Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by captveg

The fact that you think I was making some kind of argument that relating to "bling" in any way kinda says it all.

It was a quick point, nothing personal. Could you ratchet down just a bit? Geez

Michael as a HUMAN BEING falls from innocence to corruption. It doesn't matter how much mastery of the power he gains - that kind of power built up by murder is damnation.

It is ABSOLUTELY about compassion, about empathy, about humanity. That's what Michael loses by inheriting his father's role.

I think Vito was more of a role model. Sorry, I just feel that way. Not hero, but he did have a lot of admirable qualities.

But as human beings they are both damned.

I don't look at it that way. I go with the context of the story. If Vito is damned, i put a lot of people before him.

I love Vito and he helps people from what I read and saw. That guy was someone that protected people that deserved it. Even Johnny Fontaine....i.e. Frank Sinatra.

Part II was not even conceived until after the first film was finished. The first film can be informed, expanded upon and gain in nuance due to the second film, but it's not reliant on it whatsoever as it's own story of Michael's fall from human decency.

Actually from someone like me that knows the movie and read the book this is entirely false. Vito's story was written long before either Godfather was filmed. Are you serious???

You keep bringing up events in Part II. Yes, he falls *further* in Part II because unlike his father he can't cover his evil with charm. But that doesn't negate that he's already fallen at the end of the original film. It's the last image of the film, for heaven's sake: totally become like his father, shutting out all decency he once knew for the sake of power. This is shown via his coldness in how he lies to his sister and symbolized by the door closing on Kay.

And you think this likens to Vito? When I say "rise", I mean rise to power. As for "fall" this is opinion. I don't think Michael is "evil" then and him lying is not enough for me. It is business and not personal at that point. Makes him a crappy husband or brother, yes, but not what you are portraying compared to that world. It is none of their business and Vito was likely the same. You think business men don't do this? Guess they are all "evil"...oh yeah, but women don't do that right??

I know evil, and trust me, Michael at that point is nowhere near the garbage I have known.

He was already a murderer before he even married her. Grabbing a few extra sins after one has already sunk into hell isn't where the fall begins.

Say what??? Please explain ths one. Are you talking about the military...really??

The events depicted in the film itself and how they occur are facts. They exist in one factual manner as the film text.

Right, and he murdered no one before the resteraunt. Thinking about it is not up for debate no matter how many priests like to believe that is enough.

Opinions of worth use the film text to argue the thematic ideas. The evidence of The Godfather's narrative as conveyed via the written and performed characters in the film text shows Michael emotionally and intellectually committing to becoming his father's heir in damnation and corruption by his hospital bed, with Michael then following through on that commitment by murdering two people. All the events that follow where he doubles down on his corruption are just more timber for the fires of hell that he's already set aflame.

I don't know that he was committed to anything. I don't remember that being written clearly in the book either (been many years since I read it), but the movie where Sonny sees it and understands that until Michael says its business and not personal, he ain't letting him do it. Man a lot of judgment being thrown around.

Sure, one can have a contrarian opinion to this interpretation. But where's the evidence that what I wrote above is a faulty one when weighing what the film text presents? And one can't use the subsequent film of Part II - a narrative that wasn't even conceived of when the first film was made - to argue against what the original film presents. Interpreting a film that was made in isolation without that latter context is how it was conceived and originally presented, and therefore must be discerned via those means in regards to Michael's character arc intended for 1972 audiences.

Contrarion? I can't help you are dead wrong. Maybe you should read the book. While Michaels part wasn't written, Vitos rise to power sure gives weight that Michaels actions weren't anywhere near out of context. Shame you missed it.

First you accuse me of not watching the movie, now you practically dissmiss the powerful setup of the book that gave a more illustrated context that Brando did without spoonfeeding the audience by seeing a longer backstory.

Vito's part from PART II was practically taken verbatem from the book. You can start with that evidence where you are WRONG.

In many ways the book was inferior (that and the gyno chapters) because like the original Star Wars, part II was almost an entirely different story. Sure Al Pacino perfectly acted it, and it is a heartbreakibg story, but a "fall" in part 1??? BS. There was no fall except in the eyes of the judgmental that never understood the world they were presented.

