# I watched the whole thing



## Kramodlog (Jun 8, 2014)

Did you?

[video=youtube;G4Sn91t1V4g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Sn91t1V4g[/video]

It is just an ad.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jun 8, 2014)

No.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 9, 2014)

If by 'the whole thing' you mean 'none at all' then yes, yes I did.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 9, 2014)

Kittehs are the awesome!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Yes, I watched the whole thing. I know, you must think I'm a terrible person, but let me explain. Last night they were playing the Godfather. As I'm sure I've said before, I've never watch the whole thing. So last night I did it. I forced myself to watch it. My God, what an amazingly atrocious piece of garbage movie. Why did anyone give Pacino another movie role after that? How did anyone associated with that crime against humanity make acting a career?

In any case, I needed to see something that was better, and that cat commercial was a start.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2014)

Were you drunk? High? You lost a bet?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Were you drunk? High? You lost a bet?



I had to stay up. I was woking on a client's program, so I needed to stay up to have it done for today. Why didn't I do it earlier? Laziness.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2014)

Self-flagellation achieves the same results and it is more pleasurable.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Self-flagellation achieves the same results and it is more pleasurable.



 That was viewed after I was done with my work.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I watched the whole thing. I know, you must think I'm a terrible person, but let me explain. Last night they were playing the Godfather. As I'm sure I've said before, I've never watch the whole thing. So last night I did it. I forced myself to watch it. My God, what an amazingly atrocious piece of garbage movie. Why did anyone give Pacino another movie role after that? How did anyone associated with that crime against humanity make acting a career?
> 
> In any case, I needed to see something that was better, and that cat commercial was a start.




The Godfather is a great film.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Kittehs are the awesome!




Kittehs are teh suk.  Dogs pwn face.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I watched the whole thing. I know, you must think I'm a terrible person, but let me explain. Last night they were playing the Godfather. As I'm sure I've said before, I've never watch the whole thing. So last night I did it. I forced myself to watch it. My God, what an amazingly atrocious piece of garbage movie. Why did anyone give Pacino another movie role after that? How did anyone associated with that crime against humanity make acting a career?
> 
> In any case, I needed to see something that was better, and that cat commercial was a start.




Godfather is good and Pacino is pretty good in it.  Scarface, otoh ...


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 10, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The Godfather is a great film.




Agreed. It has stood the test of time as well.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The Godfather is a great film.



No, it really isn't. It's terrible. Like, really terrible.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Godfather is good and Pacino is pretty good in it.  Scarface, otoh ...



They both suck. I haven't watched the entire Scarface movie, and after watching this horrible waste of a movie, I'm not going to even consider watching that. Someone needs to punch Pacino in the face for all the horrible movies he has made.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No, it really isn't. It's terrible. Like, really terrible.




You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the vast majority of viewers disagree with your assessment: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godfather/


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the vast majority of viewers disagree with your assessment: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godfather/



That just proves there are a lot of really stupid people in the world.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That just proves there are a lot of really stupid people in the world.




No. I think it is a very good movie and I do not regard myself as stupid (using movie preference as a measure of intelligence seems kind of childish to me). Personally I do like Goodfellas better, but I still think The Godfather is a great film with some really mythic subtext to it. But certainly it isn't going to appeal to everyone.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> They both suck. I haven't watched the entire Scarface movie, and after watching this horrible waste of a movie, I'm not going to even consider watching that. Someone needs to punch Pacino in the face for all the horrible movies he has made.




Nah, the first one is pretty good.  It's got an amazing cast, too.  Very well written, acted and shot.  Scarface isn't even in the same league.  Just garbage in comparison.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No. I think it is a very good movie and I do not regard myself as stupid (using movie preference as a measure of intelligence seems kind of childish to me).



 Well, that depends on how you define intelligence, how toy want to measure intelligence, and what aspect of intelligence you want to measure. In any case, 'stupid' may have been the wrong word. What I should have said is that the site you linked process that there area lot of people in the world with really terrible taste. 







> Personally I do like Goodfellas better, but I still think The Godfather is a great film with some really mythic subtext to it. But certainly it isn't going to appeal to everyone.



Good fellas was a fairly good movie. The Godfather was a terrible movie. Really terrible with really terrible actors, and a really bad story.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Nah, the first one is pretty good.  It's got an amazing cast, too.  Very well written, acted and shot.  Scarface isn't even in the same league.  Just garbage in comparison.



No. Just no. Next time toy watch The Godfather, watch it without the drugs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, that depends on how you define intelligence, how toy want to measure intelligence, and what aspect of intelligence you want to measure. In any case, 'stupid' may have been the wrong word. What I should have said is that the site you linked process that there area lot of people in the world with really terrible taste. Good fellas was a fairly good movie. The Godfather was a terrible movie. Really terrible with really terrible actors, and a really bad story.





Obviously you didn't enjoy it, and that is your right, but the overwhelming reaction to the movie is opposite to yours. Proclaiming something a bad film, proclaiming the actors terrible, proclaiming the story bad, doesn't make any of that so. Not only do critics love the film but so do regular viewers.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> They both suck. I haven't watched the entire Scarface movie, and after watching this horrible waste of a movie, I'm not going to even consider watching that. Someone needs to punch Pacino in the face for all the horrible movies he has made.



Sucktastique!

[video=youtube;RGR4SFOimlk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk[/video]


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Kittehs are teh suk.  Dogs pwn face.



Dude! 

[video=youtube;C-Opm9b2WDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Opm9b2WDk[/video]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Obviously you didn't enjoy it, and that is your right, but the overwhelming reaction to the movie is opposite to yours.



Yes, we already discussed how there are a lot of people who have terrible taste.


> Proclaiming something a bad film, proclaiming the actors terrible, proclaiming the story bad, doesn't make any of that so.



Neither does proclaiming a movie is good make it so.


> Not only do critics love the film but so do regular viewers.



They are entitled to their erroneous opinions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, we already discussed how there are a lot of people who have terrible taste.
> Neither does proclaiming a movie is good make it so.




well i would say a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a STRONG indication it is a good film. It is the generally accepted wisdom at this point, so really it is on you to prove otherwise. 



> They are entitled to their erroneous opinions.




You sound pretty childish.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> well i would say a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a STRONG indication it is a good film. It is the generally accepted wisdom at this point, so really it is on you to prove otherwise.



And there was a time when a lot of people thought the world was flat. 

As for it being on me to prove my point? I see no need. I've said the movie sucks. It does. Now, if you feel the need to defend the honor of a terribly overrated movie,  well, you're welcome to it.





> You sound pretty childish.



Sound? Pffftt... I'm totally childish; however, that doesn't make me wrong, so let's try to keep on topic, aight G?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And there was a time when a lot of people thought the world was flat.
> 
> As for it being on me to prove my point? I see no need. I've said the movie sucks. It does. Now, if you feel the need to defend the honor of a terribly overrated movie,  well, you're welcome to it.




