Talk:Francis Ford Coppola

Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration

Fans of The Godfather may wish to participate in the AfD debate concerning whether the article The Godfather films in popular culture, which was spun off from this article to keep it from being too unwieldy, should be deleted. That debate can be found here. The article in question provides a place for people to note instances which illustrate the continuing influence of The Godfather and its sequels on films, TV shows and other popular culture media. Ed Fitzgerald 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian-American

I have updated the article with the fact that Coppola is an Italian-American. If anyone has a problem with this please discuss rather then just deleting it as it is becoming increasingly more apparent that the English speaking peoples of wikipedia are hell bent on dominating the cultural landscape of America. Datus (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the need for that is at all. Jordancelticsfan (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vineyard

Does Coppola sells wine? Mandel 07:19, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

He not only sells wine, he makes it at his own vineyard in the Napa Valley. TOM 17:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Drug use or abuse

'Use' is a statement of fact. 'Abuse' is a pov. Unless you can say who thought it was an abuse, let's stick to saying it was use. Guttlekraw 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you could find some kind of self-admission that he had a problem, then "abuse" would be npov. As it stands, Coppola is the only one to judge, and "use" gets the meaning across just as well. Bodhidharma 00:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw is on a mission to insert the term recreational drug use in place of drug abuse all across Wikipedia. In the past few days, he has changed direct quotes to medical journals to reflect his bias, as well as making changes to articles about books -- all without citing any sources of any kind. He has been asked to review the NPOV policy but doesn't appear to have done so. I have reverted his changes, as there is plenty of substantiating information regarding drug abuse in this context. It's mentioned in a BBC news article [1], in the book Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies by Ronald Bergan, and in the film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. --Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm, getting to the point, which is this article - the balance of comments on this page is that 'use' is NPOV, while 'abuse' reflects some peoples characterisation of the use. If you want to state that Ronald Bergan thought that the drug use that took place was abusive, that's one thing, but to state as a fact that it was is not NPOV. Everything that you mention above are peoples opinions about the drug use. That's fine, but it is not facts. Guttlekraw 21:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your interpreation is incorrect, plus your motivation is suspect since you are attempting to remove the term drug abuse from many articles at this time, and in most cases, you have damaged those articles leaving errors in your wake of destruction. You have provided absolutely no sources that claim that something other than drug abuse was present behind the scenes. In fact, the drug abouse was documented by ...Fax Bahr and George Hickenlooper's excellent documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse and wife Eleanor Coppola's diary Notes...[the film was] burdened by a lack of clear purpose, an abuse of drugs and alcohol, and a daily exposure to madness and violence. [2]. See also, E! online: The production of Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam epic Apocalypse Now was plagued by hard drugs. Most of the cast and crew became addicts during the months of filming in the South Pacific. Martin Sheen nearly lost his life on the set. Costar Marlon Brando didn't fare much better. Dennis Hopper, who was legendary for drug battles as well as his Easy Rider success, continued his descent on Apocalypse Now. "Dennis became a social pariah," says director George Hickenlooper, whose powerful documentary Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse goes behind the scenes of Coppola's movie. [3] --Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention. I suggested that we state that drug use took place. Do you think that the people involved thought it was abuse? No, some comentators said it was abuse. Let's say who they are. I have left the reference in, but stated who said it. That is called citing your sources. Guttlekraw 03:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is you who is not paying attention as your replies on this talk page demonstrate. Your opinion is not supported by the facts, nor have you offered any evidence for your claim that it was "recreational drug use" as opposed to drug abuse. You campaign of changing the term "drug abuse" to recreactional drug use across the Wikipedia is your attempt to insert your POV and is a violation of policy. --Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from filmsite.org that says it was 'use', not 'abuse'. After a three to four year wait for the notorious film (that brought other award-winning Vietnam war films to the forefront a year earlier - The Deer Hunter (1978) and Coming Home (1978)), the film that was budgeted at $12 million was something of an extravagant, self-indulgent epic in the making that cost almost $31 million - with much of the film shot on location in the Philippines. The highly-publicized delays and catastrophes in the grueling shoot (scheduled for about 17 weeks but ending up lasting 16 months), along with extra-marital affairs, a grandiose and suicidal director, drug use and other forms of madness, were mostly due to a rain-drenching typhoon (named Olga) and a star-debilitating, near-fatal heart attack for star Martin Sheen. Guttlekraw 03:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the link and text you cited references the film itself, and not the behind-the-scenes tell-all that was made about the film by Coppola's wife, which is essentially the source for the drug abuse claims. I suggest you stop changing the term "drug abuse" to "recreational drug use" across the Wikipedia. --Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the source you are using is Coppolas wife. Reference her opinion, don't portray it as fact. Guttlekraw 15:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the source is not only Coppola's wife, but other sources, and it is an accurate description of the circumstances. If your hands were clean, you might have some kind of point, but your contribution history demonstrates that your mission on Wikipedia is to remove the term "drug abuse" and replace it with "recreational drug use", and that is not accurate in any sense. --Viriditas | Talk 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's just cite the sources, and say that it is their opinion. There is no sense in which the term 'drug abuse' can be anything but an opinion - it is a value judgement. That's fine, but let's say whose judgement it is, and not try to pass it off as a fact. And stop with the attacks. Trying to demonize me doesn't change the fact that your case has no merit. Guttlekraw 06:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Guttlekraw, I've explained the 3RR to you, so why do you keep violating it?