In many ways like I don't buy Han in Star Wars becomes the love sick puppy in Empire, I don't buy Michael in Part II either. The new material wrote (which you seem to think it all is??) is the weaker stuff.

What you don't know about the story shows in your falsehood about DeNiros/young Vito's story already being written before either film was made.

Perhaps you missed my post why Francis is less than Lucas in that regard. He didn't write much new at all. The Hymen Roth material was much weaker as was the rest of the movie.

Again it is apparent you don't now these facts because you think it is all new.

By the way Al Pacino is my favorite actor. I know all his movies backwards and forwards...just saying, can you? I am still laughing about your statement that I never saw The Godfather and only reading wiki notes That was juvenile.
By the way, did you miss the part where Vito gave all powers over to Michael? Vito's advice gave way to the ultimate act of a crushing war victory. I see nothin "fall" wth the first story, down to Carlo kicking out the window in the end. Hell I admit I took glee in that one.

Though Niri should have been fired with that "dumbass" look he gave Kay. Lol

[Glamdring7920]

WTF.

Is English your primary language? I really don't think you understand the concepts of "Loss of Innocence" or "Fall From Grace" as used in context of literature or film.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Sent from my Ornithopter using The Force

[captveg]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

I think Vito was more of a role model. Sorry, I just feel that way. Not hero, but he did have a lot of admirable qualities.

Charles Manson was a charmer at the surface level, too.

At best Vito is an anti-hero. Mostly he's an immoral killer that wears a nice mask; a whited sepulchre.

I don't look at it that way. I go with the context of the story. If Vito is damned, i put a lot of people before him.

Damnation isn't really something of relative rank.

I love Vito and he helps people from what I read and saw. That guy was someone that protected people that deserved it. Even Johnny Fontaine....i.e. Frank Sinatra.

He helps some people who practically worship him by murdering and otherwise harming other people.

What a guy!

Actually from someone like me that knows the movie and read the book this is entirely false. Vito's story was written long before either Godfather was filmed. Are you serious???

I was obviously referring to Michael's story, since, you know, everything we were discussing was in regards to Michael's role as the protagonist.

And you think this likens to Vito?

Hell yes. Both murderers. Both self-serving while trying to pass it off as benevolent. Both evil men who are out for #1 at the expense of their enemies, real or perceived.

When I say "rise", I mean rise to power.

And there is the primary disconnect. Who gives a shit about the gain of power? This all got started by talking about Anakin's soul as compared to Michael's soul. They both fall in human terms in order to achieve power. That's the context of how this ridiculous conversation began.

As for "fall" this is opinion. I don't think Michael is "evil" then and him lying is not enough for me. It is business and not personal at that point. Makes him a crappy husband or brother, yes, but not what you are portraying compared to that world. It is none of their business and Vito was likely the same. You think business men don't do this? Guess they are all "evil"...oh yeah, but women don't do that right??

HE'S KILLED OR HAD KILLED MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT THIS POINT. Him lying is merely a symptom of the evil bastard he has become. You know, by KILLING PEOPLE.

I know evil, and trust me, Michael at that point is nowhere near the garbage I have known.

You know people who have committed multiple murders?

Say what??? Please explain ths one. Are you talking about the military...really??

Military, no. Is he a murderer before he marries Kay? YES. The restaurant scene occurs years before he marries Kay. You know, when he MURDERS people. He even has time for another wife in the intervening years.

Right, and he murdered no one before the resteraunt. Thinking about it is not up for debate no matter how many priests like to believe that is enough.

Unless I'm going insane, I do believe that the last scene in The Godfather occurs *after* he kills multiple people, including in the restaurant scene.

I don't know that he was committed to anything. I don't remember that being written clearly in the book either (been many years since I read it), but the movie where Sonny sees it and understands that until Michael says its business and not personal, he ain't letting him do it.

He was emotionally invested. He could call it "business" all he wants (one of the ideas of the films is that is a self-delusion), that doesn't really justify his descent into wickedness and corruption. He could have backed out at the restaurant, sure. But he doesn't. Consider "Then I'll kill them both" as him getting dealt the cards and the actual murder as putting all his chips into the pot. Point is, by that time he's already decided to sit at the poker table when he talks to his father at his hospital bed.