No you believe the movie sucks, you have provided no objective analysis on why it actually sucks. I totally accept that you don't like it. But to go from that to the conclusion that it is objectively bad doesnt make a whole lot of sense. To then go further and say people who like it must therefore be idiots also makes no sense.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sound? Pffftt... I'm totally childish; however, that doesn't make me wrong, so let's try to keep on topic, aight G?




Okay kiddo.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No you believe the movie sucks, you have provided no objective analysis on why it actually sucks. I totally accept that you don't like it. But to go from that to the conclusion that it is objectively bad doesnt make a whole lot of sense. To then go further and say people who like it must therefore be idiots also makes no sense.



Does it have to make sense for it to be true? The movie can suck, even if you don't understand why it sucks.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Does it have to make sense for it to be true? The movie can suck, even if you don't understand why it sucks.




like anything else you have to prove your case. We are talking about a film, so unlike the earth being riund, which is a scientific fact, this is an aesthetic issue so the consensus of viewers and critics is a factor that needs to be considered. You have made several claims and pronouncements, but haven't supported any of them. I like the movie because i think it is well shot, well acted (despite what you state), was groundbreaking for the genre at the time, makes excellent use of music and because I find the characters very compelling. I also think the movie has a lot of mythic resonance. It has a 100% fresh rating, is beloved by critics, has hugely influenced films that followed (even outside its genre) and is one of the most well known movies of all time.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> like anything else you have to prove your case. We are talking about a film, so unlike the earth being *riund*, which is a scientific fact,



I disagree. 


> this is an aesthetic issue so the consensus of viewers and critics is a factor that needs to be considered. You have made several claims and pronouncements, but haven't supported any of them.



Alright, I'll give you one example of how bad the movie is. Pacino's character has a blonde girlfriend at the start of the movie. It appears that he is still dating her when he kills the drug dealer. Pacino has to flee the country. He meets the Sicilian girl, marries her, watches her get blown up in a car, runs back to the U.S. and gets back together with the blonde girl. What the hell is that?



> I like the movie because i think it is well shot, well acted (despite what you state), was groundbreaking for the genre at the time, makes excellent use of music and because I find the characters very compelling. I also think the movie has a lot of mythic resonance. It has a 100% fresh rating, is beloved by critics, has hugely influenced films that followed (even outside its genre) and is one of the most well known movies of all time.



People make mistakes. Some times a lot of people make similar mistakes.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I disagree.
> Alright, I'll give you one example of how bad the movie is. Pacino's character has a blonde girlfriend at the start of the movie. It appears that he is still dating her when he kills the drug dealer. Pacino has to flee the country. He meets the Sicilian girl, marries her, watches her get blown up in a car, runs back to the U.S. and gets back together with the blonde girl. What the hell is that?
> .




I dont know why you had trouble with that. Can you elaborate because so am not sure which part you want explained. It is a very important plot point because Apollonia (read sun) is basically his true love (what he has Kay, the blonde woman, is different in my opinion, she is a WASP but Apollonia is Sicilian and there is more of a cultural connection). The series is about michael's descent into evil and the death of Apollonia signifies the death of what is good in him. There is also a lot of time elapsing over these events so it isn't like he runs back to Kay the next week. In the first movie he is the archangel Michael staving off the rebellion against God, by the second movie he is turning into lucifer.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I
> People make mistakes. Some times a lot of people make similar mistakes.




That doesn't mean they are mistaken in this case and I don't think you can dismiss public opinion toward a piece of art over such a long period of time. Movies are made to be enjoyed by people, to enrich their lives and to resonate. If a film succeeds in doing this to the point that it consistently has 90% or more favor ability with viewers and with critics, I would argue that is strong evidence it is a good movie.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

As I've mentioned before, I think the Godfather is a highly over-rated movie. I sat through the first one wondering why I should care about any of these characters. I can only guess that the people who review it positively have a completely different cultural view-point from me. I don't understand the praise or the interest. Mob movies generally do very little for me. A clever criminal movie might work, but two families of mobsters, not so much.
Then again, I do not enjoy watching TV shows that seem to bask in bathing in human sewage and claiming to be drama. But these very shows seem to be incredibly popular: Game of Thrones, US version of House of Cards, The Wire, Breaking Bad, and The Borges are perfect examples. Someone watches these, but they don't interest me at all. (US House of Cards is a mild curiosity, but just to see how they handle the story differently from the original UK version, but US version is distinctly inferior in every respect)

Other movies are considered cultural icons, but I think they're pretty over-rated. The Graduate and 2001:A Space Odyssey both spring to mind. Sure, they might have been interesting at the time, but were they all that good? meh.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I dont know why you had trouble with that. Can you elaborate because so am not sure which part you want explained. It is a very important plot point because Apollonia (read sun) is basically his true love (what he has Kay, the blonde woman, is different in my opinion, she is a WASP but Apollonia is Sicilian and there is more of a cultural connection).



Okay, let's say Appollonia was the love of his life. Why does he go back to Blondy? There is nothing that makes it seem plausible. He doesn't appear to care for her. Why marry her? Even Appllonia didn't seem that important. Quite honestly, I don't even see why as a viewer of this terrible movie, I should care about Apollonia or the blonde girl. They're just there as furnishings.



> The series is about michael's descent into evil and the death of Apollonia signifies the death of what is good in him.



I disagree. He looked pretty bad before she was killed. He shot the cop and the other maffia guy in the head before he even met her. He threatened the girls father with killing him if he didn't bring the girl out so he could meet her. What the hell is good about that?


> There is also a lot of time elapsing over these events so it isn't like he runs back to Kay the
> next week.



Well, in that case, that's a point against the movie being well shot. I didn't get the feeling that it took any significant amount of time.Considering how insufferably long the damn thing is, you think they'd be able give you a feeling of time passing by.


> In the first movie he is the archangel Michael staving off the rebellion against God, by the second movie he is turning into lucifer.



Damn, I forgot there were two other parts to this crime against humanity.

Okay, so another example of the terribleness of this movie. They all kept on talking about how the other families didn't want an all out war on the streets. So what do they do? They kill Caan's character on the streets... with 10 guys emptying their tommy guns into his car... at the entrance to a highway... where a a lot of people go by. That was just stupid. Even Brando's character gets shot right in the middle of a busy street market. What the hell? What do these idiots consider war on the streets?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> As I've mentioned before, I think the Godfather is a highly over-rated movie. I sat through the first one wondering why I should care about any of these characters. I can only guess that the people who review it positively have a completely different cultural view-point from me. I don't understand the praise or the interest. Mob movies generally do very little for me. A clever criminal movie might work, but two families of mobsters, not so much.



