| Revision as of 15:04, 29 October 2006 edit189.157.84.6 (talk) Plot Review← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:06, 10 January 2025 edit undoJohnadams11 (talk | contribs)308 edits →New Introductory Section: new sectionTag: New topic |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{| class="toccolours" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| width="80%" valign="top" | |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{failedGA}} |
|
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
{{facfailed}} |
|
|
{{FilmsWikiProject|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
| width="20%" valign="top" | |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
<center>]<br/>]</center> |
|
|
|
|action1date=16 August 2005 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Godfather/archive1 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=21143374 |
|
|} |
|
|
==Forked Article== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
The content of this article was ''forked'' from another article, ]. Please see that article's page history for contributor information for parts of this article. |
|
|
|
|action2date=September 3 2005 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Godfather/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|
|action2oldid=22472734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
==Trivia== |
|
|
|
|action3date=June 23 2006 |
|
I just re-watched this movie, and although Vito Corleone takes the name of his town ], his father's name was Alberto Antonini. At least I think. If someone wants to check that one out. |
|
|
|
|action3link=Talk:The Godfather/Archive 1#Failed GA |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=60763282 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=PR |
|
:His father's name was Antonio Andolini. |
|
|
|
|action4date=March 13 2007 |
|
:(''"My fathers name was Antonio Andolini... and this is for you!"'') ] 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Godfather/archive2 |
|
::It was a mistake by the guy at Ellis Island. "Vito Andolini from Corleone". And the other guy says, writing down in the book, "Vito Coreleone." Sorry it's late. Not a very good explanation. ] 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76 |
|
|
|
|action4result=reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=114710440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
==Cast List== |
|
|
|
|action5date=January 21, 2017 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Godfather/archive3 |
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
I'm thinking that the '''See Also''' section ought to be used for the more notable among the cast, e.g. ], ] and of course ]. Perhaps a selective cast list could go under the '''Casting''' section, to avoid clogging up the bottom of the article? ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 10:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6date=April 10 2020 |
|
*Certainly sounds reasonable. Perhaps a seperate cast section should be added instead of listed under See Also ? ] 20:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6link=Talk:The Godfather/GA1 |
|
**I'll get onto this later today. ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6result=passed |
|
***Done. ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6oldid=950054730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2010-03-15|otd1oldid=349863230|otd2date=2011-03-15|otd2oldid=419036810|otd3date=2014-03-15|otd3oldid=599536847|otd4date=2017-03-15|otd4oldid=770364934 |
|
==References== |
|
|
|
|otd5date=2022-03-15|otd5oldid=1077030410 |
|
|
|action7 = FAC |
|
|
|action7date = 2024-10-27 |
|
|
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Godfather/archive2 |
|
|
|action7result = failed |
|
|
|action7oldid = 1253439950 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC/GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=media and drama |
|
I'm now in the awkward position of trying to fill up the ''References'' section for this article. As I didn't write most of the content (forked from another article), this is going to be difficult. All help is therefore welcome. A brief read-through suggests references for the following claims will be needed, at the very least: |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|core=yes|American=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Library of Congress|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sicily|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USFilm=Yes|USFilm-importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The Godfather/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:The Godfather/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:The Godfather/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Nomination for ] == |
|
*''Pacino was only granted the role after Coppola threatened to quit the production.'' |
|
|
*''It was voted greatest film of all time by Entertainment Weekly, and #3 of all time by the American Film Institute. It is consistently, and currently, ranked #1 on IMDB's Top 250.'' |
|
|
*''Coppola stated that the horse's head was delivered to him from a dog food company; a horse had not been killed especially for the movie.'' |
|
|
*''Mafia families began a "real life" tradition of paying respect to the family don by kissing his ring, in imitation of the opening scene of The Godfather.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nominating for FA. ] (]) 20:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
All pointers welcome. ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Betty Logan}} {{ping|Mazewaxie}} {{ping|Vaselineeeeeeee}} {{ping|Wrath X}} |
|
|
I think the article is in pretty good shape, would any of you like to bring it to ] status? |