Contrarion? I can't help you are dead wrong. Maybe you should read the book. While Michaels part wasn't written, Vitos rise to power sure gives weight that Michaels actions weren't anywhere near out of context. Shame you missed it.

Oh, I have read the book.

But besides that, I was never discussing how Vito's storyline in Part II informs Michael's character arc in the original film. I was clearly discussing how Michael's character arc in Part II was not yet conceived during the production of the original film. I don't even see how you could make this leap of logic.

First you accuse me of not watching the movie

I certainly did no such thing.

now you practically dissmiss the powerful setup of the book that gave a more illustrated context that Brando did without spoonfeeding the audience by seeing a longer backstory.

I can't dismiss something that was never a part of the conversation to begin with.

Vito's part from PART II was practically taken verbatem from the book. You can start with that evidence where you are WRONG.

I WAS CLEARLY NEVER DISCUSSING THIS ELEMENT OF PART II.

In many ways the book was inferior (that and the gyno chapters) because like the original Star Wars, part II was almost an entirely different story. Sure Al Pacino perfectly acted it, and it is a heartbreakibg story, but a "fall" in part 1??? BS. There was no fall except in the eyes of the judgmental that never understood the world they were presented.

If condemning someone who either kills or has killed at least nine people (including at least one total innocent) is JUDGMENTAL of me, then I'm sorry, I will absolutely judge the hell out of that person.

Do you really condone murder as being unable to be judged as good or evil? Really?

....REALLY?

What you don't know about the story shows in your falsehood about DeNiros/young Vito's story already being written before either film was made.

Man, this back alley turn is a doozy.

Perhaps you missed my post why Francis is less than Lucas in that regard. He didn't write much new at all. The Hymen Roth material was much weaker as was the rest of the movie.

Now THAT is an opinion based in taste. Go to town on those. No skin off my back.

Again it is apparent you don't now these facts because you think it is all new.

Never said that.

By the way Al Pacino is my favorite actor. I know all his movies backwards and forwards...just saying, can you?

And how is this even relevant to the conversation?

I am still laughing about your statement that I never saw The Godfather and only reading wiki notes That was juvenile.

Laugh away.

But wanna know a secret? I never said that.

By the way, did you miss the part where Vito gave all powers over to Michael? Vito's advice gave way to the ultimate act of a crushing war victory.

"Hey son, here's how to absolutely seal the corruption of your soul. Love, Pops."

What a wonderful paternal gift!

I see nothin "fall" wth the first story, down to Carlo kicking out the window in the end. Hell I admit I took glee in that one.

I'm so glad you feel murder is an acceptable way to deal with problems in life. When murder isn't considered immoral, evil or a "fall", then it's easy to condone, embrace, and LOL about it, I guess.

----

And it is at this point that I'm gonna bow out of this sidetracking in this thread. I lasted as far as I could Ernest - but this is my exit point.

[ElvisForever]

Carlo was the cause of lots of people to be murdered including Michael's brother and beating the crap out of ptegnant Connie.

Sorry, but I think the word is a better place without that scum. I took glee in his death and feel no guilt for it.

From what I read in the book about Vito, he didn't kill innocents at all. Well...except maybe the horse of a child molestor. Guess you put Vito below him because Waltz didn't murder right?

So lets see, Don Fanucci that caused people to starve or be hurt and possibly killed, you think that Vito wasn't justfied? Right. Bet if you were living in that time you wouldn't see the world so black and white.

Look at your entire post, you look at Vito as only damned. By who?? By a God?? Ok, this is where we get into the nutty. I say context is important. If you are abused in prison and fight back or even plan a killing I don't look at is as "murder" when you weren't given a choice. When you know corruption as I have, maybe you won't see so absolute.

I don't think Vito dealt in murders. I think his actions were bordering on justifable homicide. To compare him to Charles Manson??? Really???

As for me and my family members on the police force, yes I have known people that murdered. Vito was head and shouldiers above them.

But this is getting way to personal for me. You really should stick to the subject instead of judging me as a person because I don't agree with you.