Exactly.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Okay, let's say Appollonia was the love of his life. Why does he go back to Blondy? There is nothing that makes it seem plausible. He doesn't appear to care for her. Why marry her? Even Appllonia didn't seem that important. Quite honestly, I don't even see why as a viewer of this terrible movie, I should care about Apollonia or the blonde girl. They're just there as furnishings.




Kay is Michael's attempt to assimilate. this is a movie about italian immigrants and at the start of the movie Michael is not like the rest of his family, he is trying to be a regular American, that is why he joined the army and that is why he brought white protestant Kay to the wedding. Kay is furnishing in a way, just like his uniform is furnishing. The scene where he connects back with her, is one where he is expressing interest in turning his father's enterprise into a legitimate business. But all that aside, she is pretty and they used to date. He wants to start a family. After losing Apollonia he isn't interested in finding love. He is interested in finding a wife to raise his kids. 



> I disagree. He looked pretty bad before she was killed. He shot the cop and the other maffia guy in the head before he even met her. He threatened the girls father with killing him if he didn't bring the girl out so he could meet her. What the hell is good about that?




He is an antihero. Over the course of the movie he grows more and more evil. The cop he killed was crooked, and Sollozzo was behind Michael's father being shot. This was a mob war and he was doing what had to be done for his family to survive. Not good deeds, but far from the evil he sinks to in part II where (spoilers) he kills his own brother. It is pretty obvious to me much of his descent is cemented by the death of Apollonia (her name is a pretty big hint). 



> Well, in that case, that's a point against the movie being well shot. I didn't get the feeling that it took any significant amount of time.Considering how insufferably long the damn thing is, you think they'd be able give you a feeling of time passing by.
> Damn, I forgot there were two other parts to this crime against humanity.




It seemed pretty clear to me. 



> Okay, so another example of the terribleness of this movie. They all kept on talking about how the other families didn't want an all out war on the streets. So what do they do? They kill Caan's character on the streets... with 10 guys emptying their tommy guns into his car... at the entrance to a highway... where a a lot of people go by. That was just stupid. Even Brando's character gets shot right in the middle of a busy street market. What the hell? What do these idiots consider war on the streets?




I would have to watch it again to address that point, since i don't recall the details of them saying that. But i think the point is the conflict just keeps escalating beyond what anyone wants it to be. When they say all out war, I think they are talking about going to the mattresses, and pretty sure by the time Sonny gets killed they are pretty deep in that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Exactly.




You both make reasonable points for why you don't like the film. But all you are convincing me of is that you don't like The Godfather, not that the Godfather is a bad movie.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2014)

_Dear Kitten,

Humans will occasionally get in arguments about the subjective and objective merits of things they call "art."  When they do this, they will often ignore you.  You must learn to use his to your advantage.  

During these discussions, do not attempt to distract them with your cuteness.  Even if you succeed, you will be choosing the less favorable option.

Instead, you must seek to find comfortable laps or idly dangling hands.  When you succeed, they will often absentmindedly scratch ears and bellies for as long as the discussion lasts.  Bliss._


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

I would argue the whole mythic thing. Maybe you found it, but is it universal? Don't think so.
Let's counter-example: Star Wars. Great movie? Well, for the time, certainly. Holds up pretty well, too. Story was very simplistic, but extremely influential style and cross genre references, and just about all the other claims to fame mentioned for Godfather. Mythic: certainly (even if GL didn't run into Joseph Campbell's work until well into working on ESB). I don't think there's anyone who can't access the mythology of Star Wars.
Mythic: Godfather? Well... you are the first and only person I've ever heard mention this. (not that you can't be right, but does seem strange). And is it universally accepted? Or broadly accepted? I have no idea. However, I had no sense of mythic journey while watching the movie. I have doubts. Don't know how broad a net has to be cast for the movie to seem Mythic.
Smarta$$ comment: that The Godfather is a good movie seems to be a popular myth.

So, I have an open question: why should we care what happens to any of the characters in the Godfather? What main character is there that we can possibly identify with?

_BTW: I just found out about that ad this weekend, and thought it was hilarious._


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

I think the godfather, the first one at least, is very rooted in the myth of the war in heaven. It is pretty heavy handed actually. The godfather is God. Michael is the archangel Michael, the Turk is leading the rebellion of angels. That stuff is even more apparent in novel. I think one of the more everyday reasons it resonates though is because it is largely a story of identity. Michaels conflict is about identity.



in terms of who you identify with I think Michael is the character you are meant to identify with. Some people have a hard time with anti heroes. If so the godfather or goodfellas are not for you. Personally I found Vito, Michael and Sonny very compelling characters and identified with different aspects of each.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Kay is Michael's attempt to assimilate. this is a movie about italian immigrants and at the start of the movie Michael is not like the rest of his family, he is trying to be a regular American, that is why he joined the army and that is why he brought white protestant Kay to the wedding. Kay is furnishing in a way, just like his uniform is furnishing. The scene where he connects back with her, is one where he is expressing interest in turning his father's enterprise into a legitimate business. But all that aside, she is pretty and they used to date. He wants to start a family. After losing Apollonia he isn't interested in finding love. He is interested in finding a wife to raise his kids.



That makes even less sense. So this guy gets his wife blown up in a car, and he decides that he should come back to the U.S. to start having kids? While his family is being killed off? That's just bad writing. No, not bad, horrendous. How does that make any sense?


> He is an antihero. Over the course of the movie he grows more and more evil. The cop he killed was crooked, and Sollozzo was behind Michael's father being shot. This was a mob war and he was doing what had to be done for his family to survive.



If he was meant to be an anti-hero, his story was written badly. What makes him a hero or good to begin with? Because he was in the army? That's just poor character development. I have no reason to believe that he isn't like the other people in his family.

Then there is the fact that everyone he kills is a bad guy. There is no moral dilemma for him. Everyone that he kills is bad. Everyone that dies is bad, and they deserve to die. 



> Not good deeds, but far from the evil he sinks to in part II where (spoilers) he kills his own brother.



It's unfortunate he didn't kill everyone, including himself, and spared the world a third movie.


> It is pretty obvious to me much of his descent is cemented by the death of Apollonia (her name is a pretty big hint).



Really? She seemed like a minor character. She had a few scenes that lasted maybe two minutes, and she barely had any lines. Her only significant scenes were her showing her boobs, and her getting blown up. Other than that, she doesn't really do anything. Why does he fall in love with her? Because she had a pretty face? What made her the love of his life? She doesn't do anything besides die. That's a lame character. The scenes with her felt like filler. They needed to drag the movie longer, so they threw in some girl, had her flash her boobs, then blew her up in a car. That was it.



> It seemed pretty clear to me.



