what I just said above. User 'RepublicanJacobite', as already change it back to the way it was, saying 'Such large-scale changes should be discussed first'. Well ok, so I did you find my revision? Tempus90 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage

What? He's not listed in the IMDB, either in Godfather III or in his own. I think someone is mistaking Nicholas GAGE, an Executive Producer for him. Jachra 03:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Gage is the executive producer Not Nicholas Cage (stevelamacraftUK 29/11/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.36.226 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Concept of Part IV

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Coppola revealed in the DVD commentary his idea of what a potential Part 4 to the series would have held, claiming in a similar parallel story to Part II that the earlier story would see a young Sonny Corleone as the main character, helping his father Vito to gain the family its political powers and control, marking the family's established stance on the world; and the latter story some 40-50 years later based in the 1980's, seeing his son Vincent Mancini, now Godfather of the Corleone family dynasty, haunted by the death of Mary Corleone, leading the Corleone family into drug trafficking and subsequently destroying and losing the Corleone Dynasty it's political powers and control, seeing one final scene with Vincent and Michael in Sicily shortly before Michael's death in 1990.

Coppola stated however that the film was never made as Mario Puzo died before they had a chance to write the film. Actors Talia Shire, Sofia Coppola and Andy Garcia have also expressed disinterest in a 4th part to the series of films.

First of all, this is poorly-written, though that can be fixed. But, it is really nothing but speculation and idle chatter about a film that was never made, never will be made, and may not have ever been seriously considered. What is the purpose of this information? Coppola thought about making a 4th film, but he didn't, seems to be the sum total of what is offered here. How is this encyclopedic? The source is also questionable, and I have begun a discussion about that on RSN. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Please search for how to cite DVD's on wikipedia before removing and challenging these links, as wikipedia allows it's own pages for these.

On your claim this is poorly written, sorry but you have to be clearer than that.

The sources are justifiable as anyone who has listened to the DVD can hear it.

I dont know why you're so bothered by this addition. The Godfather series has a huge legacy behind it and as Coppolla has provided what a Part 4 would have held I feel obliged to let this remain. If it were discussed in even more detail by the actors or Coppolla, perhaps it would have it's own page, however as the film has never been made and Part 3 is the last installment, I feel this page is appropriate for it, I don't see why this is misleading or pointless in anyway. It just seems our opinions differ and as this was here for some time before you begun removing it I'm afraid I will continue to defy your removals. ToonIsALoon (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the issues I raised above. It is not enough to add (dubious) sources that say that on the DVD commentary Coppola said he thought about making a number 4. You have to provide reliable sources that say this is notable in some way. Your claim that this information was in the article long before I started editing would be beside the point if it were even true. The section was added back in early August, and I removed it very soon there after. Do not readd the information while the discussion is ongoing, as that would be disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

hi again,

I'm going to keep undoing this and re-adding as you don't really have an argument. How can you suggest DVD commentary is not justifiable? It's there, listen to it. When you don't hear anything come back and discuss.

Fair do's this has been removed before and perhaps i was inaccurate on that bit, but nonetheless if you did sufficient research you would be satisfied. This DVD link is the best on offer.

To address the point of this article, again, I refer to the legacy this trilogy holds and I do not believe this is harmful, misleading or inappropriate in anyway. As the Reception section details, it received mixed reviews to a degree and is considered the weakest of the trilogy, adding a potential part 4 to this page which Coppolla himself announced harms no-one. Forgive the sarcasm but when I add a section about Coppolla directing a potential Part V or Rocky 7 to this page, again come back and discuss.

Once again this section is harmless and in no way sounds trivial or of a 'fan discussion' page to it.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As you still have not bothered to address any of the issues above, I can only assume you are here to be disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is poorly-written, though that can be fixed.

Sorry but you have to be clearer. Nothing's misleading or offensive or inaccurate so this is ignored form here on unless you respond.

But, it is really nothing but speculation and idle chatter about a film that was never made, never will be made, and may not have ever been seriously considered. What is the purpose of this information?

Again, the legacy the godfather trilogy holds justifies my addition of this. Yes I agree it is unlikely to be made, but i have already stated that with Puzo's death, and as Coppolla stated they had discussed the film, and the links produced with Garcia claiming the film was nearly produced I think it's safe to put this onto Wikipedia.

Coppola thought about making a 4th film, but he didn't, seems to be the sum total of what is offered here. How is this encyclopedic?

Again, the legacy the godfather holds justifies this. The recognition this trilogy holds does not make it offensive to discuss it. Mrs Doubtfire 2 has been discussed to the same length and that's hardy comparable status. I'm sure The Godfather Part 4 can survive.

I'm sounding quite repetitive with this discussion and terminate from here on unless new points are raised, I think I have answered all your above concerns and you are simply being disruptive but continuously undoing the post. I will continue to repost this.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After a reminder, I decided to post here. As an uninvolved user, I agree with the concerns by RepublicanJacobite. We should use reliable sources to back up Part IV's concept. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ToonIsALoon, you were told by an administrator on your talk page not to revert to your favored version of the article, but to discuss the matter here and/or at the Film Project page. She also provided you a link. If I have to, I will report you to an administrator for violating that suggestion. You have no addressed all the concerns here, and other concerns have been raised at the Film Project. The majority of editors are against you, so stop reverting. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether Coppola was going to make a Part 4 is irrelevant to this page, because his decision not to make it had nothing to do with this film (at least, no one has provided a reliable source saying otherwise). As such, it has no place on this page and should be removed. If you're going to talk about the potential for a film it needs to be on Coppola's page, as that would be the more appropriate place to put it. The fact that he talks about Part 4 on this film's DVD commentary does not mean the information should be on this page. That's just the avenue in which he decided to talk about it. Had he said it in the NY Times we wouldn't add it to the NY Times page, and we wouldn't have added it to this page either. So, move any usable information to his page and call it a day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Not relevant to this article. If it belongs anywhere, it's at the director's page. The Interior (Talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ToonIsALoon has just gone ahead and readded this information, in slightly abbreviated form, to the article, despite the consensus here that it was not appropriate. I have reverted, but am seeking the input of others before taking any further action. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Godfather Effect

