In the novel Michael has Greene, Tattaglia and Barzini shot. Yet in the movie Strachi and Cuneo are shot in addition. Anyone know the reason why FFC added those two getting shot?

It was more spectacular. More people getting killed on screen = more money in the box office.

Poetic license. The novel also has Tattaglia being shout four times with a handgun; the movie has him being machinegunned. Just like in the movie Sonny is machinegunned while in the novel he is shot with handguns. More dramatic, no!

I read somewhere that it was the first thing FFC said about future script - less sex, more killings! other heads of 5 families must die too!
And IMO, it was a brilliant decision. It's logical that Michael should wish the death of all people who went against Corleones in the war which took his brothers life away.

This is one of the interesting topics that's covered in the Godfather Legacy, an awesome companion for the Godfather fan.

In a novel it wouldn't work the way it does on film for the murder of the bosses of the Families. But FFC created an incredible scene and it worked beautifully.

I agree with JustMe, Michael was taking care of all family "buisness" , including everyone who went against him.

Correct DA... Michael didnt kill everyone....just his enemies.

One of the many flaws in The Godfather Returns is that Winegardner decided to make his book a direct sequel of the book, which meant that Stracci and Cuneo are still alive. Even though they're not main players in the new book, they're mentioned, and that takes away from the continuity from the movies to the new book.

Winegardner should have just not mentioned. That way they could have either been dead or just out of the picture.

Not to defend Winegardner here, 'cause God knows I hated his book as much as anyone, but if he had a responsibility to continuity, it should be more to the original novel than the film.

If you want to place blame somewhere for the continuity issues between the book amd movie, blame MP and FFC, who wrote the screenplay.

I like it better this way (in the movie). Michael's thoroughness adds more weight to his statement to Carlo: "Today I settled all family business, so don't tell me you're innocent."

All family business, being settled in one afternoon. Imagine that. Would the baptism scene have been nearly as amazing if he had only taken care of three people? And if you're Carlo, hearing that phrase coming out of Michael's mouth, wouldn't that be so much more powerful, knowing that all family business was settled by murder?

Hearing Michael list the day's body count must have sent shivers down Carlo's spine. How could he possibly believe, after that, that his fate was just a permanent vacation to Vegas??

Either way, it hurt TGR. Those characters were simply mentioned in TGR. They could have been left out altogether and nothing would have changed.

And Winegardner had to work around other details in the movies, so he should have made the right decision and followed the ending of the movie instead of the book. I'm sure Puzo changed the ending to the movie because he felt it was better; an improvement over the book's ending.

That being said, TGR would have blown anyway.

I didn't know it was different in the book i just know that was and incredible scene and the higlight of the first film