In looking at the deleted scenes from the movies, I think that movies would have been even better if those scenes had been left in. When Micheal gets revenge on Fabrisio and when Vito gets the men that killed his mother, those scenes actually add to the movie. Why did they delete them? Time wasn't an issue because the movie was already 3 hours long.

Actually 3 hours and 20 minutes. That's long enough.

I think the impact of the killing of Fabrizio belongs in a way to GF1. GF2 is not just the continuation of the story but a complete story in itself. An "innocent" viewer might be irritated by the killing of Fabrizio.
Also, we are Godfather addicts, we need to know everything. But a film needs rhythm and timing, even if it's 3:20 hours long. The killing of Don Cicci's men didn't really add information. We knew already from the killing of Cicci that Vito had inherited the Sicilian blood.

I agree with Danito, BUT one scene that always bothered me for not being added is the scene when Genco dies. I do believe this was a HUGE mistake for not including, as the audience (without any background information) has no idea who this is.

I agree that both the Fabrizzio and the Genco dying scenes should have been left in.

I liked the Fabrizzio scene in GF II and Michael's comment about how long it took to get this done. It also reinforces the idea that Michael never gives up on a grudge.

The Genco scene really shows the tension between Vito and Michael, which is better than the actual deathbed scene, during which imho the Genco character over acts.

You're right DT... I do recall a little overacting on his part.

If people think the Genco scene was over the top in the movie, read the novel. It was way overdone in print.

That is one of the best deleted scenes, particularly to show the distance b/w Vito & Michael. It would have tied in perfectly (hindsight being 20/20) to the flashback in GFII when Michael defiantly stated:

TOM: Now you don't understand but, uh, your father has big plans for you. Now many times he and I have talked about your future.

MICHAEL: Talked to my father about my future? My future.

TOM: Mikey, he has high hopes for you.

MICHAEL: Well I have my own plans for my future.

Alot of what we see or don't see on the screen, while obviously a function of producer's or director's judgement, may also have to do with the technical quality of a scene among other things. That's why post-production contractual obligations are so important. Such a technical glitch could have prevented that scene from being part of what was in theaters.

All of the deleted scenes are wonderful. You can see them, in proper sequence, in the chronological "Saga" version of GF and II, which is shown frequently on cable.
Though some of the scenes (like Fab's murder and the Genco scene) add to our understanding, none of them were essential to the theatrical release versions. For example, we didn't need to see Genco on his hospital bed to know that Tom was going to be the official consigliere because Michael told that to Kay.

Well TB, I see what you're saying, but how do we know who he's succeeding and who Sonny is talking about when he says "Pop had Genco, look what I got" without the Genco scene?

I think it's important (although clearly not mandatory for the films success) for the audience to be able to identify with the contrast that Santino is making; and not just for the statement that Sonny makes, simply for the whole experience that Tom has as consigliere.

Frank, I'd never argue that the Genco deathbed scene shouldn't have been included. It's the most important because it resolves Genco, and also puts into perspective Michael's diffidence about his family (and a great Brando expression when he rolls his eyes at Michael). All I'm saying is that I wasn't disadvantaged by not having it included in the theatrical release.

Well, Sonny is using past tense, so the audience should be able to pick up on that and the comparison that Sonny is making. I know I did. The hospital scene might have added somehting to it, but I don't think it was necessary. Afterall, we don't get any explanation of the capos' roles in the family, but we pick up on what they do.

I had read the book when I saw the movie, so I knew who Genco was, but even if I hadn't I think it was plain that Genco was the previous consigliere, and of course a Sicilian, which Tom was not.

In looking at Genco in GFII, he seemd like a complete dufus. When did he get so smart?

It was a directoral device to highlight fear of Fanucci, which Vito didn't have. For that matter, Clem and Tess also feared Fanucci.

Well he certainly did fear Fanucci, but overall...fawning over that vaudeville actress...he seemed not to be one of much cunning.