You don't think the comparison of Vito to Michael from Part II is important, well I do, because it is part of the story that preceded the movie and was superior in all regards.

That is why some peole like chrono because it shows how the story was intended. I go a step better and say edit it like the book and you see that Michael most certainly didn't "fall"...well except in the eyes of the judgmental that know no sin.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It's Go-Mer 2.0. Hell, might even be Go-Mer version 1.

[captveg]

Just when I thought I was out...

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

Carlo was the cause of lots of people to be murdered including Michael's brother and beating the crap out of ptegnant Connie.

Sorry, but I think the word is a better place without that scum. I took glee in his death and feel no guilt for it.

And he should have been accountable for those actions. But Michael isn't the one society in the 1950s had empowered to hold Carlo accountable. Michael may have deceived himself into believing that, but it doesn't make it any more true.

From what I read in the book about Vito, he didn't kill innocents at all.

Guilty or innocent by Vito's judgment, someone who has no legitimate authority to be so empowered.

Well...except maybe the horse of a child molestor. Guess you put Vito below him because Waltz didn't murder right?

Even if Vito was judging Woltz on his molestation (which he wasn't - he was judging him on how he treated Fontaine in regards to his contract), that still doesn't legitimize Vito being the enforcer on behalf of society.

So lets see, Don Fanucci that caused people to starve or be hurt and possibly killed, you think that Vito wasn't justfied? Right.

No, I do not. Fanucci's life wasn't his to do with as he pleased. Vito valued the ease that would come after killing him more than other options that would encompass their own difficulties.

Bet if you were living in that time you wouldn't see the world so black and white.

Maybe. I can only evaluate things as I know and experience them.

Look at your entire post, you look at Vito as only damned. By who?? By a God??

Maybe. But I was mostly speaking in regards to societal norms of murder for personal gain not being acceptable as part of humanity and standards of decency.

Ok, this is where we get into the nutty. I say context is important. If you are abused in prison and fight back or even plan a killing I don't look at is as "murder" when you weren't given a choice. When you know corruption as I have, maybe you won't see so absolute.

There's always a choice. Vito could have moved his family to another city, for example.

I don't think Vito dealt in murders. I think his actions were bordering on justifable homicide. To compare him to Charles Manson??? Really???

Scenario: Your landlord wants to increase your rent off the books as a way to squeeze you for more money. You kill him over this. Are you saying this isn't murder?

Try that defense in court, I dare ya.

As for me and my family members on the police force, yes I have known people that murdered. Vito was head and shouldiers above them.

But still an immoral murderer in his own right.

You don't think the comparison of Vito to Michael from Part II is important, well I do, because it is part of the story that preceded the movie and was superior in all regards.

I think it's important as character insight upon its release in 1974.

I also think it was not at all what was being discussed, nor was it relevant to the point I was making about Michael's character arc as presented in The Godfather upon first release. They didn't include it in that film because it was not central to the idea of Michael's fall from innocence in the first film.

That is why some peole like chrono because it shows how the story was intended.

If it was intended that way they would have made it that way. It's an interesting remix of the stories of the two films together, but it is something outside of how the films were originally conceived as presented individually.

But, yes, liking it is all fine. It re-contextualizes things via its particular presentation.

I go a step better and say edit it like the book and you see that Michael most certainly didn't "fall"...well except in the eyes of the judgmental that know no sin.

And here we are back again.

One does not need to be sinless to judge actions of murder and other corruption. Societies throughout history have pretty much unanimously decided these are immoral actions deserving of societal judgment.

I can judge Vito and Michael as damned because of their murderous actions because I live in a civilized society that condemns those actions as damnable. The difference between myself and them is that I do not empower myself to take the lives of others to make my life easier, or gain power, or benefit the few who pseudo-worship me.

So, yes, again - I wholly judge Michael as an evil man by the end of The Godfather. He's a murderer and a corrupt figurehead over a criminal organization. He has fallen from a position of human decency and morality.

