so, I know that the Pentangali character was created to replace Clemenza as a result of Costellano wanting too high a salary. This being said... is Pentangali's character a direct port of what would have been Clemenza? ie the attempted "snitching", tongue lashing of Mike, etc??? This has always puzzled me.

No. It was to illustrate a natural progression. Remember that Clemenza was as old as Vito, weighed a ton, and ate salami every morning for breakfast. That he lasted as long as he did without a heart attack was a miracle. GFII could have been screenwritten from day 1 without Clemenza in any scenario.

oh... I see... so the novel ends with the end of GFI??? and hello Oliv... good to hear from you... long time ;-).

And cannoli for desert every night, with a big dose of Chinese before any big job.

Frank, many people here have speculated on what Clemenza's role would have been if Castellano had signed on for II. The most-often held assumption is that he would have played out as did Pentangeli: betrying Michael. That led to a lot of hand-wringing here--how could someone we know, love and trust like Clemenza betray Michael? All I know is that, if Castellano had signed on, the script might have been written entirely differently. Perhaps Clemenza would have been loyal to Michael and helped him fight Roth, or have gotten killed in the process?

While it's too bad Paramount and Castellano couldn't come to terms, as Olivant noted, it was credible to write around him, given age, physical condition, etc. (given his condition, I wondered how he survived climbing all those stairs near the end of GF). What matters more is that Michael V. Gazzo, as Pentangeli, makes GFII.

yes TB... you are right. he definitely does make the film (along with De Niro). I love Clemenza and just never established the same warmth for the Pentangeli character.

1) Castellano did not refuse because of the salary. His wife who had a minor role as Mrs. Clemenza in GF1 took over the correspondence with Coppolla.
http://www.http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=558311

2) In the comment on GF2 FFC says that he more or less simply replaced Clemenza by Pentangeli. To me it makes perfect sense: The betrayal of Clemenza to whom Michael had a very close relationship would have been another piece of the whole picture: Michael loses all the people who meant something to him and/or kills them. His relationship to Pentangeli is loyalty because of his father. His relationship to Clemenza is friendship or even a nephew-uncle-relationship.
There were a few minor changes, like the black armband of Pentangeli. Even the appearance of the brother at the hearing makes sense: We had seen old Clemenza in GF, we see young Clemenza in GF2, and now we'd see his Sicilian roots.
Also: In the end, Tom says "you were always interested in politics and history. I remember you calling about Hitler back in '33." This refers to the scene in GF where Clemenza says to Michael: "You know you got to stop them at the beginning, like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich."

WOW!!! very interesting input! This reference makes alot of sense. I didn't think of that before, but I guess it does make sense. I just don't wanna believe that about dear old Clemenza.

I'm glad it actually went this way. Clemenza, as we got to know him in part one, was a real oldtimer and would never flip. That would have been very awkward.

Yes, it would be sad. But that's what the GF trilogy is all about. Nobody would wish that Sonny dies or that Tessio turns traitor. Or that Michael becomes a murderer. But it's a tragedy, so the terrible must happen.

It's very interesting to notice my feelings about clemenza as I really don't like "young Clemenza". He's a bit of a punk, IMO. but love him when Costellano plays him. He's funny, charismatic, jovial... just fun, but serious when need be. It's fun to see some one who's in his line of work not take himself too seriously.

Yes, but it must be plausible.

You raise a good point, Sonny.

Given the long history of Clemenza and the Corleones, and the differences between Clemenza's and Frankie's personalities, I don't think that simply substituting Clemenza into the Pentangeli plotline would have made for a plausible betrayal.

I think Clemenza's presence in the film would have required a very different tack to make the betrayal plausible and tragic.

Yes indeed, and besides, Pentangeli is a very interesting and believable character who is ingeniously portrayed by Michael V. Gazzo.

Costellano played Clemenza brilliantly. He seemed to think he was really making an honest living. There were so many nice touches to this, including the picture of the Pope in his basement, behind him, when he was teaching Michael how to shoot the pistol, his concern for "pain in the ass innocent bystanders" not being hurt, his instruction to Paulie to watch for kids as he backed out of the driveway, and of course his concern for the cannnoli.

those are good examples DT, but you forgot my favorite display of this: "Why don't you tell that girl you love her Mike? *in his italian accent* I love you with all my heart... if I don't see you again soon, I'm gonna die" lol... CLASSIC ;-)

You hit the nail on the head.

I think it's a question of acting. Just by reading the script, Pentangeli's betrayal isn't very plausible either.
If we had Castellano in GF2, some of the scenes would have been more hurtful to Clemenza. Imagine these scenes with Clemenza.
- The Tarantella/No Tarantella scene. Compared to the wedding where Clemenza was a guy full of joy he was humiliated, everybody was laughing when he left the stage.
- He had to wait in line, which really was a humiliation, not a sign of old friendship.
- He had to drink water from the hose instead of being served.
- In the "Champaign cocktail" scene, Clemenza must have felt that he had become a pawn in Michael's game.
- He was about to be garroted just like what he did to Carlo.
- The cruelty of bringing Clemenza's brother to the court.