1. 03:02, 14 Apr 2005
2. 15:26, 13 Apr 2005
3. 23:59, 12 Apr 2005
4. 20:43, 12 Apr 2005
5. 19:21, 12 Apr 2005

--Viriditas | Talk 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're not reverts, but attempts to reach compromise. Look the word up. This is a collaborative effort - if you spent more time working on a collaborative approach and less time scrutinising whether there was some procedural rule you could complain about you would get more done. I am clearly not simply reverting, but trying to understand why you insist on inserting your pov into this article. Guttlekraw 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are classified as reverts, so I suggest you talk to an admin. I have been working collaboratively on multiple articles while you have been waging an edit war across Wikipedia in your zeal to change every instance of "drug abuse" to "recreational drug use". Clearly, it is you who is inserting your POV into articles, and you went so far as to change direct quotes to referenced medical journals. You aren't fooling anyone. --Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the point. Every time you loose an argument on the facts you pull some smoke and mirrors about something totally different. We're talking about FFC. Your argument has no merit, deal with it and move on - stop this harrassment of anyone who doesn't subscribe to your point of view. Guttlekraw 19:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence has been offered, policies have been explained to you, and your campaign of removing the term "drug abuse" from the Wikipedia is clearly a POV violation on your part. You have gone so far ast to modify cited text from scientific journals, books by authors, psychiatric studies, and clinical definitions. This is not acceptable. I'm starting to think you are nothing but a troll. --Viriditas | Talk 00:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to focus. We are talking about FFC. We are talking about in whose opinion the drug use that took place on the set was 'abuse'. I have not removed the term drug abuse, that is a flat out lie. I have placed a referenced comment to his biographer stating who thought that the use was abuse. What more do you want? Oh yes. You only want your point of view to be represented. You think I am a troll? ROTFL. Guttlekraw 00:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are a troll, as your edit history demonstrates. You have consistently removed the term drug abuse from the article, and the history shows that fact. This is all about your POV, not mine, and multiple sources have documented drug abuse on the set, from the BBC [4], E! Online [5], to Ronald Bergan (Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies by , to Karl French (Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide (Bloomsbury Movie Guide) to Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Coppola (Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse). [6], --Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Veriditas's continual reverts

