How much better would Godfather III have been if Duvall was in it?

Wasn't Tom dead by then? In the followup novel written by Mario Puzo's chosen succesor, he serves one term in Congress, then dies of cancer.

THE reason Tom is dead by that point is because Duvall refused to be in Part III. Instead of trying to replace Duvall they just wrote Tom out of the script. The movie never mentions how he dies, but one of the later books says he was murdered.

I love Duval. He's my all time favorite actor. But I doubt it would have been good even with him. I've read that Puzzo and Copala asked for 6 months to write/finish the script and the studio gave them 6 weeks and demanded the film be finished in time for a Christmas opening instead of the next spring/summer which is what those two wanted.

Would've been much better. There was no real antagonist for Michael in the movie. Some shadowy people that no one could really relate to. I remember reading about it in the media when it came out. Apparently they were so dead set on getting it out for Christmas, puzo and coppoloa were up very late every night writing scripts and rushing through it. It showed in the script, which was real weak.

Then there is the whole cousin thing. GROSS.

I never thought the Vatican bank part of plot was the problem. Of course having Duvall would have been better, but even better would have been having someone other than Sophia Coppola play Mary.

Like Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it echos the first one.

yeah, she was horrible. Wynona Ryder was supposed to play the part but did 3 films back to back and was exhausted.

1 & 2 were way better, 3 could have kept it competitive if Duvall was in it.

I think Duvall would have made it better. It would have made for some interesting drama for sure. Michael and Tom did have a bit of an antagonistic relationship. Also, Tom was viewed as soft by both Sonny and Michael. It would be a good opportunity to show another side of the character. Plus, it would have been a logical conclusion of his mixed emotions towards Michael's way of running things that were built up in the previous movies.

It may have been pretty epic. Since the ensemble was cut down so much by this point, I think they needed him to round things out.

I'm sure they could have found about 25 great actresses that would have played Sofia's role in the movie in place of Ryder. I guess it does help to have your dad directing.

I also find it mind-boggling that the movie is +/- three hours like the previous films. Looking back on the movie it seems like it was just Al Pacino stumbling around for about half that time, and some cousin lovin' in between.

After reading another Godfather thread a few months ago, I'm confused.

Was Micheal Corleone a bad guy who lost his family? Or a hero, and one to be admired?

You specifically to III..? which I don't even consider as part of the story or series.

ETA: I was laid up all weekend and watched The Godfather Saga all day yesterday. Awesome. Many of the deleted scenes really helped. Sure, it's not the films...but they were awesome.