If you could ask Francis Coppola one question about the Trilogy, what would it be?

Mine would be: Who killed the Tahoe shooters?

Yours?

In the book, Michael asserts:



In The Godfather movie, Sonny accuses Michael of taking things personal, and Michael just responds, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

The first speech sets Michael apart from the others. It also foreshadows Vito's "bolt of lightning" speech at the peace conference. You could certainly edit out some of the passage, but why change it to the opposite sentiment?

Why didn't he pay fair money to Robert Duvall to reprise Tom, make a decent Godfather 3?

Who opened the drapes?

How did Kay get the abortion?

Why did Michael tell Fredo "Hyman Roth will never see the New Year"

Robert Duvall On Not Being In The Godfather III | Larry King Now | Ora.TV
Robert Duvall tells Larry King why he turned down The Godfather III and how Francis Ford Coppola came to his farm to ask if he'd be in the film but left caring more about Duvall's mother's crab cake recipe than the movie

Robert Duvall-Seth Meyers interview
Duvall was only asking for "fair money" indeed Duvall felt the pay gap between Al Pacino and him was unacceptable

How could Coppola not see Tom Hagen worth

No doubt the crab cakes was delicious

The answer to that question would probably also be the answer to mine: Who opened the drapes?

Probably not

Tahoe shooters? Third shooter drapes? Fredo

If his script for The Conversation influenced GF2, so that some of the ambiguity in GF2 was intentional rather than the result of multiple rewrites and extensive editing.

That makes more sense than some explanations.

Good points Capri and Pete

Answer to Who killed the Tahoe shooters? Who opened the drapes? is probably not the same

ambiguity in GF2 was intentional or not, is the fuel that keeps any thread going, keeping the board active Still fun to flesh out nearly half a century on, why we are still conversing

Was Fredo guilty? It's probably the most volatile question we've ever had here. Over and over and over. So why not ask Francis? I think Puzo would have said no. Just my personal opinion. Because he was so family minded. But Coppola might be more objective, especially almost a half century after these films were made.

How and where did the Tartaglia’s meet and team up with Sollatzo?

I feel I know why....the drugs but where and how could have fed into a interesting story line.

I think a lot of the answers we'd get would be disappointing - "directorial license," "we never thought anyone would notice, " etc.

Rather than facts, I'd be interested to hear FFC confirm or deny (or just react to) some of the more abstract theories posters here have come up with (e.g. the Neri/Rocco rivalry).

I agree Woltz. However, FFC's reactions could end up creating even more questions, consternation, etc.

How' bout them Steelers!

Yeah, how about them Steelers! Anyone who still thinks Tomlin is a bad coach doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Anyway, I don't know enough about FFC to guess whether he'd be amused or annoyed by the existence of this board and its dissection of the minutiae of the Trilogy. I'd like to think the former.

I think Coppola might answer a lot of questions, "Oh, wasn't that made clear?"

He didn't know then, doesn't know now and following this board closely for answers

What would be helpful Pete is if FFC would release all of the Trilogy's film that never made into onto screen. Doing so would probably provide answers to alot of our questions.

My two cents worth!

No doubt Fredo was guilty of something that significantly contributed to the Tahoe shooting

Can't see him killing the Tahoe shooters so the little help could be opening the drapes

e.g. Michael blamed Tom for much of the Corleone's misfortunes

Why was Turnbull a good man?


Seriously though, mine would also be Who Killed The Tahoe Shooters

Now you tell us!

My take, for what it is worth!

The most plausible culprit could be Fredo as even if Fredo was seen in Michael and Kay's bedroom, Fredo would not have raised any suspicions

e.g: 1. the Neri/Rocco rivalry
e.g: 2. Michael blamed Tom for much of the Corleone's misfortunes
e.g: 3. Roth's murder at the Airport was Rocco's suicide mission

If you could go back in time what would you do differently in Godfather 3 to ensure that it lived up to its expectations?

Also, does anyone think that Michael and his brothers went through the traditional ceremony to be made or was it just something that was understood amongst their peers?