Veriditas has continued to revert without giving any justification or citation for the claim that 'drug abuse' took place on the set of AN. I ask yet again, please cite the source for this misleading statement. Guttlekraw 13:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't a compromise possible? You both have reasonable arguments for "use" and "abuse". Can you find a way to describe what happened that is less POV than saying "abuse", yet conveys what actually happened. How about "wide spread drug use characterized by some as abuse" or something similar? --Samuel Wantman 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Great idea - perhaps you can suggest something, since V and I seem to be having some difficulty! What about attributing the comment to someone who described it? That would work for me, Guttlekraw 09:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not having any difficulty, nor is this a controversial issue in any way. Multiple sources have documented drug abuse on the set, so there is no need to attribute the statement to one claimant as this is a known fact. Sources include the BBC [7], E! Online [8], to Ronald Bergan (Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies) to Karl French (Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide) to Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Coppola (Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse). [9]. Further, this source has always been attributed in the context of the content you keep removing, so your dispute as well as your claim is without merit. --Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for finally referencing this claim, I think it is necessary to attribute this opinion. All of the references you give are either entertainment columns or biographies. As opinions they are fine, but they reflect the views of onlookers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the participants did not view the use as abuse. I don't know why you would refuse a perfectly reasonable compromise attempt. Oh wait, yes I do. Guttlekraw 14:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are distorting the facts. This "claim" has been referenced (to Hearts of Darkness) before you started changing it, due to your campaign to remove the term drug abuse from Wikipedia. And, I've provided many other references since April 13, 2005, while you keep claiming that no references have been cited. This is a bizarre tactic you appear to use on multiple articles. --Viriditas | Talk 08:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone involved here try to put more effort into working on a compromise. I thought that the following was a start:

The film, entitled Apocalypse Now (1979), was beset by numerous problems, including typhoons, drug use (characterised as drug abuse by many, including Ronald Bergan, Coppola's biographer [10][11][12]), nervous breakdowns, Martin Sheen's heart attack, and Marlon Brando's bloated appearance (which Coppola attempted to hide by shooting him in the shadows).

For the sake of style, I'd prefer:

The film, entitled Apocalypse Now (1979), was beset by numerous problems, including typhoons, drug use, nervous breakdowns, Martin Sheen's heart attack, and Marlon Brando's bloated appearance (which Coppola attempted to hide by shooting him in the shadows). The drug use by cast and crew, has been characterised as drug abuse by many, including Ronald Bergan, Coppola's biographer [13][14][15]