Well, it wasn't. How long is it from the time that Apollonia dies and he gets to the U.S.? When he is talking to the blonde girl, he tells her he has been back a year before he contacted her. What was he doing for an entire year? The family has been at war with these other families for all that time and Pacino's character couldn't be shown doing something? Terrible writing. 


> I would have to watch it again to address that point, since i don't recall the details of them saying that. But i think the point is the conflict just keeps escalating beyond what anyone wants it to be. When they say all out war, I think they are talking about going to the mattresses, and pretty sure by the time Sonny gets killed they are pretty deep in that.



It's mentioned all the way until the end. They keep crying about how the other families don't want there to be all out war. Then they go ahead and kill some more people in public.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> You both make reasonable points for why you don't like the film. But all you are convincing me of is that you don't like The Godfather, not that the Godfather is a bad movie.



I think you're under the mistaken impression that I am trying to convince you of something.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That makes even less sense. So this guy gets his wife blown up in a car, and he decides that he should come back to the U.S. to start having kids? While his family is being killed off? That's just bad writing. No, not bad, horrendous. How does that make any sense?
> If he was meant to be an anti-hero, his story was written badly. What makes him a hero or good to begin with? Because he was in the army? That's just poor character development. I have no reason to believe that he isn't like the other people in his family.
> 
> Then there is the fact that everyone he kills is a bad guy. There is no moral dilemma for him. Everyone that he kills is bad. Everyone that dies is bad, and they deserve to die.
> ...




Sounds like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking frankly. 

The whole movies occurs over a five year period.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I think you're under the mistaken impression that I am trying to convince you of something.




You're right. I forgot who I was communicating with for a moment.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That makes even less sense. So this guy gets his wife blown up in a car, and he decides that he should come back to the U.S. to start having kids? While his family is being killed off? That's just bad writing. No, not bad, horrendous. How does that make any sense?
> If he was meant to be an anti-hero, his story was written badly. What makes him a hero or good to begin with? Because he was in the army? That's just poor character development. I have no reason to believe that he isn't like the other people in his family..




He doesn't get his wife killed, he is betrayed by one of his guards and someone else has her killed. He decides to come back to the US because his only reason for being in Sicily is that he is in hiding. His father negotiates with the five families and makes it safe for him to return, then takes him under his wing as the heir to the family business. I think it makes complete sense that as part of that transition he would want to take a wife and have kids. I do not understand why this is so baffling to you.

he is an anti-hero because he starts our as spmeone who rejects his family's crimiinal lifestyle and by the end he becomes the leader of a criminal empire. In the second movie he even goes to the point of having his brother killed. He basically saves the family in the first film. I do not at all see poor character development here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, it wasn't. How long is it from the time that Apollonia dies and he gets to the U.S.? When he is talking to the blonde girl, he tells her he has been back a year before he contacted her. What was he doing for an entire year? The family has been at war with these other families for all that time and Pacino's character couldn't be shown doing something? Terrible writing.




Then i think you were not doing a good job of paying attention. Havent seen it in a while, so not sure of the precise timeline, but it is very clear to the viewer this occurs over a period of time.

the year he spent before contacting her he has been learning the family business. The fact that he waits a full year before contacting also goes against your point that he jumps right back in with Kay after Apollonia dies.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It's unfortunate he didn't kill everyone, including himself, and spared the world a third movie.
> Really? She seemed like a minor character. She had a few scenes that lasted maybe two minutes, and she barely had any lines. Her only significant scenes were her showing her boobs, and her getting blown up. Other than that, she doesn't really do anything. Why does he fall in love with her? Because she had a pretty face? What made her the love of his life? She doesn't do anything besides die. That's a lame character. The scenes with her felt like filler. They needed to drag the movie longer, so they threw in some girl, had her flash her boobs, then blew her up in a car. That was it.




again, i think it is pretty obvious from this sequence if the film that he falls deeply in love with Apollonia. It certainly wasnt put in as filler, as it was also a crucial portion of the book. But they did handle it efficiently. Personally, i think that was the righht call as it would have seriously dragged down the pace of the movie to get too deep into the Apollonia plot. The important elements are there and obvious to theviewwer. I am sorry but your explanation for why this was put in is just completely wrong.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> I who can't access the mythology of Star Wars.
> Mythic: Godfather? Well... you are the first and only person I've ever heard mention this. (not that you can't be right, but does seem strange). And is it universally accepted? Or broadly accepted? I have no idea. However, I had no sense of mythic journey while watching the movie. I have doubts. Don't know how broad a net has to be cast for the movie to seem Mythic.
> Smarta$$ comment: that The Godfather is a good movie seems to be a popular myth.




i am not much of a film or literary critic, so not sure. But I do know i encountered the mention of myth several times. In the introduction to a version of the book, the foreward mentions the connections to the war in heaven. I think i have also seen references to greek and roman myth (with the godfather as Zeus and Luca brasi as a titan, things like that). For me the war in heaven rings true. But i think it is a relatively minir thing. Personally the aspects of the movie that resonate with me are the importance of family, honor, the nature of identity, etc. I like mafia films though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The whole movies occurs over a five year period.



Really? Five years? That definitely doesn't come through in the movie. I thought it was somewhere between one and three years. The movie doesn't give you the feeling it takes five years.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> He doesn't get his wife killed,



Yes, I know. I didn't say he had her killed. She dies because of him, though. If there wasn't someone trying to kill him, she wouldn't have been blown up. He got her killed. By the way, what happens to the body guard? The movie makes it seem like he just gets away with it. You'd think a guy who went ahead and killed two people for shooting his dad would go find the guy that blew up the "love of his life." Instead, it just seems as if he gets away with it. Nothing happens to him. 







> he is betrayed by one of his guards and someone else has her killed. He decides to come back to the US because his only reason for being in Sicily is that he is in hiding. His father negotiates with the five families and makes it safe for him to return, then takes him under his wing as the heir to the family business.



Okay, so supposedly his father takes him under his wing and turns him into a mafia guy. Why do they not show anything that happens over the year that he is supposedly back? It's terrible writing. They skip a whole year's events where they could have shown his transformation. Instead we get one line where he says he has been back a whole year.







> I think it makes complete sense that as part of that transition he would want to take a wife and have kids. I do not understand why this is so baffling to you.



How does that make any sense? You're the head of a mafia family. You last wife was blown up in a car. The thing to do is to get another wife? Why? Maybe if they had shown some of the stuff that happened during the year he was back, they could have shown the character develop. As it is, there is no reason for him to get another wife.



> he is an anti-hero because he starts our as spmeone who rejects his family's crimiinal lifestyle and by the end he becomes the leader of a criminal empire.



He doesn't seem to reject his families lifestyle much. He still goes to the parties. He knows everything they do. He takes his date to the wedding at the start of the movie. 



