Luna Azure in the Bronx

Why do you think FFC changed the restaurant to Louie's? Why would Tessio and not Clemenza describe Louie's which was on Clemenza's territory? Why would Sollozzo and McClusky be in the pickup car which could have been an easy target and why risk an accident with that u-turn maneuver that Lou the driver pulled? Why was there no tape on the gun when Mike pulled it from behind the toilet tank? Your thoughts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by olivant:
Why do you think FFC changed the restaurant to Louie's?
Probably because "Luna Azure" was already in use by a real restaurant, or was copyrighted, whereas Louis was generic.
Why would Tessio and not Clemenza describe Louie's which was on Clemenza's territory?
Because Tessio spoke first. Just because it was in Clemenza's territory didn't mean that Tessio hadn't eaten there, or wasn't familiar with it.
Why would Sollozzo and McClusky be in the pickup car which could have been an easy target and why risk an accident with that u-turn maneuver that Lou the driver pulled?
Both thought that, because McCluskey was a police captain, they were invulnerable. And from the look of it, Lou, the driver, was a first-class wheelman who'd done that maneuver before.
Why was there no tape on the gun when Mike pulled it from behind the toilet tank?
Are you sure there was no tape on the gun? I thought the butt was taped.

As Tessio suggested, the gun was taped to the rear of the tank to hold it in place for Mike to find. Yet when Mike removed it from the back of the tank, it was tapeless. That seems improbable. Then again, it was just a movie.

Clemenza taped the butt of the gun to prevent fingerprints not to fasten it to the back of the tank.

You ask why wasn't the gun taped, and then you say that Clemenza taped the butt of the gun.

I remember Clemenza telling Mike that he taped the butt end of the gun.


Don Cardi

Pensate! Pensate! When Clemenza was in his cellar with Mike prepping him for the assassination he told him not to touch any part of the gun except the butt and the trigger which he had taped with a special tape to prevent fingerprints.

However, to give Mike access to the gun at the resaturant Tessio suggested that they might be able to tape the gun behind the toilet at the restaurant. In the novel, Tessio Tells Clemenza to have his man tape the gun to the back of the toilet. So, when Mike pulls the gun from behind the toilet, why is there no tape still attached to the gun?

Did you consider that the tape may have stuck to the toilet after Mike removed the gun??

That seems unlikely. How many ways are there to effectively tape one piece of metal to another non-metal surface? The tank is typically glazed ceramic that sweats and it is a smooth surface. Its adherence properties are less than that of metal. The gun's surface is convoluted thus facilitating adherence. Mike used two hands to pull it from its place on the tank. The downward force he exerted on it would have been considerable. The tape would have detached itself from the tank but probably not the gun. He wold have had to remove the tape from the gun after he detached the whole thing from the tank. Try it on any smooth surface with a metal object.

But its still POSSIBLE.

Woah. Talk about splitting hairs, huh?

IMO the whole thread is, but its sometimes fun to ponder and discuss this stuff.

Oh, of course, I do enjoy splitting hairs. Its just, this really proves just how some of us (myself included) are obsessed with a complete work of fiction.

I know EXACTLY what you mean!

What is so hard to understand, he taped the holster between the tank and the wall. Michael reaches up and final pulls the gun free. The holster remained with the tape.

What holster? Anyway, why two hands if the gun is in a holster?

It was a tight holster.

He was holding the holster with one hand while he pulled the gun out with the other.
Gee, Don't you believe anything I tell you.

Ancora, demando: what holster?

The one that holds the gun to the back of the tank, which Michael will then remove and take into the other room to kill two men as the sit at the table.