You speak about not judging Vito or Michael - who are shown to be unequivocally murderers - yet say that you wholly judge Carlo for his actions without question, and condone his punishment by means outside the empowerment established by society. Do you not see the inconsistency of this position? Do you not see that you are arbitrarily excusing one man's deplorable actions because you perceive him as likeable (even "admirable") - or because they got to the top of their particular power pyramid -while disimissing another man's similar actions because you consider him "scum"?

It's because of these types of inconsistencies present when one individual is empowered that we don't turn to mafia heads and surface-level benevolent Godfathers to enact "justice" on behalf of society for such crimes.

And if you think that's a good way to handle problems in society, well... yeah, **** that.

[Ernest Rister]

Cap...you're great. You're talking to Elvis who is going to refuse to hear you, but you're great. You did God's work, too bad this chap can't hear angels.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

C V, You did God's work. Too bad this chap can't hear angels.

Well, lets not get *that* hyperbolic, now. [emoji14]

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

He plotted out treatments before the sale...how much of them -- if anything -- were used by Arndt, Abrams, and Kasdan when plotting out the new trilogy is unknown. The lack of a story credit on TFA is telling, though.

I heard they threw it out without even reading it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I heard they threw it out without even reading it.

You read it on the internet so it *must* be true.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I heard they threw it out without even reading it.

You heard wrong. Iger pretty much made access to those treatments a demand as condition of the sale. He wanted to know what the company was acquiring.

[Mighty Max]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I heard they threw it out without even reading it.

Abrams and Kasdan said they got rid of Arndt and Lucas' treatment and started from scratch.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Abrams and Kasdan said they got rid of Arndt and Lucas' treatment and started from scratch.

Lucas wrote a treatment solely for the purpose of the sale to Disney of LFL. It was not expected that future Star Wars movies would start from that treatment.

Arndt started from scratch, including creating the scavenger Rey, following the acquisition. His story was 18 months away from completion which was more than double the time available.

Arndt handed off to Abrams and Kasdan who completed their story in two months and then continued to finalise the script over the next six.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by captveg

And he should have been accountable for those actions. But Michael isn't the one society in the 1950s had empowered to hold Carlo accountable. Michael may have deceived himself into believing that, but it doesn't make it any more true. Guilty or innocent by Vito's judgment, someone who has no legitimate authority to be so empowered.

I have never claimed that I agree that either of the actions are right or wrong BY LAW, but that doesn't mean I won't hold up for the act in some way in my mind.

Where in the movie does Vito or Michael (the first, not the second) beat down a pregnant mother and use said event to set up someone to be killed? While many of the deaths after were questionable, Carlo is scum and I am proud to say that and within the confines of the movie there is no evidence that Vito or Michael did anything close to what he did.

Even if Vito was judging Woltz on his molestation (which he wasn't - he was judging him on how he treated Fontaine in regards to his contract), that still doesn't legitimize Vito being the enforcer on behalf of society.

And how do you know this? When Vito looks says to look into this "movie producer" you don't think Tom coming into the meeting saying his top men had moved to hard drugs, or that his union troubles that can disappear wouldn't find out that he molests little girls?

But hey, lets forget the book, lets forget the common analogy. How about the fact that the scene was actually filmed showing that it was true? Johnny Fontaine knew about it and there is a huge back story in that regard.

By the way, thanks for stepping away from the fact that I have read the book, seen the movies for a great many years, and know the material inside and out. My apologies on getting the members mixed up.

No, I do not. Fanucci's life wasn't his to do with as he pleased. Vito valued the ease that would come after killing him more than other options that would encompass their own difficulties.

But the difference between Vito and Fanucci is that he had compassion. I am not convinced he just killed and killed, because instead he just ruled on fear of what happened to Fanucci. Two things going on, there are people that feared a man that could take out a Fanucci or that were appreciative. In my book, nothing wrong with either, because yes there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Just like if Sonny would have killed Carlo which was likely before he met the toll booth (temporary insanity might actually be the case here)

Maybe. I can only evaluate things as I know and experience them.

Right, but boy do you have that judgment gavel as if you are the one that should be doing it? If you believe in this damnation then perhaps you shouldn't go around judging. But I am actually not judging, I am just stating my reasoning, and no it is not so black and white.

Maybe. But I was mostly speaking in regards to societal norms of murder for personal gain not being acceptable as part of humanity and standards of decency.

