We all pretty much agree that Michael was a very vindictive, stubborn man. When Kay tried to leave him in D.C., he told her he would us all his power to prevent her from getting custody of the children. When Kay tries to visit them in Nevada, he shuts the door in her face. Yet in the beginning of GFIII he writes that he entrusted the children's education to Kay, and obviously gave her custody.

This seems like a very "un Michael" like gesture. Can anyone speculate on why/when he would have done this? I don't have a clue.

And please, let's not have some smart ass made the unoriginal assertion that its just fiction....we all know that.

I have to think Anthony approached Michael as a child, in regards to Uncle Fredo. At that moment, Michael may well have felt that he couldn't keep the children from their mother. Perhaps it was Michael's guilt that led him to giving the children away to Kay.

Time.

It heals all wounds.

Mike mellowed just as he hardened; he realized one of his own worst fears - he lost his family. I'd guess he let Kay back into their kids' lives a few years after Part II ended, and I'd also guess that the guilt of his part in Fredo's death played a part in this.

Of course it can also be explained that the change was due to Part III coming out and they needed a new storyline, but that'd be a smartass assertion.

SC is right. Michael asked his mother if one could ever lose one's family. So, even then he had familial concerns that were, unfortunately, overcome at the time by his avarice. His mother reponded that you never lose your family which probably gave Michael hope later on that, despite his avarice, he could retrieve his family. Call it an epiphany if you will, but it came out the same. Regret also figures in. He came to realize that his father would never have done some of the things Michael did that defeated the whole purpose that Vito pursued (even if warped to some extent): protection of his family. Of course, fratricide - Madonne!

Maybe Kay made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

DT, I was puzzled by the same thing for exactly the same reasons. So, I posted a thread on that subject a while back:

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...=true#Post36402

Gee, I wonder who you were thinking about when you wrote that line above.

Remember something Don T, one bad APPLE doesn't spoil the whole bunch.

For shame DC! What ever gave you such an idea?

Wait ... The Godfather is fiction?

What next ... Britney Spears isn't a good mother? Madonne!

Thats another problem i have with part 3, I just thought that FFC should have shown us the change happening where Mike from a cold hearted killer becomes the weak man we see in part 3.

I guess that rules out olivant from responding

I can say this for everyone, since i'm the new guy, right?

Olivant is one of the most thoughtful and well informed posters on this board.

Thats right. Just ask Adriana LaCerva if you don't believe Turnbull.

Mille grazie!

Oh, you are going to be so embarrassed when she shows up in Sopranos II.

Yeah... "The Sopranos Meet Night of the Living Dead".

Maybe the Sopranos movie will be all the dead people interacting in hell.

The kids were were probably spoiled brats and Micheal had better things to do. He didn't like how they trashed his office and he couldn't very well have them killed as he did everyone elese.

Don't bet on it.

Michael would kill them....and their little dog too.