> In the second movie he even goes to the point of having his brother killed. He basically saves the family in the first film. I do not at all see poor character development here.



We are discussing he first movie. What happens in the second movie does not matter. The first movie should be able to stand on its own. If you require the second movie to show 'character development,' the first movie has done a poor job of character development.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Then i think you were not doing a good job of paying attention. Havent seen it in a while, so not sure of the precise timeline, but it is very clear to the viewer this occurs over a period of time.
> 
> the year he spent before contacting her he has been learning the family business. The fact that he waits a full year before contacting also goes against your point that he jumps right back in with Kay after Apollonia dies.



Maybe if they had taken the time to show some of the things that happen throughout the year he is back, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you're wrong. The movie sequence goes from girl turns on car. Car blows up. Blondy sees Pacino. That's it. It's poor story telling.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> He doesn't seem to reject his families lifestyle much. He still goes to the parties. He knows everything they do. He takes his date to the wedding at the start of the movie.
> .




It is pretty clear michael wants to be a fully assimilated member of societ in the early part off the film. He is drawn into the family business because of the conflict between the families and things like the death of Sonny, who would have originally inherited the father's position.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Maybe if they had taken the time to show some of the things that happen throughout the year he is back, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you're wrong. The movie sequence goes from girl turns on car. Car blows up. Blondy sees Pacino. That's it. It's poor story telling.




I would have to rewatch it again to give you a play by play, but this is absolutely something i never had any trouble getting from the film. I am pretty sure they even stick in a "one year later" across the screen just for emphasis. Pretty sure in the book the time between Apollonia dying and him connecting again with kay is about two years. I dont know why you need them to spoon feed you every little detail. A lot of things are implied but you can tell considerable time has passed. Again though, would have to rewatch as I have not seen the first movie in about five years.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> We are discussing he first movie. What happens in the second movie does not matter. The first movie should be able to stand on its own. If you require the second movie to show 'character development,' the first movie has done a poor job of character development.




We can bring in any details we want. The subject of his descent into evil came up and I felt the second part of the series illuminates that, so i mentioned it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ould have shown his transformation. Instead we get one line where he says he has been back a whole year.How does that make any sense? You're the head of a mafia family. You last wife was blown up in a car. The thing to do is to get another wife? Why? Maybe if they had shown some of the stuff that happened during the year he was back, they could have shown the character develop. As it is, there is no reason for him to get another wife.




I dont know why this gives you so much difficulty. He is becoming the head of the family, and they. Bny into the idea that a real man has a family of his own. Having a wife and kids is expected of him. He chooses Kay because he is under the delusion that he is going to make the family legitimate, and to Michael Kay means assimilation into American society. Do not understand your problem with this at all.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> again, i think it is pretty obvious from this sequence if the film that he falls deeply in love with Apollonia. It certainly wasnt put in as filler, as *it was also a crucial portion of the book*. But they did handle it efficiently. Personally, i think that was the righht call as it would have seriously dragged down the pace of the movie to get too deep into the Apollonia plot. The important elements are there and obvious to theviewwer. I am sorry but your explanation for why this was put in is just completely wrong.



That seems to be the problem, right there in bold. You are using the book as reference. I haven't read the book. All I have to go by is the terrible movie they put out. So all these wonderful things you keep referring to may have been explained and further developed in the book. In the movie? Nope. If you watch the movie by itself, it's garbage.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is pretty clear michael wants to be a fully assimilated member of societ in the early part off the film. He is drawn into the family business because of the conflict between the families and things like the death of Sonny, who would have originally inherited the father's position.



No, Sonny's death occurs in the latter part of the movie. Pacino is already in Sicily for having killed the cop and the other mafia guy. By the time Sonny is killed, he is elbow deep in the family business.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That seems to be the problem, right there in bold. You are using the book as reference. I haven't read the book. All I have to go by is the terrible movie they put out. So all these wonderful things you keep referring to may have been explained and further developed in the book. In the movie? Nope. If you watch the movie by itself, it's garbage.




No, that isnt the problem. I watched the movie long before reading the book and none of the things you mention were an issue for me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No, Sonny's death occurs in the latter part of the movie. Pacino is already in Sicily for having killed the cop and the other mafia guy. By the time Sonny is killed, he is elbow deep in the family business.




I know. But it is one of the things that cements his role as the next leader of the family.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would have to rewatch it again to give you a play by play, but this is absolutely something i never had any trouble getting from the film.



Probably because you read the book. Having only watched the movie, those things aren't developed well.







> I am pretty sure they even stick in a "one year later" across the screen just for emphasis.



Possibly, but I think they just explained it with Pacino saying it had been a year.







> Pretty sure in the book the time between Apollonia dying and him connecting again with kay is about two years.



I'm sure they did a fine job showing the passage of time in the book. In the movie? Not so much. In fact, even if they did throw a bunch of "One year later" titles across the screen, they still do a poor job of showing a passage of time. There isn't any discernible difference between the time that Pacino has left and when he comes back that indicates a significant amount of time has passed.







> Again though, would have to rewatch as I have not seen the first movie in about five years.



If you do decide to torture yourself with rewatching the movie, try to watch it and don't consider your knowledge of the second and third movies or the book.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Probably because you read the book. Having only watched the movie, those things aren't developed well.Possibly, but I think they just explained it with Pacino saying it had been a year.I'm sure they did a fine job showing the passage of time in the book. In the movie? Not so much. In fact, even if they did throw a bunch of "One year later" titles across the screen, they still do a poor job of showing a passage of time. There isn't any discernible difference between the time that Pacino has left and when he comes back that indicates a significant amount of time has passed.If you do decide to torture yourself with rewatching the movie, try to watch it and don't consider your knowledge of the second and third movies or the book.




I disagree.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> We can bring in any details we want. The subject of his descent into evil came up and I felt the second part of the series illuminates that, so i mentioned it.



No, you can't bing up any details you want. The subject of discussion is the first Godfather movie. If it's such a good movie, it should be able to stand on its own. What happens in the other movies or in the book does not matter. What matters is what happens in the first movie. Imagine this was 1972, the firs movie just got released. We both have just been tortured by being forced to watch it. Would you be bringing elements from the second movie to explain the crap job they did in the first, even though the second movie hasn't been made yet? No, you wouldn't because you couldn't. So again, try to keep the discussion focused on the first movie.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I know. But it is one of the things that cements his role as the next leader of the family.



Really? I thought it was Apollonia getting blown up that did that? Just poor writing and character development.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I disagree.



_I_ disagree.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No, that isnt the problem. I watched the movie long before reading the book and none of the things you mention were an issue for me.



Let me guess, you think Michael Bay movies are well written, don't you?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I dont know why this gives you so much difficulty. He is becoming the head of the family, and they. Bny into the idea that a real man has a family of his own. *Having a wife and kids is expected of him.* He chooses Kay because he is under the delusion that he is going to make the family legitimate, and to Michael Kay means assimilation into American society. Do not understand your problem with this at all.



