Because the Fabrizzio hit scene was right before the machine gunning of Michael's room, this extra scene would have added another possibility as to who was trying to kill Mike. Viewers would speculate that it could have been someone trying to avenge the death of Fabrizio - perhaps someone from the remnants of the old Barzini family.

Good observation!

I think it's unlikely for a viewer of Part II to think of Barzini at that moment. Especially one of his remnants trying to avenge Fabrizio's death. We have hardly any indication Fabrizio was real close within the Barzini Family? He was on their payroll while bodyguarding Mike in Sicily, and therefore they arranged his emigration. He worked in a pizza place now, right? Why should he be an active member of the Family? And if he was, he was not a high ranked one, so who would want to avenge? Also, there's no other indication in the entire movie someone from the other NY families is interest in the 'death of Michael Corleone'... in fact it always bugs me a bit that we hardly see anything of the Five Families and the Commission in part 2 & 3...very little at least... in real life, those NY families were 'all that' in the mafia. they seem to be unimportant in the two sequels. therefore I don't think you would link Fabrizio's death to the Tahoe shooting

Interesting thought, DonsAdvisor. But if that had happened, it would have distracted attention and focus from the Michael/Roth/Pentangeli plot that is the best part of GFII, imhop.

Good idea

I wanted to add one point in support of your idea, DonsAdvisor:
In the deleted scene, Neri says of Fabrizzio, "He entered this country in 1956, sponsored by the Barzini Family." Now, as we know, Barzini was killed in the Great Five Families Massacre of 1955, and the assumption was that all serious opposition to Michael was eliminated. Yet there had to be someone left in Barzini's former family who had enough clout, and presumably, hatred for Michael, to remember Fabrizzio and bring him to America, and set him up in a pizza parlor. Was Fabrizzio supposed to be a kind of "Manchurian Candidate" or "long trigger," put in place to make another move on Michael in the future?

wasn't he just very angered to go to America, the promised land?

Remember him in Sicily "Clark Gable, Rita Hayworth"... that the Barzini Family sponsored him is no surprise, he killed Apollonia and attempted to shoot Mike for them...

I think you meant to write that Fabrizzio was very anxious to go to America, Pherdy.
Sure he was anxious! But, apparently he couldn't get to America without help from the Barzini Family. Or, perhaps, they promised him something (like his pizza parlor) if he waited until they were ready to bring him over.
This leads to another speculation: We know for a fact that Fabrizzio didn't get to America until 1956, because Neri says so. But he killed Apollonia years earlier--perhaps as many as 10 years earlier, if you believe (as I do) that Sonny's and Apollonia's murders occurred in 1946, or 1947 at the latest. And even if you believe that Sonny wasn't killed until 1951 (as some here do), that'd still leave five years for Fabrizzio to be on the lam.
How did he survive? One possibility: when Vito said, after learning about Sonny's murder, "I want no inquiries made...this war stops now," he gave a reprieve to Barzini and Tattaglia that may have extended to Michael's need for vengeance for Apollonia. We might assume that Michael and Don Tomassino would be the ones to try to hunt down Fabrizzio, but if the Don gave orders from America, they'd have to obey. It's also possible that Fabrizzio fled Sicily for other locations where Mafiosi on the lam have traditionally holed up (the mainland of Italy? Tunisia? Gibralter? Turkey?), and lived there on handouts from the Barzinis until they were ready to send him to America. They'd have an incentive to keep him on ice until after the Don died because, if he were captured, he might be forced to blab about Barzini ordering him to blow up Michael's Alfa Romeo.

I've just finished the novel and I was surprised at how many things they left out when making the film...all that stuff about Johnny Fontane and Lucy Mancini and Nino Valenti....and I would have really liked to see Fabrizio killed.

Frabizzio's killing was shown in one of the deleted scenes but not the same on how he was killed in the book. i like nino valenti's character in the book, and also Dr Jules. he is important in the Corleone business, especially to Fredo and Lucy.

GoodFella

thanks for understanding!!

Goddaughter, you forgot to mention Dr.Segal...

In another deleted scene in the garden, Michael tells Vito, "what about Sonny and Sicily", meaning Appolonia's killing. Vito basically reiternates that he gave his word not to begin fighting, but washed his hands of whatever Michael would do. This verifies Turnbull's point that Don Vito's orders to stop fighting put a halt to avenging Appolonia's death in Sicily - for a while. Overall, it is not far fetched that anyone can avenge anyone's death, whether it be, say Barzini's son or Fabrizzio's son. After all, mobsters probably collect lots of enemies over the years.

I would have preferred to see Michael blasting away Fabrizzio, as in the book. However, its cool to give Fabrizzio a taste of his own medicine in the car explosion. Either way, this should have occured in GF1, not GF2. I always prefer the film parts that came from the book, while the screenplay FFC wrote sometimes seem to be afterthoughts under pressure.