Fredo was the traitor in the family Guilty

Absolutely guilty. He admitted as much in the poolhouse. Did he know the depths of his guilt? Possibly, although he might have WANTED to believe that it wouldn't be a hit, he had to know that it would. He had seen his father shot and had been involved in the family business for many more years than Michael had. On some level, he had to know what betrayal meant in that business.

I think that Michael would have let him live in isolation if Fredo hadn't had his little "I was passed over," temper tantrum. It was at that point that Michael knew that his brother resented him to the point that he could never truly trust him.

As for what I would ask FFC, why did he make Connie and Kay so bitter and self-destructive? In the book, Connie realizes that Michael did her a favor and marries a nice Sicilian boy. Kay accepts what Michael is, and goes to church to pray for him. Why did he change their characters? Did he think they were more interesting this way?

Perfectly said SB....perfectly said.

Agree--well said!
That outburst in the boathouse sealed Fredo's fate. So did his lame excuse: "I swear to God I didn't know it was gonna be a hit." What did he think was going to happen?

He trusted truly or not until mother died

Sure thing “I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's alive”

Michael could have easily continued the same arrangements of keeping Fredo under watch or similar until Mama Corleone's natural death He had the money and the resources
Besides if Mama had lived longer....

Another question I’d ask is if in his research for the film he found any cases of people calling the Dons of the families by their last names rather than their first names. You never heard them say “Don Vito” or “Don Michael”, only “Don Corleone”. Maybe they’ll say their first and last name after they say “Don” every once in a while throughout the trilogy but not a lot.

Calling the Don by his first name, I believe, is a Sicilian custom--as in "Don Tomassino," or "Don Ciccio" Calling the Don by his last name is an American custom, probably because it seems more "businesslike."

I didn’t know that. So the American dons were referred to by their last name like you’re saying. Never heard that but it’s always great to learn.

e.g: 1. the Neri/Rocco rivalry - possible
e.g: 2. Michael blamed Tom for much of the Corleone's misfortunes - No blaming
e.g: 3. Roth's murder at the Airport was Rocco's suicide mission - No escape plan

Another question is how did the made men feel about Michael rising through the ranks and surpassing them due to nepotism? Michael proved he was more than qualified to be the new don but I would imagine that many of the made guys were just as mad as Tessio was about being stepped over for Michael who hadn’t really paid as much dues as them. And if this is the case, then at what point did Michael prove to them that he was the correct choice to be boss? His ability to order a hit without hesitation?

Vito had made it clear that Sonny would succeed him. Michael "made his bones" by whacking Sol and Mac. After Sonny died, Vito made it clear that Michael would succeed him--in fact, Michael had already succeeded him before he died. Sure, some of the made men might have resented Michael--human nature. But, I think Tessio never expected to succeed Vito. He betrayed Michael because he thought Michael was too weak to confront Barzini, who was encroaching on Tess's territories. But, perhaps Barzini promised Tess that he'd be the new Corleone Don after Michael was whacked.

That paints a better picture.

This question is one that Coppola might not even be able to answer. But who opened the drapes in the first place and what were Fredo’s intentions when he was giving information in the first place? I find it hard to believe that Fredo wanted Michael dead.

Good point Lana

No doubt Fredo couldn't be trusted but if Mama had lived longer....

Tessio probably never expected to succeed Vito as Don of the Corleone family same as Clemenza as long as there were Corleone heirs but Vito “once said that the day would come when Tessio and Clemenza could form their own Family” though

Vito always the 'nice' guy fobs off saying “Michael is now head of the Family and if he gives his permission, then you have my blessing” knowing fully well, Michael cannot give his permission

Michael was the only one who strategiced - Sollozzo killing Vito is the key, the Corleones can't wait - devised the brilliant plan and carried out successfully the murders of Sollozzo and the New York Police captain pretty much single handed

Michael did all that in spite of Tom's “nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain Never!”

If that was not proof for Tessio that Michael was “more than qualified to be the new don” confront Barzini, stop Barzini encroaching into Corleone territories and win

Well, Don Tessio!

This raises an interesting point:Both the movie and the novel say that part of Vito's (and Michael's) strategy was to act weak--the better to make their enemies underestimate them, and, perhaps, to draw out traitors. The novel says both Tess and Clem gave Michael credit "for a bravura performance with the Turk and Solozzo," but they also concluded that Michael "lacked force." Well, acting weak put Tess and Clem to the loyalty test: Clem passed, Tess failed and paid the price, as did the other Dons who were fooled by weak-act.