Where is that part in the movie? The closest thing I can think of is when the Godfather, after having made fun of the singer for crying like a girl, tells him that  real man spends time with his family. That's about it. There is nothing in the movie where they show that it is expected of Pacino that he have a wife and kids. Maybe it's supposed to happen during the year he is back? Maybe they should have actually developed the story.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Let me guess, you think Michael Bay movies are well written, don't you?




No.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Really? I thought it was Apollonia getting blown up that did that? Just poor writing and character development.




No, her death extinguished any good left inside him. Sonny's death meant it was either Fredo or Micgael as the next in line. So Michael basically had to take on the mantle at that point.

it isn't bad writing. You saying that again and again doesn't make it so


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No, you can't bing up any details you want. The subject of discussion is the first Godfather movie. If it's such a good movie, it should be able to stand on its own. What happens in the other movies or in the book does not matter. What matters is what happens in the first movie. Imagine this was 1972, the firs movie just got released. We both have just been tortured by being forced to watch it. Would you be bringing elements from the second movie to explain the crap job they did in the first, even though the second movie hasn't been made yet? No, you wouldn't because you couldn't. So again, try to keep the discussion focused on the first movie.





Do do not tell me how to post. You are not a mod.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

So all the myth stuff is in the book(s). Nothing in the movie.

Honor? {blink blink} These are people who live on the pain, suffering, and vice of others. They are vile scum criminals. They inflict suffering. They murder. {political comment omitted} There is NO honor here. There is pride. There is vanity. There is ego. There is facade. But there is no honor.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Where is that part in the movie? The closest thing I can think of is when the Godfather, after having made fun of the singer for crying like a girl, tells him that  real man spends time with his family. That's about it. There is nothing in the movie where they show that it is expected of Pacino that he have a wife and kids. Maybe it's supposed to happen during the year he is back? Maybe they should have actually developed the story.




Would have to watch it again to give specific examples but I think that one line is important and it is pretty clear from the rest of the film how important family is (and since family is universally called out as a theme if the film I would say you are on shoddy ground here).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Do do not tell me how to post. You are not a mod.



Do I have to be a mod to tell you how to post or to point out that you are arguing a topic different from the one being discussed?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So all the myth stuff is in the book(s). Nothing in the movie.
> 
> Honor? {blink blink} These are people who live on the pain, suffering, and vice of others. They are vile scum criminals. They inflict suffering. They murder. {political comment omitted} There is NO honor here. There is pride. There is vanity. There is ego. There is facade. But there is no honor.




I think it is in the movie too, just saying it was mentioned in the foreward of an edition of the book.

They definitely live by a code of honor: omertà. It may not align with our morality but it is a code (just like there are codes in martial arts and samurai movies).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Would have to watch it again to give specific examples but I think that one line is important and it is pretty clear from the rest of the film how important family is
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Do I have to be a mod to tell you how to post or to point out that you are arguing a topic different from the one being discussed?




When I find something relevant I will mention it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No, her death extinguished any good left inside him. Sonny's death meant it was either Fredo or Micgael as the next in line. So Michael basically had to take on the mantle at that point.
> 
> it isn't bad writing. You saying that again and again doesn't make it so



You're right. It's not bad writing. It's terrible writing. The movie script doesn't sound like it has much in comon with te book besides the names of some of the characters. The book may be a well written book. The movie is a terribly written piece of trash. And since we are talking about the movie, it's terrible writing. You saying it isn't doesn't make it good, regardless of how many times you say it or how fervently you believe it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No.



Liar. You have a Transformer movie poster in your bedroom, don't you?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

OI! Let's keep it civil before the mods DO step in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> When I find something relevant I will mention it.



Well, hate to break it to you, but the second and third movies, any any information they have, are irrelevant to the first movie when discussing wether or not the first movie is any good. If you would like to discuss the character's development throughout the terrible series, we could do that. I'll be at a disadvantage, as I haven't seen the other two atrocities, but we can still discuss it. If you can't understand that the other movies don't contribute to the quality of the first movie, well, too bad. They don't. The first movie was obviously written terribly. So terribly it relied on movies that hadn't been written yet in order to be any good. Now, try to keep your focus and discussion to the first movie.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> OI! Let's keep it civil before the mods DO step in.



You want to watch the new Transformer movie, don't you? Admit it! You love Bay!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Bedrockgames said:
> 
> 
> > Would have to watch it again to give specific examples but I think that one line is important and it is pretty clear from the rest of the film how important family is It's a pretty weak theme. The only reason family is even a theme is because the movie is about mafia families. They could have made the same terrible movie about a criminal group organized along other lines, such as a gang where everyone lived on the same block; a gang where everyone was from the same school, job, country; a gang where people just met at a particular bar and decided to join up. Family doesn't seem ver important. Hell, right after the Godfather gets shot up, they are already trying to calm everyone down. The lawyer keeps telling everyone how it isn't personal, it's just business.
> ...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You want to watch the new Transformer movie, don't you? Admit it! You love Bay!




Whatever


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

Good side? What good side? Were we shown a good side? I don't remember any good side. I just remember a spoiled brat playboy. One who enjoyed all the benefits, then whined like a little Hctib when the consequences of his actions came back on him.

Family is important? Maybe the movie just assumes that everyone agrees or already knows this. I certainly don't see any evidence.
Sounds like what was missing was the actual training montage. 

Omerta is like the code of honor? Uh, NO. More like the real code of Chivalry (which is nothing like the popular victorian romantic delusions of gentlemanly conduct--Chivalry allows for rape and murder, so long as the victim is of a lower class).
I suppose it is possible that Omerta is as mis-represented in the movie as the public perception of Chivalry, or the code of Samurai as depicted in martial arts movies.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, hate to break it to you, but the second and third movies, any any information they have, are irrelevant to the first movie when discussing wether or not the first movie is any good. If you would like to discuss the character's development throughout the terrible series, we could do that. I'll be at a disadvantage, as I haven't seen the other two atrocities, but we can still discuss it. If you can't understand that the other movies don't contribute to the quality of the first movie, well, too bad. They don't. The first movie was obviously written terribly. So terribly it relied on movies that hadn't been written yet in order to be any good. Now, try to keep your focus and discussion to the first movie.




I wasn't bringing it because I think it is needed to understand the first movie, I raised it because the general subject of michaels arch came up, and because that does span three movies the second film had relevant material


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> no it is a key theme. One of many but still crucial. The conflict centers on the attempted killing of the father. It starts at a wedding and the re is an extended sequence where men honor Vito on the day of his daughters wedding. Fredo cries papa when his dad gets shot. Sonny dies because he is trying to protect his sister. Michael's story is shaped by the death of his wife. Vito does while playing with his grandson. Then Michael inherits his fathers empire and kills a bunch of people during his nephew's baptism.