Society norms? I really don't care to go into all that, but I don't see the murders in the movie as just for personal gain as so much the end of a war based upon not wanting to sell drugs to little kids. That is what started the whole thing, and in many ways that is what ended it. Yes it was about power, yes it was about the future of the family, but most of all it was about Vito being strong armed into a unmoral decision.

There's always a choice. Vito could have moved his family to another city, for example.

Right, because people just have so much money. Right, because people should have to run away from their friends and other family? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that an Italian community. You think their life would be better that way? For many that was their only way of life and some were facing certain death outside of there because of racism. A man a his young kids has to take steps. Just picking up and moving away is not smart to survival...as easy as you may think it is sitting in the current point of view.

Scenario: Your landlord wants to increase your rent off the books as a way to squeeze you for more money. You kill him over this. Are you saying this isn't murder?

WHAT??? When did Vito kill anyone in that matter? When I saw the movie, he didn't say a word but "thank you" in their last talk. Matter of fact, the correct words if anything were "ask around, I know how to return a favor".

Try that defense in court, I dare ya.

Absolutely. The defense would be, hey I am asking for a favor and he complied. His "intimidation" is his own because I have not been proven to have done a thing.

But still an immoral murderer in his own right.

You see, this is where I disagree. Now do I feel he should have been convicted and served time. Absolutely, but again you want to talk morals? Well that is another thing. I have no question that society (like the cops that looked the other way at Italian violence) allowed that punk Fanucci to do what he did to poor immigrants, so if Vito goes down, than so do a great many in power in young America should too.

I think it's important as character insight upon its release in 1974.

I also think it was not at all what was being discussed, nor was it relevant to the point I was making about Michael's character arc as presented in The Godfather upon first release. They didn't include it in that film because it was not central to the idea of Michael's fall from innocence in the first film.

You see, I disagree. It isn't about importance, it is about condensing the writing. How do you do that, have an actor like Marlon Brando who does so much with a look and tight dialogue that you just know of stories like that. He does so much, that I truly can see the story of Vito in a similar circumstance.

He tells Sonny to shut his mouth, he makes sure that punishments fit the crime like beating the rapist that got to go free and not killing them...etc.

If it was intended that way they would have made it that way. It's an interesting remix of the stories of the two films together, but it is something outside of how the films were originally conceived as presented individually.

But, yes, liking it is all fine. It re-contextualizes things via its particular presentation.

You know as well as I do that there are all kinds of reasons why things don't get put into the edit in regards to studio pressure. So not buying this one for a second.

And here we are back again.

One does not need to be sinless to judge actions of murder and other corruption. Societies throughout history have pretty much unanimously decided these are immoral actions deserving of societal judgment.

I can judge Vito and Michael as damned because of their murderous actions because I live in a civilized society that condemns those actions as damnable. The difference between myself and them is that I do not empower myself to take the lives of others to make my life easier, or gain power, or benefit the few who pseudo-worship me.

And here we go again with you judging. I don't think that Vito did Fanucci because of an "easy" decision. He did so out of survival in the world that he was in. His world being the italian community and all he knew, and of course what he grew up with. Again, walk in that man shoes and then talk.

So, yes, again - I wholly judge Michael as an evil man by the end of The Godfather. He's a murderer and a corrupt figurehead over a criminal organization. He has fallen from a position of human decency and morality.

You speak about not judging Vito or Michael - who are shown to be unequivocally murderers - yet say that you wholly judge Carlo for his actions without question, and condone his punishment by means outside the empowerment established by society. Do you not see the inconsistency of this position? Do you not see that you are arbitrarily excusing one man's deplorable actions because you perceive him as likeable (even "admirable") - or because they got to the top of their particular power pyramid -while disimissing another man's similar actions because you consider him "scum"?

And within the confines of the move, absolutely. Carlo caused a lot of people to be killed based on supporting drug dealers to children. He also beat the shit out of a pregnant mother TWICE. YES I CALL HIM SCUM. Vito or Michael did nothing close in the first movie at all. Michael after (i.e. the new material) shows that he is becoming a Carlo type. i.e. killing the hooker.