I'm requesting that Viriditas and Jayjg please explain what they find objectionable about either version? Why? If there is something objectionable, is there a way we can fix it without removing drug use? Jayjg, what is the consensus that you refer to in you edit summary? --Samuel Wantman 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw's agenda is to remove the term drug abuse from Wikipedia. The fact is that drug abuse has been removed from the original article and replaced with drug use. Sam Bottom and Dennis Hopper's drug abuse on the set is well documented, both in books and in the documentary that the original claim was attributed to before Guttlekraw started removing the term drug abuse from Wikipedia articles. --Viriditas | Talk 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't help for both of you to revert each other based on your perceptions of each other's motivations. Please tell me what is wrong with the compromise. It has the term drug abuse. What are you objecting to? It is a compromise. It states that there was drug use. It states that the drug use has been called drug abuse. This is obviously a controversial issue. Can we state the controversy without resolving it in the article? == Samuel Wantman 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't been following the edit history. This issue is in fact not controversial, except to Guttlekraw, which is essentailly the problem. The source consensus adheres to the definition of drug abuse, which ironically, Guttlekraw has attempted to change for more than a month. Before Guttlekraw started pushing his revisionist POV on this and other pages, drug abuse was adequately and accurately cited in reference to the documentary, Hearts of Darkness. This is supported by many sources which are currently listed on this page, and the drug abuse on set is widely documented by the actors themselves. There is nothing controversial about stating there was drug abuse on the set. Futher, the consensus of authors and academics like Cynthia Fuchs at George Mason University, describes drug abuse: [Hearts of Darkness] is assembled from footage taken by Eleanor Coppola (FFC's wife) during Apocalypse Now's principal photography in the Philippines from 1977-78...recent interviews with the principal players (including both Coppolas, George Lucas, Sam Bottoms, Frederic Forrest, and Dennis Hopper, whose wry confession--"I was not in the greatest of shape"--is evidenced by his amazing fried-brain performance as the photographer at Kurtz's compound)...In Hearts this journey back and back seems like a regression to mythic darkness and human souls, but it's also about money and exploitation and abuse, very mundane and familiar problems after all...The saga includes...lots of drugs...Interviewed later, a grown-up Fishburne and others recall excesses of drugs... [16] --Viriditas | Talk 09:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but what I don't understand is what it is you find objectionable in the compromise? Drugs were taken, it was extensive, people have called it abuse. What is wrong with that? Can you tweak it to make it acceptable, short of reverting it? I'm really trying to mediate this. I don't have a personal agenda. I'm just tired of watching BOTH of you constantly fight about this. -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The original article attributed the abuse to the documentary film. There is nothing wrong with the original wording, nor is it controversial, however much Guttlekraw would like to make it appear. --Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Sam, I am happy with either of your versions. I do not, contrary to V's claim, want to removed references to 'drug abuse', I simply want to point out that it is a judgement, and point out who made it. Guttlekraw3 09:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The edit history clearly demonstrates that for the past month, you have attemped to remove the reference to drug abuse and replace it with other terms, including drug use. Please provide a reputable citation that criticizes the use of the term drug abuse in relation to the film. --Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop your ad hominem attacks and focus on the question at hand. What is wrong with Samuel's proposed version? Guttlekraw3 09:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The only ad hominems have been from you, which you have conveniently removed. Again, I ask you to please provide a reputable citation that criticizes the use of the term drug abuse in relation to the film. --Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any attempt at a compromise until recently. Whatever the history, I don't think it is relevant now. Please, Viriditas, tell me what is wrong with the compromise above? You can add quotes from Fishbourne and Hopper that talk about their own ABUSE of drugs. I would bet that there was quite a range of drug use, from an occasional beer to heroin addiction. Let's work together to create an accurate picture of what happened. -- Samuel Wantman 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The history is relevant only in the sense that Guttlekraw is denying edits that are recorded in the history. But, I agree, let's put that aside for a moment. The original article is accurate, in that it alludes to the documentary film's portrayal of drug abuse, which as far as I am aware, is not controversial. So essentially, there is no reason to change what is already accurate. Now, if we can show that there are reputable authors who disagree with calling this drug abuse, then by all means add those critics. My question for you then, is what is wrong with the current version, as you see it? Currently, the article states, The 1991 documentary film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, directed by Eleanor Coppola (Francis's wife)...chronicles the difficulties the crew went through making Apocalypse Now, and features behind the scenes footage filmed by Eleanor. --Viriditas | Talk 10:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to broker a compromise so we can all move on to more productive things. If you can tell me what is wrong with the compromise we can try to fix it. I am trying not to take a position on any version. I like the compromise because it says more than the original. It has links to both drug use and drug abuse. I am trying to understand what you find objectionable in it, other than it being a change. I don't think objecting because something has changed is a reason to block consensus. The only way to solve this is to move forward and not rehash the past. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "compromise" isn't as accurate as the original version which attributes the "difficulties" to the documentary film. Most (if not all) of the sources which describe drug abuse, primarily refer to that film. I'm not sure how you can improve upon that. Again, if this was a controversial topic, or disputed with credible sources, a compromise would be demanded. But as the edit history so clearly demonstrates, that is not the case. FYI...I'm going to be away from my desk for the next hour, so I won't be able to respond until I get back. --Viriditas | Talk 11:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There are several sources cited for the difficulties. The ones that I read said that virtually the entire cast and crew were taking drugs or drinking. I'd be surprised if everyone was abusing drugs. By saying drug use that seems to imply that everyone's imbibing was a problem even if some people were not abusing drugs. I frankly think it is an improvement because it has the possibility of having people compare the articles on drug use and drug abuse. I'm going to bed. Perhaps we can sleep on this. I'm hoping you can think about not objecting to the compromise so we can all move on. Consensus means that you don't have to agree with something 100%, but rather agree to not disagree. Good-night. -- Samuel Wantman 11:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw3, please be quiet and let me have this conversation. --Samuel Wantman 09:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said below, every reference we have either specifically mentioend "drug abuse", or described behaviour that matches the definition of "drug abuse" as found in the "drug abuse" article. Those references are not talking about diabetics taking their insulin, or people with high blood pressure taking their blood pressure medication. Use of the term "drug use" is actually potentially misleading in this case. And since the argument here is about whether the term "drug use" or "drug abuse" should be used, choosing "drug use" will not be a "compromise". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Happily, but did a conversation happen? Guttlekraw3 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The conversation is still on-going. -- Samuel Wantman

