Paramount Pictures sues to stop publication of 'Godfather' prequel

The prequel 'The Family Corleone' has been approved by the estate of original author Mario Puzo.

AP
Paramount Pictures claims in its lawsuit that it did not approve a second 'Godfather' sequel titled 'The Godfather's Revenge' by Mark Winegardner.

Paramount Pictures has sued to keep a “Godfather” prequel from being published, despite the fact that the book has been approved by author Mario Puzo’s estate.

Writer Ed Falco, uncle of actress Edie Falco who starred in the HBO Mob drama “The Sopranos,” based his book “The Family Corleone” on a screenplay by Puzo. The book is said to follow Vito Corleone as he struggles to become a powerful Don.

Paramount officially filed its lawsuit against the executor of the Puzo estate, Mario Puzo’s son Anthony. The studio said it holds the copyright to “The Godfather” and that while it gave the go-ahead to the 2004 book “The Godfather Returns” by Mark Winegardner, it did not authorize another book by Winegardner published in 2006 titled “The Godfather’s Revenge.”

“The studio has tremendous respect and admiration for Mario Puzo, whose novel 'The Godfather' was acquired in 1969 and helped spawn one of the most celebrated film trilogies of all time," a Paramount spokesperson said in an interview with TheWrap. “We have an obligation to and will protect our copyright and trademark interests.”

Paramount said that when “The Godfather’s Revenge” was promoted, it was implied the studio had authorized the book, which was untrue. The studio wants damages from “Revenge” and to block the publication of “The Family Corleone.”

Grand Central Publishing planned to release “Corleone” in June.

Molly Driscoll is a Monitor contributor.

Join the Monitor's book discussion on Facebook and Twitter.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.