|
|
See ]. ] (]) 22:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening Paragraph == |
|
Rob, are you a wiki admin? I don't like that on the talk page, I can edit other user's posts ... I thought it would work better as a bulletin board or forum. Anyways, I found that Coppolla himself said that the horse's head was delivered to the crew by a dog food company, and he says that on "The Godfather Collection" DVD commentary. I added a reference on the wiki page accordingly. ] 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Nasif S. Hossain 08/20/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As noted in the article, this film is one of the greatest and most influential films of all time. Yet, the article's entire first paragraph makes absolutely no note of this. Has this issue been discussed before? ] (]) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Redirection == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Its influence and the regard it is held in is covered by the fourth paragraph in the lead. I don't see this as an issue as these elements as a rule are not discussed in the opening paragraph. Indeed, ] (by which GA status is assessed) recommends covering these aspects after the opening paragraph, and states "Summarize awards and achievements using proper context in a ''later'' paragraph" . Obviously there are many valid ways of writing a lead, but the lead in this article follows a common format. ] (]) 02:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
It is ridiculous for ] to redirect here. Either ] should be a disambiguation page, or this page should be at ]. I think either is defensible, but it is not defensible to have the main title redirecting to a disambiguated title. What on earth is the point of the disambiguated title in this case? ] ] 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] Thank you. The resource you linked is helpful and I can see where the first paragraph is uniform. However, to me at least, it is obvious that the fourth paragraph should be move to second. The film's acclaim is of far more notability than the standard intrigue and deal making that accompanies many film productions. One example of what I'm suggesting is the ] article. Your thoughts? ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:There, happy? - ] ] 22:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Quite. ] ] 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Introductory Section == |
|
== Differences from the novel? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am proposing a new introductory section which gives improved visibility the universal acclaim and historical importance of this film. The present treatment relegates this information to the fourth paragraph. Comments welcome. |
|
Would it be a good idea to add (either here or on the entry for the novel) a run down of the differences between the film and book? ] 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC) RossN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The Godfather is a 1972 American epic gangster film directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who co-wrote the screenplay with Mario Puzo, based on Puzo's best-selling 1969 novel. The film stars an ensemble cast including Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Richard Castellano, Robert Duvall, Sterling Hayden, John Marley, Richard Conte and Diane Keaton. |
|
== Original Soundtrack == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The Godfather is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made, as well as a landmark of the gangster genre. It was selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry of the Library of Congress in 1990, being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and is ranked the second-greatest film in American cinema (behind Citizen Kane) by the American Film Institute. It was followed by sequels The Godfather Part II (1974) and The Godfather Part III (1990). |
|
I feel the soundtrack is an incredibly important part of the film also, it is equally deeply beautiful, haunting, moving and forboding. Does anyone else think it should have greater acknowledgement in the main The Godfather article ? ] 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The Godfather was the highest-grossing film of 1972. It was for a time the highest-grossing film ever made, earning between $250 and $291 million at the box office. The film was acclaimed by critics and audiences, who praised its performances—particularly those of Brando and Pacino—direction, screenplay, story, cinematography, editing, score and portrayal of the mafia. The Godfather launched the successful careers of Coppola, Pacino and other relative newcomers in the cast and crew. At the 45th Academy Awards, the film won Best Picture, Best Actor (Brando) and Best Adapted Screenplay (for Puzo and Coppola). In addition, the seven other Oscar nominations included Pacino, Caan and Duvall, all for Best Supporting Actor, and Coppola for Best Director. |
|
The soundtrack is incredibly iconic of the feel of the film, i feel it;s worthy of mention, did it recieve an Oscar for the best soundtrack? |
|
|
|
] (]) 02:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== The soundtrack section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should probably be nuked. Who cares who wrote the lyrics for each song? ]<sup>] ]</sup> 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with the "Who cares?" part, but it doesn't have to be nuked. I think it is fine where it is. Why SHOULDNT it be in the article? It doesn't hurt anything... |
|
|
|
|
|
==IMDb 'rating'== |
|
|
|
|
|