From what I saw in the Godfather book and movie, I saw admirable qualities and I feel no shame in saying so. Punished by law, I agree (as long as the law is applied evenly, and if applied evenly, than there are police officers and politicians that should go in there too.

It's because of these types of inconsistencies present when one individual is empowered that we don't turn to mafia heads and surface-level benevolent Godfathers to enact "justice" on behalf of society for such crimes.

And if you think that's a good way to handle problems in society, well... yeah, **** that.

No I never said that it is a "good" way to handle it, but in the confines of the movie, I can see why things are handled that way. It is survival plain and simple and with the movies that we watch, or the places we go to, you would be a fool to think that this kind of thing doesn't still go on and you are supporting it and you don't even know it (buying the products, people you support...etc.)

So my point is in the empathy and most important of all, is not being so quick to judge.

I do not equate Vito to Charles Manson in any way shape or form and that is the wrongest thing that you wrote.

Vito pulled some strings to get someone into a country, he cut off the horses head of a child molester, he beat up a guy for raping and defacing a daughter, and he killed a scum bucket that stole and likelely hurt and murdered from the entire italian community.

I do not believe in judging people in an absolute form as you have. I guess in the end we just have to agree to disagree, but I still enjoy the discussion and wasn't playing like a cheerleader like Ernest trying to start a fight instead of actually having a logical discussion where we both can learn from each other.

You have whole heartedly made me watch the movie really soon, and I will, and I thank you for that, because the movies rock. I want to make a fan edit for sure. So now I have to buy the book back again to make that happen, all because of you! lol I don't think I have ever thought this deep about pitting Godfather I against Godfather II until now. Before this discussion I considered them equal, but now I truly want to excise the new story (but the flash back at the dinner table is a tough one because it is so good).

Now as far as Star Wars, I pit quite a few things I have said on Anakin and how he came to be who he is, although there is no question that Vito is a much better man than Anakin. As for Michael, those two are neck in neck. Michael kills family, but not little kids. But Anakin was under a hypnosis kind of thing, so it is difficult to place what the dark side can do to someone without being there...etc. Again, unlike others, I am not judging, but rather trying to understand it, just from stating the facts instead of the Ernest cheerleading approach of trying to find someone right or wrong.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You heard wrong. Iger pretty much made access to those treatments a demand as condition of the sale. He wanted to know what the company was acquiring.

By "they" I meant the director and producer of the film, not the buyer of the company. Of course they'd want to know what they are buying.

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Abrams and Kasdan said they got rid of Arndt and Lucas' treatment and started from scratch.

That's what I meant. They didn't want to be influenced by what it said. I'm pretty sure Abrams didn't even read it.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

By "they" I meant the director and producer of the film, not the buyer of the company. Of course they'd want to know what they are buying.



That's what I meant. They didn't want to be influenced by what it said. I'm pretty sure Abrams didn't even read it.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

By "they" I meant the director and producer of the film, not the buyer of the company. Of course they'd want to know what they are buying.

That's what I meant. They didn't want to be influenced by what it said. I'm pretty sure Abrams didn't even read it.

So Disney wanted to see what they were buying and then Lucasfilm gave them something else? Are you saying that LFL scammed Disney?

Kathleen Kennedy - George had done a sketch of the story he had in mind, but that was done for the sale of the company. It wasn't really a document to sit down and start developing a movie from.

Arndt started from scratch. There is no Lucas/Arndt treatment that got tossed away without reading. Abrams was hired mostly because he could take ideas that had already been considered and deliver an emotional, character based movie in the time allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------


As for Vito. You have to take the fact that his whole family were slaughtered by the local Don in Sicily. But the fact is. He chose to murder Fanucci because he realised A) that he could do it and B) that he could get away with it. Then he sits down and tells his son he loves him, like that's the prime reason. Then we see Vito clearly enjoying the benefits of being a killer, which already go way over and above providing for his family.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

I do not believe in judging people in an absolute form as you have.

What do you think you did for Fanucci, Woltz, and Carlo?

