Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    424

    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
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,491

    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
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,426

    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
    6,602

    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
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,426

    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
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    424

    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
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,426

    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
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,491

    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

Posting Permissions

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