My apologies if this has been discussed on here before.I did a search and found nothing.

I was wondering why Puzo and FFC didn't incorporate the war between Vito and Maranzano in the GFII movie.The so called great 1930 war(or something like that).I found it to be a very important step in Vito taking control.Also how Maranzano had Al Capone backing him until Luca Brasi hacked one of his button men up with an axe :o.I enjoyed reading it and i was surprised they never put it in the film.
Any thoughts?

Not enough time and (IMHO) not important enough to furthering the storyline.

He probably didn't want to delve into mixing reel life and real life.

Plus, as SC said, there wasn't enough time.

We'll get there, SC.

You didnt find that part important SC?I thought it was a pretty big step up for Vito.Wasn't Maranzano a pretty big rival who at first had all the advantages over Vito at the start of the "beef".Until Vito cleverly took Capone out of the picture.

I dont know.Maybe its just me but i thought it was a distinctive part of the novel.
I can see what you mean about not having enough time.If only they had broken up Part II and and finished it off for part III with more of Vito's early days.

While it was a decent subplot in the novel, and served as another example of how Don Vito had risen to power, I really don't think that it would have made that much of a difference if added in the movie in establishing Vito's power.

If anything should have been added from the novel, to the movie, it should have been the background story of Luca Brasi. A very interesting story in itself within the novel.

Yeah i was thinking that may have been the case Pizzaboy(mixing reel life with real life) but after just finishing the novel i was disapointed with some of the stuff left out of the movie.Granted the movie is long enough as it is but as a true GF Fan, i could sit through a 4 hour marathon!!

All true, but in the general scheme of the whole story it wasn't important enough to concentrate on (to include it in the movie).

Fair enough.By the way sorry for posting this in the wrong section.I wasn't sure where to post it.My bad.

When writing a novel vs. making a film, there is always more detail in the novel as the writer of a novel is not confined to content. In a movie, it can only be so long in length, and there are budget issues that go along with making it.



Don't sweat it. It's not a big deal.

I think Luca's backstory would have been great in Part 2, in fitting with the parallel storyline. For me, for Part 1, I would have loved to have seen Neri's backstory brought to life. It was my favorite part of the novel. Sometimes I'll go back and read just that chapter. Neri sitting in Vito's yard eating peppers and eggs. I love it!!

Yeah i agree about the Luca story..but like others have said..not enough time!!

PB, the Neri storyline is one of my favorite parts of the novel also. It gives so much more insight and understanding to the Neri character. It makes you realize why he was so loyal to Michael and the family.

But how humorous was it to read that Alphonse Capone backed down from Vito Corleone! Great stuff.

Absolutely DC!!

Whenever the subject of Neri's loyalty comes up, I direct people towards the novel. I can't imagine him ever betraying Michael under any circumstances.

How could you not come to like a character that while a cop, shot and killed a pimp who was slicing up a young girl?

Or his reaction to breaking the flashlight over the perp's uncommonly hard head.

Another possible reason for the "Maranzano" story being left out is that it was based on the real-life Castellemmarese War, but got the characters and circumstances mixed up. But I agree with SC: it wasn't that important in Vito's rise. His murder of Fanucci was far more significant.
For the record: I would have loved to have seen these "backstories" from the novel incorporated in the film: The Bocchicchios and how they helped get Michael back to America; Neri's background; Luca's background, and Michael bringing Kay to his NYC brownstone after he returned from Sicily. I'm very glad that FFC chose not to include any of that Hollywood BS with Johnny and especially Nino, plus Lucy, Dr. Jules, and her operation.

Agreed TB. I HATED the Hollywood nonsense. It also ruined THE LAST DON for me. I think Puzo liked to show off his "insider knowledge" of Hollywood. He was never better than when he concentrated on New York and the Italian-American experience.

Much of the movie was already taken up with one struggle for power. Adding a second war et al would have dragged the movie out to five hours or more. Besides, one purpose of GFII was to illustrate Vito's motivation's and launch into crime, not every aspect of ascension to the top.

I couldn't agree more, PB. One of the reasons that the TV movie of "The Last Don" was better than the book (other than Danny Aiello and Joe Mantegna), was that they had the good sense to scale back the Hollywood BS.

Mr. Babe took The Godfather with him on a business trip, since he had never read the book. He came back after three days, threw the book down, and said to me, What is all this crap about Johnny Fontaine?? I told him to just read around it, that it had to impact on the book, but he has yet to pick it up again.

If they had added the Lucy and Dr.Jules subplot story,this movie would have been rated xxx.

And anothet thing ,dont you wish they had added those other plots into GF2,and the GF2 story could have been GF3!!! If only

Speaking of what's in and what's out of the film version, did Puzo ever explain why he chose the whole Tom Hagen irishman scenario in the novel?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking why the character of Tom Hagen was Irish?

Yes.

That's an interesting question. Puzo could have created a Sicilian consigliere and, with his storytelling powers, that character could have been just as interesting as Hagen. But having Hagen as a non-Sicilian may have given him more opportunity to add those storytelling details that make the novel so rewarding. I like it that Sonny took him in off the street and that Vito accepted and nurtured him--first as a son, then as consigliere. Puzo also takes advantage of plenty of opportunities to contrast Hagen's Irishness with the Sicilian surround. For example, during Connie's wedding, he makes a comment and shows that he's impressed with an expression that's curiously Italian on his Irish features, or some such. Vito tells him, "Even though you're not a Sicilian, I made you one." And he tells Michael that he puts on his "Sicilian hat" and figured out what he was planning re. the Great Massacre. Nice touches, all.

I guess I'm wondering where or how he got the idea. There are no real time examples, are there?

Plenty of Italian gangsters had non-Italian advisers close to them--even if they weren't officially designated consigliere (which has only come into popular use in fairly recent times--we have no "official record" of Mob hierarchy earlier). Al Capone's closest adviser was Jake (Greasy Thumb) Guzik, and several NYC Mafia bosses used Meyer Lansky as their unofficial top adviser. Hugh (Apples) McIntosh, although nominally Carmine Persico's bodyguard, functioned more like his consigliere.