I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this Welshman has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know who it is, but I don't know many editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm ... is it worthy of retaining ... not in my opinion as a section. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This section, dealing entirely with a third-party book and its contents, appears in all three film articles, and appears to be, for lack of a better term, bookspam. Im sure there have been other books on the subject, and none of these deserve a full section treatment in these articles. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, [[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo], and this subject has already been broached before. Now, with additional support, I shall remove the section from all three articles and we can wait for a reaction.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Retcon

Vincent is the illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone and his mistress Lucy Mancini, and eventually succeeds as the don. Retroactive continuity ("retcon") was employed to create the character's existence for The Godfather Part III, as it is evident from Mario Puzo's original novel that Lucy did not conceive a child with Sonny. Coppola has said that Vincent is, roughly speaking, an amalgamation of the five Corleone family males. Coppola describes Vincent as having Vito's cunning, Michael's ruthlessness, Fredo's sensitivity, Sonny's fiery temper and Tom Hagen's absolute loyalty. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

List of films featuring diabetes

There should be a "See also" section that links to List of films featuring diabetes because there are numerous sources that reference Corleone's diabetic conditions in The Godfather Part III. A quick Google search will show this. The list includes films that have diabetes as an element, based on outside sources that have done their own compiling and analyzing. If the item seems too isolated in a "See also" section, we can add other links too. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When Michael dies

I always thought that he died in his chair first, then slumped over in his chair and collapsed to the ground. Wouldn't that make more sense? 92.18.212.137 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as possible, we should just describe what we see in the film, rather than declare uncertain things like the exact moment of death as definite, or put emphasis (such as "entirely alone") that reflects personal interpretation.Exok (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but when he falls out of his chair he is completly motionless like a ragdoll. It seems pretty obvious that he wasn't conscious when he collapsed, so again, wouldn't it make sense to at least say that he died first? 92.19.39.197 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Action causes reaction. He slumps and falls out of his chair because he's dead. I can't see it any other way.Vember94 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Character articles

I just noticed that many of the characters in this film have separate character bio articles. This seems silly and unnecessary, as most of them have no significance beyond this film, and no third-party coverage indicating notability. Some characters from The Godfather, such as Michael, have this kind of significance, but most do not. I am considering taking many of these to AfD unless someone can convince me otherwise. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like this
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 15:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Some uncited claims and a rehash of plot details. Basically pointless. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Revising Article

I'm editing for excessive length and to eliminate the "in-universe" style.PNW Raven (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The plot's too long, man

Gareth Griffith-Jones, you have now reverted me four times within about a 10-minute period, which is a violation of the three-revert rule. I don't particularly care about that, but surely you know that repeatedly reverting without responding to edit summaries/arguments is a fast way to cheese off other editors.

OK, like I admitted, I haven't seen this movie. But I've been editing Wikipedia for years now, especially film articles, and especially plot summaries, and I have yet to summarise a plot that couldn't be summarised within the 700-word WP:FILMPLOT limit. So when I look at this plot summary and see that it's clearly significantly longer than that, alarm bells ring.

I am deeply skeptical that this film should be the exception. Why? Because you don't need to have seen the movie to see that the summary is full of dodgy writing. I think I demonstrated this when I removed superfluous words from the first paragraph, which you reverted without explanation. I also remember our previous disagreements on the Godfather plot summary, a movie I have seen, where you made - I'm sorry - some rather bizarre arguments in favour of keeping a lot of waffle in the summary.

Is it too much to ask that you allow that my editing experience might afford me some insight here, and not instantly dismiss it? Are you sure that "Michael and Kay have been divorced" is correct, for example, and that "Michael and Kay are divorced" wouldn't do the job better? Sure, I haven't seen the movie so I could be wrong. But I'd like to see some actual arguments for these things, because to the reader who's paying attention, this looks like a lot of word salad. Popcornduff (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to some rewording, but I don't think that this plot summary is ever going to be reduced to the 400-700 word limit. The plot is simply too long and complex to be forced into that limit. And I believe that there is a general consensus in the film project that the Godfather films and a few others are exceptions to that rule. Copy-editing is one thing, but a significant reduction in the length would be a mistake. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

GF has about 680 words. GF2 has about 800. I think 700 words for GF3 is quite reasonable. Over 1000 words is unreasonable. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit of the first paragraph took it from 79 words to 64 words, a 20% decrease (please correct me if my math is bad, it often is). The current plot summary is 1075 words; if we can cut 20% of that we'll have cut 215 words, to start. A very crude prediction, but seriously, we don't need all those words, even if it's impossible to fit it under 700 (which I doubt). Popcornduff (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits to "The Godfather, Part III"

I do not mean to appear unkind, but in my humble opinion, your latest edits to the Wiki for "The Godfather, Part III" are not improvements. In fact, they take away relevant information, muddle sequence, and are also arguably rougher in language. Could we perhaps discuss some sort of compromise? ZappoTheGentleman (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A "compromise" of course. Go ahead. Bearing in mind that we are constantly trying to copy-edit to reduce words rather than expand the Plot section. [1] Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 15:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)