References

The issue here is that an opinion, however referenced, should be presented as an opinion. I have tried to re-word this to show what I mean, but consider the following examples:

1. George Bush is an idiot (Ref Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Larry Flint)

2. According to some, including Micael Moore etc, George Bush is an idiot.

Referencing the first one with actual references is misleading. It implies that by providing references to people who said this, it becomes fact (argument by authority), whereas in fact, the term drug abuse is always a judgement, not a fact. I don't at all mind that both his biographer and his wife called the drug use which happened on the set (which was a fact agreed by all) drug abuse, and if anyone was hospitalised or prosecuted we could include the judgements of their medical staff or legal professionals, but the term 'drug abuse' can never be a fact, always a judgement. Guttlekraw 09:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg: (in edit summary) (→Career: 1979 to present - it has *only* been charaterized as drug abuse, and you still have never provided any references to Ronald Bergan.)

Jayjg - first off, I know you came into this late, but I suggest you read the background. V. brought in Bergan as someone who said that the drug use was abuse. I never claimed this, merely agreed that if Bergan claimed it, we should attribute the claim. Third hand reporting by entertainment columnists is, I think, less credible than a serious biographer. If you don't like the Bergan quote, take it out, it's not me that wants it, I just want the claim of 'drug abuse' to be referenced by someone who was there or has done some serious research on it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how many people share the opinion that the drug use was abuse. We should still report the fact (that drug use took place) and attribute the opinion (that the drug use was drug abuse). Do you seriously disagree with this approach? Thanks, Guttlekraw3 05:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, you're simply wrong in your claim that it has *only* been characterised as 'abuse'. Filmsite.org, moview-reviews, plaidder.com among many others refer to 'drug use' on the set. The facts speak for themselves. Guttlekraw3 05:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

All of those references match the definition of "drug abuse" as found in the "drug abuse" article. Those references are not talking about diabetics taking their insulin, or people with high blood pressure taking their blood pressure medication. Use of the term "drug use" is actually potentially misleading in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and the edit history demonstrates that you haven't been editing in good faith. You claim that refs haven't been posted, when they have and have been part of the article the entire time; you claim that drug abuse is drug use, when that is your POV; and you have attempted to redefine drug abuse to suit your POV and articles that link to drug abuse, all the while engaging in personal attacks, edit wars, misleading edit summaries, etc. --Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks and focus on the edits in question. Guttlekraw3 09:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Describing your edit history in relation to this article is not a personal attack. The irony is that you have attacked me multiple times and yet blame me for your attacks. You even removed your most recent attack where you repeatedly called me a liar. [17] --Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You are a liar, that's a statement of fact, not an attack. Please focus on the edits at hand and stop your personal attacks. Guttlekraw3 09:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No that's a personal attack, and you've been engaging in them against me for quite some time.--Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Another comromise attempt

O.K. Here's my latest attempt at a compromise. In reading over Jayjg's comments and Viriditas' They make the point that it is the "drug abuse" that was cited as being a problem with the film, not "drug use". Guttlekraw has cites for "drug use" as a problem. Viriditas has said,

"The so-called "compromise" isn't as accurate as the original version which attributes the "difficulties" to the documentary film. Most (if not all) of the sources which describe drug abuse, primarily refer to that film. I'm not sure how you can improve upon that."

In reading over the original and changed text the only thing that changes back and forth is "use" and "abuse". I didn't read any version that clearly attributes the difficulties to the documentary film. The citations do lead to the documentary, but the text of this article does not state that clearly. Perhaps we can improve on it working together. So here's what I suggest.

1. Make the attribution of drug abuse clear, and only connect it to people's assessment of the problems.
2. If drug use is used in the article, have it used as a statement of fact as to what happened. This could be modified with adjectives, e.g. "extensive drug and alcohol use". I don't think anyone contends that there wasn't extensive drug and alcohol use.