But, couldn't we also conclude that, by acting strong, Michael could have deterred treason and kept the other Dons from encroaching on his territory? Didn't acting weak encourage betrayal and embolden the other Dons to take advantage?

What you conjecture could be accurate. However, it did not fit Vito's overall strategy. Remember, in the novel Michael tells Vito that his intended actions were not completely to avenge Sonny's and Apollonia's murders, but revenge was a big part of it. Although neither the novel or film tells us explicitly what Vito's motivations were, I think it's safe to surmise that he wanted revenge also. So, for both Michael and Vito, feigning weakness would draw the other family's into the trap. Because Vito had no intention of abiding by his pledge at the Dons' meeting, he (as Michael stated in the novel) planned alot of the revenge. The novel also states that he turned the family over to Michael because he didn't have the heart anymore to carry out the plans. But the plans were definitely his and his last act was going to be securing underworld hegemony for Michael and the Corleones.

He is always the 'nice' guy
He told Carlo Happy for you knowing he was going to be whacked no doubt keeping the enemies close but added fuel to the fire for the betrayal

My take, for what it is worth!

What was of utmost importance - the Corleones [Vito] needed to re-establish their glory, standing, reputation etc. that they are smart not weak and crumbling like everyone says That ain't the way they wanted it! that the Corleones were leaving New York on their own terms

The Corleones were being trampled by the other families and the Corleones strategy of acting weak, worked like a treat! took everyone by surprise

• Corleones enemies underestimated them
• Greene openly insulted the Corleones
• drew out the traitors
• fooling the other Dons
• Barzini had already started chiseling into Tessio's territories
• the smirking Carlo thinking he had got away with Sonny's murder set up

However
1. Why did Barzini target Tessio, chiseling into his territories not Clemenza's?
2. Did Barzini figure Tessio more likely would betray the Corleones than Clemenza?

Did Clemenza really pass the loyalty test? though or
Perhaps Clemenza was just lucky! by sitting tight and doing nothing because he was not losing his territories, got away with it? ie: Clemenza's loyalty was not tested?

Barzini attempted to murder Michael in Sicily and was going to kill Michael at Tessio brokered meeting, having already murdered Sonny So Barzini had been planning his dethroning / annihilating of the Corleones as well

Whilst “by acting strong, Michael could have deterred treason and kept the other Dons from encroaching on his territory?” It is small potatoes! compared to wiping out all the Dons, Greene and Carlo in one sweep

and by “acting weak encouraged betrayal and embolden the other Dons to take advantage?” the surprise element would have been lost otherwise

Also one less problem! Michael didn't have to deal with any infighting between Tessio and Clemenza over Corleone territories [other than Clemenza and Tessio's own existing territories]

In fairness,
1. Tessio was losing territories and it seemed to Tessio, he was getting no support whatsoever from the Corleones
2. Tessio obviously thought he was jumping the sinking Corleones' ship

However Michael did keep reassuring including ”Be patient There are things being negotiated now that are gonna solve all your problems and answer all your questions”

Tessio should have had more faith in his Don He “failed and paid the price

This is a question for everyone. How different would The Godfather 3 have been if Duvall had been in it? Would it have improved it to the point where it would be held in the same regard as the first two movies? We will never know but it’s fun to speculate about how different the plot would be.

I'm a big fan of continuity in sequels. That's why I like The Trilogy and Star Wars.

I am not as negative about III as some Board members are. However, Duvall's presence in it would have made me feel a little more comfortable with it. Some of the negative comments about III are not out of line and I can agree with them. Thus, Duvall's presence could have mitigated my attitude toward III which isn't that bad to begin with.

As far as the plot goes, maybe FFC would have altered it with Duvall in it and produced a better product.

I also think that people are a bit too negative towards GFIII. I felt it was a good movie, just not at the level of the other 2.

Were there things in it that didn't make sense or were poorly explained? Sure, but that's true of the first 2 movies as well (e.g. who opened the drapes). But, while people think those details add to the intrigue of GF and GFII, they use them to dismiss GFIII.

