well, this thread won't go far....

here's one thing that the two successful films have in common.

Both of them, in order to get the support and approval they needed from investors and so on, were put through a rigorous re-editing process by their PRODUCERS.

It is no secret about The Godfather; director Coppola was self-indulgent, but producer Robert Evans had a different idea. Evans personally went into the editing studio and was ruthless with Coppola's film. There were a number of consequences. Coppola was incensed with Evans for doing so and never forgot or forgave. Evans, neglecting wife Ali MacGraw for the film editing, lost MacGraw to Steve McQueen with whom she was filming at the time. And The Godfather was hugely successful.

Uberto Pasolini was the producer who came to the rescue of The Full Monty: this according to Robert Carlyle on the Graham Norton Show very recently. Elsewhere, being interviewed for a BAFTA Life In Pictures feature, Carlyle has lamented that it was "torturous" to make The Full Monty. For Carlyle, the attraction was Simon Beaufoy's script; but director Peter Cattaneo's leadership left much to be desired. According to Carlyle, when the first cut of the film was evaluated by Fox Searchlight, the verdict was: Straight to video!
Pasolini went to the mat for The Full Monty, pleading with the investors and company to let him re-edit the film, without Cattaneo.

Pasolini, with the editorial staff and without Cattaneo, made The Full Monty into the film that everybody knows today.
Consequences: Cattaneo got a lot of recognition, and went on to do...well...
Beaufoy went on to write the screenplay for Slumdog Millionaire.
Pasolini went on to film Still Life.
And The Full Monty was hugely successful.