Sounds to me more like MURDER and KILLING are central themes, and Family is a side footnote or easter egg.

And just for the record: Michael Bay, Kurtzman, and Orci should all be sodomized with chainsaws.

If it was relevant material, it should have been in the first movie. It wasn't.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Sounds to me more like MURDER and KILLING are central themes, and Family is a side footnote or easter egg.
> 
> And just for the record: Michael Bay, Kurtzman, and Orci should all be sodomized with chainsaws.
> 
> If it was relevant material, it should have been in the first movie. It wasn't.





i think family, criminality, murder etc were all in there in pretty equal measure.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Whatever




That post was directed at Sabrina. I'm not sure why you are responding to it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I wasn't bringing it because I think it is needed to understand the first movie, I raised it because the general subject of michaels arch came up, and because that does span three movies the second film had relevant material




So in order to see Michael's character development, I have to watch two other movies made way after the first was made? Yeah, I'm sticking with it being a terribly Queen movie that had pour characters with no character development in the first movie. It is a weak script. It's a terrible movie.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So in order to see Michael's character development, I have to watch two other movies made way after the first was made? Yeah, I'm sticking with it being a terribly Queen movie that had pour characters with no character development in the first movie. It is a weak script. It's a terrible movie.




in order to understand his developmnent over all three movies, yes all three movies are relevant 
....but his development in part 1 is self contained


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> in order to understand his developmnent over all three movies, yes all three movies are relevant
> ....but his development in part 1 is self contained



Maybe it was contained in the parts that weren't written in the movie?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> .
> 
> Omerta is like the code of honor? Uh, NO. More like the real code of Chivalry (which is nothing like the popular victorian romantic delusions of gentlemanly conduct--Chivalry allows for rape and murder, so long as the victim is of a lower class).
> I suppose it is possible that Omerta is as mis-represented in the movie as the public perception of Chivalry, or the code of Samurai as depicted in martial arts movies.





I am not concerned about the real world history of omerta or chivalry, or trying to defend emrta. Nor am i trying to say the movie depicts the actula honor code of real criminals. Just that there is an honor code present through the film, and it is based on omerta and italian ideas about manliness. No t saying it is a good or bad coce. Just that it is one. Obviously the godfather presents a highly romanticized view of the mafia, the same way many fantasy films romanticize knights and how martial arts films romanticize bushido. I studied history so I understand there is a gap between how things are presented in historical movies and the reality, but when i watch a film, i am interested in entertainment, not history (if i want history i will read history books).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Maybe it was contained in the parts that weren't written in the movie?




No, we just disagree. I have explained the aspects of the movie i feel are important to his development. You feel another way. Totally fine, but it doesn't make your position objectivley true. And i find your arguments very inconvincing. It feels like you already made up your mind anyways. 

Have a nice day HS. I have spent way too much time trying to engage in this "discussion"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Good side? What good side? Were we shown a good side? I don't remember any good side. I just remember a spoiled brat playboy. One who enjoyed all the benefits, then whined like a little Hctib when the consequences of his actions came back on him.




Well he starts out as a war hero, expresses interest in being legit, then when he does do the hit, it is to protect his family. By the end he is much more ruthless. I would agree that he is spoiled. I would also agree he is ultimate a very bad guy. i the first movie the impression is that he is basically becoming like his father, a man who does bad things but is admirable in a lot of ways. I feel like in the second movie they turn that on its head, almost saying the thing that made him different from the rest of his family (which in the first movie kind of makes him a good guy at the start of the film), is the thing that ultimately makes him evil in a way his father never was.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2014)

_Dear Kitten,

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli._


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

Funny thing about opinions: they are subjective.
I started watching the movie for entertainment. I didn't find it. I'm guessing HS felt the same, based on his previous posting history.
You seem to have found some enjoyment from the movie.
We didn't.
You assert merits that we didn't find.
Whether they were there are not is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Funny thing about opinions: they are subjective.
> I started watching the movie for entertainment. I didn't find it. I'm guessing HS felt the same, based on his previous posting history.
> You seem to have found some enjoyment from the movie.
> We didn't.
> ...




And I actually agree with you. If you didn't like the movie, that is entirely reasonable and fair. And it is fair to express your opinion. Hey, I don't like Citizen Kane and it is regarded as the best movie ever by many. What I objected to was HS claiming it was objectively bad (and that is the claim HS has been making) and his/her followup position that people who like it are stupid. I am not saying you have to share my thoughts on the merits of the film. I was presenting these as a counter point to HS's position that is objectively a bad movie and that people who like it must be incorrect.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 11, 2014)

That is because Citizen Cane is actually a very boring movie, for all the praise and innovations it presented at the time.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> That is because Citizen Cane is actually a very boring movie, for all the praise and innovations it presented at the time.



To fully appriciate it, you need to see this documentary first.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I objected to was HS claiming it was objectively bad (and that is the claim HS has been making)



Well, to be fair, it is objectively bad. Like I said, it is terrible writing, and none to little character development. Half the things they do make no sense. There isn't a reason to care for any of the characters. There is no moral dilemma for anyone to overcome. Pacing is pretty bad. For a movie that is supposed to take place over five years, there is little to show the passage of time. 


> and his/her followup position that people who like it are stupid. I am not saying you have to share my thoughts on the merits of the film.



Alright, I'll admit that 'stupid' was the wrong word to use. So I'll amend my previous statement.


Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> [That just proves there are a lot of really stupid people in the world _with terrible taste_.



So, I apologize for using the word 'stupid.' In fact, I'll readily admit that there are plenty of intelligent people that like really bad movies. It doesn't make them stupid. Better?


> I was presenting these as a counter point to HS's position that is objectively a bad movie and that people who like it must be incorrect.



Hmmm... may this is where we are having this confusion. I'm not saying that you are incorrect for liking the movie. I'm just saying you are wrong when you say it is a good movie. Listen, there are plenty of bad movies that a lot of people like. That doesn't make the movies any good, though. But that doesn't mean they are incorrect for liking them.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> To fully appriciate it, you need to see this documentary first.



Makes sense.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> *He doesn't get his wife killed, he is betrayed by one of his guards and someone else has her killed.* He decides to come back to the US because his only reason for being in Sicily is that he is in hiding. His father negotiates with the five families and makes it safe for him to return, then takes him under his wing as the heir to the family business. I think it makes complete sense that as part of that transition he would want to take a wife and have kids. I do not understand why this is so baffling to you.
> 
> he is an anti-hero because he starts our as spmeone who rejects his family's crimiinal lifestyle and by the end he becomes the leader of a criminal empire. In the second movie he even goes to the point of having his brother killed. He basically saves the family in the first film. I do not at all see poor character development here.