You seem to propose that empthy and judgment can't coexist. I assure you they can. One can judge someone's actions to be immoral and still be empathetic towards them as a human being. One can seek accountability for those actions before society and still be empathetic towards the circumstances and choices that drove them there. I can judge the actions of murderers as heinous and want them to be imprisoned for those crimes and still have empathy towards them.

You mention earlier how difficult it would be for Vito to move himself and his family out of the influence of Fanucci. I never claimed it was a convenient choice, only that it was a more moral choice than killing Fanucci. Even if one loses all their money and property and has to start anew, it's still a more moral choice. Those types of choices are what 99.999% of people choose over murdering someone else. Killing Fanucci is the easier way, but it is definitely the more immoral way.

I guess in the end we just have to agree to disagree

No kidding

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by captveg

What do you think you did for Fanucci, Woltz, and Carlo?

I didn't judge the, I just said what they are. Scum to be removed. Now is that the same as me doing it? I can applaud something happening without saying it is right.

For instance I might clap like a seal if an astroid falls on Hillary Clinton. Doesn't mean I think it is right that she be so unlucky.

You seem to propose that empthy and judgment can't coexist. I assure you they can. One can judge someone's actions to be immoral and still be empathetic towards them as a human being. One can seek accountability for those actions before society and still be empathetic towards the circumstances and choices that drove them there. I can judge the actions of murderers as heinous and want them to be imprisoned for those crimes and still have empathy towards them.

Well you went a tad beyond that. Vito...Charles Manson...not the same in my book just because they both kill.

One is murder in cold blood (actually pushing others to do it), the other I believe to be justifiable homicide.

You mention earlier how difficult it would be for Vito to move himself and his family out of the influence of Fanucci. I never claimed it was a convenient choice, only that it was a more moral choice than killing Fanucci. Even if one loses all their money and property and has to start anew, it's still a more moral choice. Those types of choices are what 99.999% of people choose over murdering someone else. Killing Fanucci is the easier way, but it is definitely the more immoral way.

99%, I don't know about that. In that time period I am sure murders happened proportionally more than that. But "choice", no I think for many there is none. They move, at least one child is guaranteed to die.

No kidding

A little respect would be nice, like I gave you. Just because I disagree with you is no reason for your constant attacks towards me as a person. I am not immune to the behavior, but unlike some I have put up effort to show class.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

I didn't judge the, I just said what they are. Scum to be removed.

You and I have very different definitions of the word "judgment". Your sentence here basically reads to me as "I didn't judge him, I just judged him."

Well you went a tad beyond that. Vito...Charles Manson...not the same in my book just because they both kill.

I didn't base that comparison on "just" the murdering. I based that comparison on both of them being murderers who put on a charming face to people in their circle. Obviously there are also vast differences, too.

One is murder in cold blood (actually pushing others to do it), the other I believe to be justifiable homicide.

No way for me to sugar coat this - your definition of justifiable homicide is gross to me. It accepts killing another person with pre-meditiation, with financial, social, and political benefits, and all while rejecting more moral, if less convenient, options that don't involve homicide at all.

Justifiable homicide is if someone is shooting at you and you shoot back to save your life in immediate danger. This is never the case for Vito and Michael.

A little respect would be nice, like I gave you. Just because I disagree with you is no reason for your constant attacks towards me as a person. I am not immune to the behavior, but unlike some I have put up effort to show class.

How is "no kidding" disrespectful? It's an acknowledgment of our impasse.

I respect your right to believe what you believe in regards to what the movie means to you. I don't respect your conclusions and opinions as being soundly based in the evidence of the film. I simply find your interpretation of the film in regards to Michael not having a fall into corruption to be an untenable position.

And I'm not attacking you. Attacking you would be calling you names and such. Rather, I'm questioning your moral standards because you seem to justify murder far beyond what I and most of society find morally acceptable, for reasons such as Vito being compassionate. Well, a lot of compassionate people have committed terrible crimes. That's no justification or excuse, and even if I'm empathetic to the circumstances that went into them eventually choosing to commit those crimes, it doesn't make those actions any less terrible, or any less needing of accountability to society.

But this has gone on for too long. We're starting to talk in circles, and we are way, way, WAY off topic for this thread. I said before I was done, but now I absolutely am.

Adieu