Talk:The Godfather Part II

Italics

What's with the italicised paragraphs in the plot summary? Never seen anything like that on Wikipedia before and it's not clear what they mean. They should be removed or changed. Popcornfud (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it was done that way to differentiate between Michael's current events and Vito's past events. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly that. Been like that for at least as long as I can remember (ten years}
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And this is supposed to be clear to readers unfamiliar with the film... how? Remember that plot summaries are supposed to be for people who don't know what the plot is. Popcornfud (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Any other films' format with a similar two-tier story to look at? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd rewrite it myself but I've never seen the film. I would suggest just explaining it in prose - saying something like "In 1901, something happens ... In 1959, something else happens... In 1917, something else happens..." This is easy to do when we know the years (which we seem to do for at least some of the sequences) but harder when we don't, in which case we could try things like "In the past" or "Years earlier" or other indicators. Depends on the story.

I know I have used this approach for several (maybe dozens!) of plot summaries but off the top of my head I can't think of any now. When I remember some I'll add them here for reference. Edit: Kill Bill is an example.

Alternatively, consider just writing the plot out in chronological order, though this is usually not the best option imo as it doesn't give the clearest representation of the plot (plot not being the same thing as chronology). Popcornfud (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestions would not only increase the word count to an unacceptable level but also produce a puerile style of writing. A considerable amount of work by a consensus of editors has resulted in this curtailed plot summary.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No reason why either of those should be true. The wordcount is already almost 900 words, 200 words over the WP:FILMPLOT guideline; it could already use a haircut.

But the italics have to go. It's not how we use italics on Wikipedia, it's not written in an encyclopaedic style, and to those who do not know the plot it's not clear what they mean. Popcornfud (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not finding that the use of the italics here meets MOS:ITALICS. I would normally not care about the summary being over the so-called word count, but the rest of the article is not detailed enough to warrant the length. Per WP:PLOT, a concise summary can exist in addition to the encyclopedic treatment. The less substantial the treatment, the less substantial the summary. (To put it another way, a Stub-class article should not warrant anything like 700 words of plot if it has nothing else in it.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the approach of Memento (film). You have essentially two separate plots and while I understand the film's switch between the two is carefully produced, to contrast + compare the two storylines (you have that sourced in the production section), but for WP, we can't do that. You can explain the work intercuts between the rise of the family under Vito and its decline under Michael throughout, and as per recent MOS:FILM plot discussion came up with, explaining the narrative structure of the plot like this doesn't count towards the plot summary. --Masem (t) 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The formatting of the article was an WP:ACCESS issue, which i have fixed. I also agree the italics shouldn't be used and the plot should be adjust to fix that and reduce the word count. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a go at re-structuring and trimming it. Anyone can feel free to revert, and probably still needs improvement in any case, but I thought it would be helpful if there's something that can be looked at. Scribolt (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Having not seen the film I can't comment on the accuracy but it's definitely more sensible to the uninitiated reader this way. Thanks! Popcornfud (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also have not seen the film, but will just add, for what it's worth, the plot is still over the limit of WP:FILMPLOT at 788 words currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, read what Masem wrote. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what discussion Masem is referring to with regards to "explaining the narrative structure of the plot like this doesn't count towards the plot summary". That doesn't make sense to me unless Masem meant explaining the structure in a separate section from summarising the plot itself, as at Pulp Fiction. Popcornfud (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The plot length is fine as it is. The film is long and tells a complex story that requires a synopsis of some length to do it justice.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The plot summary is written in a very strange and nonstandard format, very surprising for a film of this level of historical and cultural significance. It lacks the encyclopedic tone mandated by Wikipedia. Compare it with the plot given in the article on The Godfather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather). The italics are completely unnecessary; the flashback sequences should instead be handled with a simple "In a flashback scene..." or something similar. Mpaniello (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Mpaniello, looks like someone changed this 2 days ago. I've restored the non-weird version. Popcornfud (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much, :Popcornfud. That was fast! Mpaniello (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Plot: "At Pentangeli's compound ..."

The article currently reads "At Pentangeli's compound, consigliere Tom Hagen arrives and reminds the disgraced capo that failed plotters against the Roman emperor often committed suicide in return for clemency for their families ..."

My recollection of the film is that this conversation takes place at a secure government facility of some sort where Pentangeli is being held. Is there a better description than "Pentangeli's compound"? Is it a prison?

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It's not "Pentangeli's compound", it's the federal facility where he is being held. I'll have to watch the movie again, though, to clarify whether it's a prison, or the military base where he was held during the trial. I think it's still the military base, because the FBI agents who were guarding him, find Pentangeli dead in the bathtub.

Good catch!

TheBaron0530 (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the film again, and consulted a transcript. Neri says, "The FBI has him airtight. He's on an army base, twenty-four hour guards". During the Senate hearing, Pentangeli says "I live - uh - in an army barracks with the FBI guys". Hagen clearly visits him in this same location. What makes me hesitate to edit the article is that I can't think of a concise way to word the change, and the plot summary is already well over the recommended 700 word limit. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Pentangeli's brother - Voluntary visit, or hostage?

Is there a definite explanation of the appearance of Frankie's brother at the trial? Had he come to America, at his own expense, as Tom Hagen describes, or, was he brought by the Corleones as a warning to Frankie, that they could reach anyone, anywhere? And that if Frankie didn't comply, they'd kill his brother? Or is this left to the audience's imagination, and in the end, we can only go by what is said in the movie? Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The movie never makes it clear how his brother got there, or if there were any actual threats on his life. He just appears, sits next to the Corleones in the audience, and leaves again. At no time does the film explain his appearance. You as an audience member are free to use context clues and other dramatic elements to draw your own conclusions. But at no point does anyone explain anything about him. --Jayron32 17:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)