Hang on a sec.  I'm with you in thinking Godfather (the first one anyway) is a real classic but I think you've missed something with the bold: Would she have died if it weren't for Michael?  That renders HS' criticism of Michael's actions more valid.  Cuz if he already had one family killed cuz of him and he's this good guy, why on earth would he subject this blonde to the same potential fate?  If anything, it shows him to be selfish.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You want to watch the new Transformer movie, don't you? Admit it! You love Bay!




This one has dinosaurs and Marky-Mark!



sabrinathecat said:


> Sounds to me more like MURDER and KILLING are central themes, and Family is a side footnote or easter egg.
> 
> And just for the record: Michael Bay, Kurtzman, and Orci should all be sodomized with chainsaws.
> 
> If it was relevant material, it should have been in the first movie. It wasn't.




Meh, family was certainly a central theme.  It's a messed up, whacked out family with a dastardly 'family business', but there are definitely moments that show the importance of the family itself.  I mean, Brando's death scene in the garden is iconic and it's all about family.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hang on a sec.  I'm with you in thinking Godfather (the first one anyway) is a real classic but I think you've missed something with the bold: Would she have died if it weren't for Michael?  That renders HS' criticism of Michael's actions more valid.  Cuz if he already had one family killed cuz of him and he's this good guy, why on earth would he subject this blonde to the same potential fate?  If anything, it shows him to be selfish.




I never said he is this good guy, I said what good remained in him died with Apollonia. I think with Kay he just sees her as a means to an end. Now apollonia did die because of the consequenves of michael's actions. That I dont dispute. My point was that he didnt kill her or want her to die. She was killed by someone coming after michael for his murder of Sollozzo..

i agree michael is selfish. But that wasnt HS's criticism. His/her criticism was that it made no sense for him to go from apollonia dying to marying Kay and that he/she felt the timeline was too fuzzy.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> This one has dinosaurs and Marky-Mark!



OMG! You know that it's going to be an instant classic.


> Meh, family was certainly a central theme.  It's a messed up, whacked out family with a dastardly 'family business', but there are definitely moments that show the importance of the family itself.  I mean, Brando's death scene in the garden is iconic and it's all about family.



Central? I don't know. I mean, sure, if by central you mean it was about a family. It certainly wasn't about family, just a particular family that had no redeeming qualities.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, to be fair, it is objectively bad. Like I said, it is terrible writing, and none to little character development.
> Hmmm... may this is where we are having this confusion. I'm not saying that you are incorrect for liking the movie. I'm just saying you are wrong when you say it is a good movie. Listen, there are plenty of bad movies that a lot of people like. That doesn't make the movies any good, though. But that doesn't mean they are incorrect for liking them.




This is probably the last i will respond to here, because like i said I have wastes too much tume already pn this. 

No it isnt. You didnt like it. That does not make it a bad movie. Your arguments for why you think it is objectively bad are pretty weak and unconvincing.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I never said he is this good guy, I said what good remained in him died with Apollonia. I think with Kay he just sees her as a means to an end. Now apollonia did die because of the consequenves of michael's actions. That I dont dispute. My point was that he didnt kill her or want her to die. She was killed by someone coming after michael for his murder of Sollozzo..




Meh, he effectively killed her.  I guess you could say that knowing that, in part, opened him up to his evil side, though.  It's just a sharp jump from loving man to 'dood searching for sperm receptacle/baby oven' especially considering the feelings he had for Kay beforehand.  

Hmm ... the death of Appolonia as his death, too?  Sure.  Lame (way too bludgeon-y for my taste), but sure.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> OMG! You know that it's going to be an instant classic.




Hells to the yes!  They haven't shown who's gonna be the chick sidekick but you know she's gonna have a quality pair of acting talents and a nice, juicy on screen presence!



> Central? I don't know. I mean, sure, if by central you mean it was about a family. It certainly wasn't about family, just a particular family that had no redeeming qualities.




It's there throughout the movie.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No it isnt.



Yes, it is.







> You didnt like it.



Because it is a bad movie.







> That does not make it a bad movie.



No, the reasons I pointed out make it a bad movie.







> Your arguments for why you think it is objectively bad are pretty weak and unconvincing.



Well, I'm not trying to convince you it's a bad movie or that you shouldn't like it. It's just a bad movie, regardless of how much you like it. You are free to like it. I'm not going to try to convince you not to.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hells to the yes!  They haven't shown who's gonna be the chick sidekick but you know she's gonna have a quality pair of acting talents and a nice, juicy on screen presence!



I'm sure she will. Actually, i think they'll have two of them this time around. One will be Maky-Mark's daughter in the movie, and the other his love interest. Double the female talent also means double the Baysplosions.




> It's there throughout the movie.



Could you give an example?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Meh, he effectively killed her.  I guess you could say that knowing that, in part, opened him up to his evil side, though.  It's just a sharp jump from loving man to 'dood searching for sperm receptacle/baby oven' especially considering the feelings he had for Kay beforehand.
> .




It is a very important distinction. In one case his actions lead to her death but he has no desire for her to die and loves her. In the other case, if he had actually killed her, then he wants her to die for no reason and doesnt love her. One scenario makes sense, the other doesnt. 

I think throughout the movie michael's affection for Kay is that she represents a kind of American normality he desires, but even in the beginning if the film he is somewhat cold with her compared with how he dealsf wwith apollonia. I dont think it is a sharp jump, especially since there is a nearly two year gap between the events. One woman he loved. They shared a culture and she knew and accepted what he was. With kay it is entirely different, she can never accept what he is. She is a prop to him. Another theme of the movie is immigrant identity and assimilation and his relationship with the two different women is where a lot if that plays out.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, it is.Because it is a bad movie.No, the reasons I pointed out make it a bad movie.Well, I'm not trying to convince you it's a bad movie or that you shouldn't like it. It's just a bad movie, regardless of how much you like it. You are free to like it. I'm not going to try to convince you not to.




You havent proven everything, there are counterpoints to all your arguments (and yiur arguments themselves are hardly convincing). So your claim that it is objectively bad "because of reasons" doesn't hold. I guess this must just be another OTTER thing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> You havent proven everything, there are counterpoints to all your arguments (and yiur arguments themselves are hardly convincing). So your claim that it is objectively bad "because of reasons" doesn't hold.



The same can be said about your arguments. They aren't convincing. They don't hold. Your claim is objectively bad, just like the movie.



> I guess this must just be another OTTER thing.



What's an OTTER?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What's an OTTER?




http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jun 11, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer



Oh, well, that's not an OTTER. That's an OTTer. In any case, what does that have to do with me?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2014)

This conversation is between only two people and one of them has reported it. So I'll close it.


----------