Here is my attempt at a new version:

Following the success of The Godfather and its sequel, Coppola set about filming an ambitious version of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, set during the Vietnam War. The film, entitled Apocalypse Now (1979) was delayed so often it was nicknamed Apocalypse Whenever. The 1991 documentary film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse chronicles the difficulties the crew went through making Apocalypse Now. The documentary features behind the scenes footage of events filmed by Francis' wife Eleanor Coppola including typhoons, extensive drug and alcohol use and various health problems. Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack half way through the shoot. Marlon Brando's appearance was so bloated that Coppola attempted to hide it by filming Brando in shadows. The documentary claims that drug abuse was so rampant that "most of the cast and crew became addicts during the months of filming." [18] Apocalypse Now was equally lauded and hated by critics when it finally appeared, and the cost nearly bankrupted Coppola's nascent studio American Zoetrope.

I hope this version can be made acceptable by everyone. I think it needs a better quote about drug abuse, preferably one that is directly from the documentary.

So I'd like your responses. I don't want to hear that it is not as good as the original. That will not move us forward. What I want to hear is the MINIMAL change to what I've written that would make it acceptable. Please, limit your responses your suggested changes and your reasons for the changes. I'm requesting that Guttlekraw wait to respond until after I try to work out something with Viriditas and Jayjg. --Samuel Wantman 01:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the reference to drugs (drug abuse) until we can work this out. I'm currently reviewing and comparing sources in order to formulate an informed response. These sources include: Bahr and Hickenlooper's film, Hearts of Darkness; Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood; Coppola's Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now; Cowie's The Apocalypse Now Book and Coppola; French's Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide; and Haber's online essay, Deconstructing Francis. I'm also comparing the opinions of reputable film critics, and I'll probably ask a few film experts to comment on this discussion. --Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Piero Coppola?

What is Francis Ford Coppola's relation to the conductor/composer Piero Coppola? From what I had understood, he was FF's grand-uncle but I'm not sure. Any help? --El Chileno Chido 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Academy Awards

Look at the listing of Academy Award wins and nominations for Coppola. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't The Godfather win for Best Picture and Best Director? IMDB backs me up on this. I think this page needs a thorough accuracy check, if this is any indication. 16 April 2007

No, you're wrong, he won Best Screenplay, not director. Cop 633 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Work Overlooked

This article trails off inexplicably after mention of the Godfather III. Some information on Coppola's career in the 1990s and upcoming or prospective projects should be included.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.98.232.219 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2007.

Agreed. No mention is made of Coppola's series of critical and commercial disappointments throughout the late 1980's and 1990's. No true Coppola biography is complete without reference to the downward spiral that is the most recent third of his storied career. In addition, information about Youth Without Youth should be fleshed out to reflect the film's box office totals and critical reception. 134.69.170.215 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'Tetro'

...links back to the Francis Ford Coppola page. If theres nothing wikied for 'Tetro' i'll just link to ah... can someone red-link (redirect) it? i'm not sure how. 203.97.49.94 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards

imdb.com lists that Sofia Coppola has won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for Lost in Translation. I think that would make her an "Academy Award-winning writer and director" rather than just "Academy Award-nominated". I'll leave it until someone gives some feedback; maybe it looks like she has won for writing and directing, but I think that can be cleared up pretty easily. Dc2011 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is The Terror (1963 film) excluded from his page?

Shouldn't this film be included at least in mention in that it was one of his earliest film credits and imdb lists him as associate producer of it. Incidentally the wiki page for The Terror (1963 film) also credit Coppola as having acted in this film also which may make an interesting note of his time spent partnering with Roger Corman. CyberCosmiX (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Got an argument here about how to pronounce his name; which syllable is accented - COPPola vs CopPOLa ("U.S" vs. "Italian" pronunciation of this???). Can we please find a source for this and put an audio clip in the article? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

What is his religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.35.111 (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Awkwardness

In the very first paragraph it states that "he is the only one to win five academy awards". he is the only one what? Only coppola? director? human? It doesnt really make sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.242.57 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On the road

I think it is time to add to this article F.F.Copolla's new film "On the Road" based on Jack Kerouac's book. The shooting has already started in Montreal but there is still no information about him directing it.Carlie (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

suggested additions to the article.

This needs to be added to this article, even if brief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi#Reception —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Coppola's restoration of Abel Gance's 1920s epic silent film on Napoleon should be mentioned. The film toured the U.S. accompanied by an orchestral soundtrack, performed live and conducted by Carmine Coppola.