Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Pacino Duvall and Godfather III

    So I read that the reason that Robert Duvall turned down GF III over a salary dispute with Al Pacino. He said that Pacino's salary for the movie was five times more than his, if it was double Duvall probably would have done the movie. Don't you think that Pacino was being a little selfish/piggish not taking a little paycut for RD to star? You would think after starring together in two Oscar winning movies together that Pacino would be more agreeable. I'm sure Francis Coppola had to beg him to no avail. Not having Tom Hagan in the movie and having Sun tan Hamilton in there left a big hole the size of a crater. Winona Ryder dropping out after getting hurt didn't help the movie either as Sofia Coppola took her place.

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    I think the original intent for the film was pretty much for it to be Michael vs. Hagen (There were of course tensions between the two in the first two movies here and there), and not that Hagen would have the mostly minor role Hamilton had in the final movie.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  3. #3
    Extraordinary Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    So I read that the reason that Robert Duvall turned down GF III over a salary dispute with Al Pacino. He said that Pacino's salary for the movie was five times more than his, if it was double Duvall probably would have done the movie. Don't you think that Pacino was being a little selfish/piggish not taking a little paycut for RD to star? You would think after starring together in two Oscar winning movies together that Pacino would be more agreeable. I'm sure Francis Coppola had to beg him to no avail. Not having Tom Hagan in the movie and having Sun tan Hamilton in there left a big hole the size of a crater. Winona Ryder dropping out after getting hurt didn't help the movie either as Sofia Coppola took her place.
    Just looked this up-
    Here is the interview where he discuses, Pacnio has absolutely nothing to do with the decision (that narrative spin is all you), - Jump t0 14:59 - https://charlierose.com/videos/3815

    Good on Duval, for standing his ground
    Absolutely should have gotten more. Phenomenal actor!
    In hindsight GFIII was (as he calls it, a money grab) and the worst anyway. He's all the better without it.
    Last edited by Güicho; 10-20-2020 at 07:11 PM.

  4. #4
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    I think the original intent for the film was pretty much for it to be Michael vs. Hagen (There were of course tensions between the two in the first two movies here and there), and not that Hagen would have the mostly minor role Hamilton had in the final movie.
    That would have been a more interesting plot. But honestly (IMO), the franchise had all its fuel exhausted in the second film. It should have been left off there (no matter how much l liked Garcia in 3).

  5. #5
    Extraordinary Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    It should have been left off there (no matter how much l liked Garcia in 3).
    Agree, despite the over all film, García as Vincent Corleone was a terrific addition and end-cap character, as Coppola described an amalgamation of the five Corleone family males, having Vito's logical mind, Michael's duplicity, Fredo's vulnerability, Sonny's quick-temper and Tom Hagen's courage.

    Although it would have been nice to have Hagen there, to recognize that in him,
    Last edited by Güicho; 10-21-2020 at 03:09 PM.

  6. #6
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    Just looked this up-
    Here is the interview where he discuses, Pacnio has absolutely nothing to do with the decision (that narrative spin is all you), - Jump t0 14:59 - https://charlierose.com/videos/3815

    Good on Duval, for standing his ground
    Absolutely should have gotten more. Phenomenal actor!
    In hindsight GFIII was (as he calls it, a money grab) and the worst anyway. He's all the better without it.
    I wasn't giving narrative spin. In the interview segment that you sent Duvall again mentions that there was a problem with the salary. I'm just saying Pacino should have graciously lowered his salary so that Duvall could be in the film.

  7. #7
    Extraordinary Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    I wasn't giving narrative spin. In the interview segment that you sent Duvall again mentions that there was a problem with the salary. I'm just saying Pacino should have graciously lowered his salary so that Duvall could be in the film.
    The Interview in regards to the salary decision he's talking about Coppola. His own anecdote ends with Coppola being more interested in the recipe, than hiring him back for more.
    Yet in your imaginary narrative you have Copolla begging him to come back.
    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    I'm sure Francis Coppola had to beg him to no avail. .
    Then instead you insert and spin that it's Pacino who had control over what was offered.
    You imply that he was asked and refused to lower his salary (again your invention).
    What makes you think Pacino had any control or say over what Duval was offered. Please quote something
    Or that him taking less money (a pay cut) would have even gone to Duval, or that he even knew or was asked or had any influence on what Copolla offered to Duval?

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    I'm just saying Pacino should have graciously lowered his salary so that Duvall could be in the film.
    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    Don't you think that Pacino was being a little selfish/piggish not taking a little paycut for RD to star? .
    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    You would think after starring together in two Oscar winning movies together that Pacino would be more agreeable.
    Your insertion ^ of Pacino dictating where money was spent, being disagreeable to Duval wanting/getting more, is completely your narrative invention.
    Last edited by Güicho; 10-23-2020 at 08:46 AM.

  8. #8
    Ultimate Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Part of the problem with III is that it kind of undoes II's pretty bleak ending almost immediately. At the end of II you felt it was really no turning back for Michael and he'd taken the kids away from Kay....but then it turns out he let Kay raise the kids anyway and decides to turn over a new leaf? I know they were kind of going for a bit of a redemption story but this was like a total 180.

    Also Pacino plays Michael more like his more over the top 80's and 90's characters rather than the mostly calm and cold Michael from the first two films.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  9. #9
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Godfather III with Duvall and Ryder

    would've been a much better movie with Robert Duvall and Winona instead of Sophia Coppola. Francis should have waited for her to recover from her injury and should have given Duvall the money he wanted. It doesn't matter how much he tweaks it, it's still considered less than Godfather 1 and 2.

  10. #10
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    Part of the problem with III is that it kind of undoes II's pretty bleak ending almost immediately. At the end of II you felt it was really no turning back for Michael and he'd taken the kids away from Kay....but then it turns out he let Kay raise the kids anyway and decides to turn over a new leaf? I know they were kind of going for a bit of a redemption story but this was like a total 180.

    Also Pacino plays Michael more like his more over the top 80's and 90's characters rather than the mostly calm and cold Michael from the first two films.
    Also this might be a petty thing for me to dislike but Godfather I & II were set in the 40's and 50's and looked and felt like it. While Godfather III set in 1979 felt and looked like the era it was made which was 1990.

  11. #11
    Ultimate Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    I think part of the reason for the late 70s setting was to line up with the Vatican Bank scandal that happened around that time but yeah, the film doesn't exactly scream late 70s.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  12. #12
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Also this might be a petty thing for me to dislike but Godfather I & II were set in the 40's and 50's and looked and felt like it. While Godfather III set in 1979 felt and looked like the era it was made which was 1990.
    You know I never thought about that, but it's a very fair criticism. It never struck me as any other year than 1990. Poor period piece work by the production team, I agree. The film still offers a lot visually, but without the period accuracy of the first two films.


    Regarding Duvall, it will always be a sad shame he did not participate. Between Coppola, Pacino, or perhaps even Duvall, it's someone's or someones' fault and a shame that somebody couldn't realize that the film could really suffer without him.
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 11-09-2021 at 01:54 PM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

  13. #13
    Ultimate Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    It's a bit hard to tell though I think because pretty much more than half the film pretty much shifts focus to Italy/Sicilly, with not much of New York (and none of Nevada, which was apparently abandoned at some point after II)
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •