Talk:The Godfather Part III

Historical background
One of the references being used in the "historical background" section is, at the very least, incomplete and is, in its current state, not useful:


 * "Item notes". The Economist. The University of California. 1843. pp. v. 286–289.

This is reference #25 and, as you can see, the information provided is not accurate or useful. This needs to be sorted out or removed. Can anyone make any sense of this? ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  13:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Recut
Should we mention this new recut briefly in the lead? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Not in my opinion. At least wait until it has been seen and judged.
 * Yes - the recut should be mentioned. There's absolutely nothing wrong about mentioning in the lead (with relevant sources) the news about the upcoming recut by Coppola. --82.181.143.171 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat, maybe after it has been seen and reviewed
 * I agree with Gareth. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Godfather Part II DVD commentary (2005)
In Special:Diff/448514779 (2011-09-05), added: "In his audio commentary for Part II, he stated that only a dire financial situation caused by the failure of New York Stories compelled him to take up Paramount's long-standing offer to make a third installment." with the reference "The Godfather Part II DVD commentary featuring Francis Ford Coppola, [2005]". But in Special:Diff/553573879 (2013-05-05), someone changed this to "[...] the failure of One From The Heart [...]", without touching the reference, so that it is not clear whether the new claim was sourced or not, and it potentially contradicted the source. A contributor in the French WP who listened to the entire audio commentary has said that this was not mentioned. So I have removed the claim in Special:Diff/995355606. Does anyone have additional information? — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the sentence, slightly modified, with new sources. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)