I think the intrigue in GF2 was intentionally confusing. Danny (Rosato) Aiello's "Michael says hello" to Pengangeli was an afterthought - the actor's idea that FFC approved. Perhaps FFC thought he had made the script confusing enough and didn't want to add more fuel.

I disagree, and like the fact that the car-bomb killing takes place so many years later, after Fabrizio had been searched for by Michael and supposedly safely tucked in the USA. I guess FFC decided that the blasting away scene, even though depicted in the novel, added nothing to the story.

Also it must be pointed out that Fabrizio's murder was in NEITHER of the original films. We only see it in 'deleted scenes' shown in The Godfather Saga. So anyone who has seen only the films (present company excepted, of course!) does not know that Fabrizio EVER got his just desserts.

Apple

I didnt know he ever got his just desserts until I read the book and I thought it was very satisfying....also in the film Fabrizio doesnt have (or else we just arent shown) his famous tattoo....I would have liked to have seen that too.

I was reading a Godfather book at Border's, which told of a partially filmed Fabrizio death scene for GF1. There were pictures of Fabrizio with the stage blood all over him walking tiredely to the camera, setting up for the scene etc. I don't remember, unfortunately, the name of the book.

It was in Harlan Lebo's book, "The Godfather Legacy." Well worth buying. I'd give anything to see that scene.

The line was actually, "I want ALL inquiries made". It doesn't make any sense to me that the Don would have said that because his intention was to stop the war without asking any questions or seeking any vengeance. I can only guess this was a mistake in the script.....it would have made more sense if Vito said "no inquiries".

Why would anyone try to keep someone like Fabrizio (a traitor) on the payroll or even care to bring him back to America AFTER the deed was done? Is he that important?

Granted. However, in Vito's latest years (not when the peace was first made, but rather right before Vito's death) it was known that the main enemy was Barzini. Also, the fact that it was Barzini and NOT Tattaglia that offered a "Peace deal with Mike" through Tessio indicates that Barzini knew that the Corleones were convinced that it was him who was the main enemy. Therefore, why wait until years after "the massacre" to bring Fabrizio? Why even worry about him spilling his guts out?

I think it was a flaw not to include Fabrizio's killing in the first part. If Fabrizio's killing was going to take place in the second part, I think it would have been "a crueler revenge" (" a dish that tastes best when it's served cold"...Vito Corleone) if he was killed after he had re-paid Mike for a service against a new enemy (i.e. Roth in the second part or even Altobello if we're to wait until part 3).

ps: Isn't there a deleted scene (at the garden with Mike and Vito) where Mike tells Vito he found Fabrizio somewhere in Buffalo? So, Fabri is located around the time of Vito. That is, around the time of the Massacre.

It's been ages since I read the book; are you sure it's Mike? I'll re-check when I'm home. But just a thought, why wouldn't Fabrizio have been alarmed had he seen Mike instead of throwing in a slice of Pizza in the oven? I'm convinced it wasn't Mike (even before re-checking...but I'll do it anyway.).

Actually, it made no logical sense for Fabrizzio to stay in Sicily all those years until 1956. It's too small for the safety of anyone so notorious. Perhaps he had fled to the mainland of Italy, or to Tunisia (favorite haunts of Mob guys on the run) before coming to America. I'm just trying to find a rationale for the line, "...entered this country in 1956..."
In the novel, a Corleone gunman, not Michael, shoots Fabrizzio in his pizza parlor in Buffalo, NY. BTW: Puzo adds drama to the scene by having the gunman say, just before firing the fatal shot, "Fabrizzio, Michael Corleone sends you his regards." In real life, a lowly button never would have uttered that line because he'd never have been told that his mission was on behalf of Michael Corleone--if he had, he could have testified against Michael.

SC: I agree that the script is wrong - it should be "I want NO inquires made" Even the book talks about making NO inquires.

Sonny: I was wrong in saying the book says Michael shot Fabrizzio. I guess that old poster of Michael with the white hat and lupara stuck in my mind when I wrote that.

Turnbull: Fabrizzio might have been safe in Sicily because he was a protected soldier in some rival family, unless Don Tommasino ruled all of Sicily, which I don't think he did because he feared for Michael's life after Sonny was killed.

On your other point: Perhaps the gunman that hit Fabrizzio in the book could have realistically uttered the message from Michael if 1) it was a special personal mission for Michael - i.e. Neri; or 2) a guy like Willie Cicci could have gotten the message via a buffer. After all, buttons like Cicci must know they are working for Michael, but they have no direct evidence to ever implicate him. I can think of some illogical things in the film, but rarely if ever, in Puzo's book.