Pacino Duvall and Godfather III

[CTTT]

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.

[ChrisIII]

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.

[DrNewGod]

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).

[Güicho]

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,

[Güicho]

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.

[CTTT]

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.

[Güicho]

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.

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?

I'm just saying Pacino should have graciously lowered his salary so that Duvall could be in the film.

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.

Your insertion ^ of Pacino dictating where money was spent, being disagreeable to Duval wanting/getting more, is completely your narrative invention.

[ChrisIII]

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.

[Jokerz79]

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.

[CTTT]

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.