I changed the statement: ''It has repeatedly been voted as the greatest movie ever made by users at the Internet Movie Database''. There are a number of problems with this statement. Firstly, all films on IMDb are voted for only by users who choose to vote for the film, which is convenience ]. It is misleading to claim it is voted 'by the users at the IMDb': it is voted by a subset, and quite likely a very selective one. Secondly, the 'rating' method on IMDb of a single 1-10 vote is simplistic and does not meet the most basic of ] criteria, so any claim about how any group has 'rated' this film based on such a method is dubious: the claim cannot be verified according to any accepted criteria. It is giving a lot of credence to a poorly conducted poll to mention it at all. ] 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would be fair to say it is the highest ranked film on IMDB, if that is in fact true. ] 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeah, which is basically what I have changed it to. My issue was that the previous version was prone to misinterpretation. I agree with you, just wanted to be clear about the reason I've altered the statement. Cheers. ] 08:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The Simpsons Impact== |
|
|
|
|
|
The Godfather trilogy had a huge impact on The Simpsons. Other wikipedia movie entries document the episodes with references. |
|
|
Maybe a link should be inserted to: |
|
|
http://www.duffzone.co.uk/content.php?title=refgf |
|
|
|
|
|
==Production: reference to "traitor" elements in the crew== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed the following sentence from the "Production" section, because it does not make any sense as written: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Elements of the film's crew were also against Coppola, mid-way through shooting several key members of the production team including the Assistant Director who Coppola accused of being 'traitors'.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
There clearly something missing from this statement to flesh it out. I suspect that it might mean something like |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Mid-way through the shooting, elements of the film's crew were also against Coppola, including the Assistant Director and key members of the production team, whom Cappola accused of being 'traitors'.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
But I have no independent knowlegdge of this being true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is Copolla referring to all the dissenting production team members are "traitors", or only the Assistant Director"? What's the significant of "mid-way through shooting?" -- does something happen then? |
|
|
|
|
|
I just don't understand the reference, and I wish that someone with knowledge of what occured wouls correct it and reinsert it. ] 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Interpretation == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that films of this magnitude and importance should have some discussion of their meaning and/or interpretation(s). |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to begin this without starting a long chain of competing reviews? |
|
|
:Greatest movie ever made. That's my review. ] 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Failed GA == |
|
|
|
|
|
I failed the GA nominations for the following reasons |
|
|
|
|
|
* Few refs |
|
|
* Images need a fair use rationale |
|
|
* Needs a strong copyedit |
|
|
* Remove the trivia section |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Contrary statements: lighting/budget == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the Production section of the article it claims that realistic lighting was forced on Coppola because of budget constraints. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the Trivia section, it says the exact opposite: "The film was shot with regular lighting, not because of budget reasons and a tight schedule, but Coppola wanted a more realistic tone to the film." |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd fix it if I knew which was correct... |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Godfather Trivia Question == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the scene that Sollozo and McClusky are shot by Michael, what is the exact weapon that Michael uses? Its a revolver of some kind but... |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find out on the internet, so... |
|
|
|
|
|
Please help. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Plot Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just recently finished the complete editing of the '''''Plot'' section''' of the three films, '']'', and '']'' and '']''. |
|
|
|
|
|
I considered that such an influential ] required a more delicate and extensive treatment. |
|
|
If you think that the ''Plot section'' is too long, you should consider that each ] 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 ] with a ] 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 ], fix the ] or the ], or rephrase a ] while maintaining the same ideas and length, then there would be no need to post. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just remember, '''this is NOT a forum.'''15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
As noted in the article, this film is one of the greatest and most influential films of all time. Yet, the article's entire first paragraph makes absolutely no note of this. Has this issue been discussed before? Johnadams11 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I am proposing a new introductory section which gives improved visibility the universal acclaim and historical importance of this film. The present treatment relegates this information to the fourth paragraph. Comments welcome.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