To me, the main area in which GFIII doesn't hold up to its predecessors is in the acting. Eli Wallach and, especially, Sofia Coppola were TERRIBLE.

Maybe the real question should be how different GFIII would have been had Winona Ryder not backed out.

I agree that III is a good movie, just not up to the first two. Also agree about Wallach and Sofia. One thing that continually puzzles me is why Michael was so obsessed about acquiring a European real estate company. Surely he was already tight with the Vatican through his bailout of the Vatican Bank and his grants to Sicily? Perhaps he was looking for an outlet to launder more money.

One of my erudite friends, seeing it with me for the first time, remarked: "There must be 200 hours of film on the cutting room floor."

Well, Gilday gets Michael to pony up an extra $100 million by saying:

This deal with Immobiliare can make you one of the richest men in the world. Your whole past history, and the history of your family, will be washed away.

I wonder which was more important to Michael, the money or the washing away of the family history?

On the surface, the washing away of his family’s history but deep down it was the money and power. He really did want to make his empire “legitimate” and he succeeded for the most part. I for one, am surprised more people around him did not go jail because we know the feds were watching their every move.

Good points Revis

All in one hit! washing away of his family’s history, money and power “legitimate” empire

Good points Lana

Clemenza would have been next

This raises an interesting point as Clemenza’s loyalty was previously never in doubt He got away with it by doing nothing Let off the hook

Did Vito ever make it clear throughout the movie who his underboss was? We know Genco was his consigliere but I never knew who the underboss was. It might say it in the book.

Vito never officially designated an underboss in the movie, though I think it's safe to say that Sonny was the de facto underboss. Early in the novel, Vito was worried about who would succeed him: Sonny was too impulsive, Fredo was weak, and Michael wasn't in the Family business. In a flashback scene in the novel (the one with the crooked boiler "repairmen"), Vito delegates Sonny to handle them because he was "thinking of making Sonny his underboss."

...and, of course, Sonny handled it in his usual heavy handed way that was discouraging to Vito.

This highlights several inconsistencies in the novel and films: no apparent underboss; when was Vito (or for that matter, any of his boys) made? Why would Vito tell his capos that they could someday form their own families?; Why only two capos? I'm sure that ya'll can think of others.

Heavy-handed indeed. Puzo says that Vito was not entirely pleased because "Sonny was the club, not the rapier."
Inconsistencies? We can spend all day and night on them. Early on, at Connie's wedding, Vito is described as "looking as handsome as the bridegroom in his tuxedo." A bit later, when they visit Genco in the hospital, Dr. Kennedy remarks to himself on Vito "in his ill-fitting tux."

I felt the same way about them getting made. I think it is implied that they were but we just didn’t get to see the ceremony. So I don’t take much exception with that. This was in the 40s also so I think that the mafia had a real sense of being family driven and tight knit at the time as well which is why Vito only trusted Clemenza and Tessio to be his capos. Vito was not a greedy man like Michael ended up being. So I do not think he would have minded it if his capos started their own family eventually because he trusted them.

I think Michael Franzese once said that the role of consigliere isn’t nearly as important as they depicted it to be in The Godfather. Maybe the importance varies from family to family. For as much as Franzese criticizes the movie for being inaccurate, Sammy Gravano praises it just as much for being the most accurate depiction of the life during the time period the movie took place in. Other mobsters like Dominick Montiglio also cosign the movie’s accuracy.

I might be in the minority here but I reckon Sofia played the spoilt, entitled rich daughter okay

She might not cop so much flak if not Coppola

Sofia was nowhere near as bad as Eli Wallach.

I tend to agree, but I never thought that Sophia's acting was as bad (or even bad) as some Board members portray it. She was playing an 18 year old daughter of one of the wealthiest and powerful men in the world. So, I don't know what some viewers were expecting.

I think that some of criticisms are really a function of the story line, story board, and script. I and II spoiled us because one of I and II's enduring qualities was the selection of actors who met our expectations of the physical appearance of those characters.For one, the actor who portrayed the character (whose name I can't recall) who was murdered by Calo with his glasses not only didn't look Italian, but his voice sounded decidedly German (like a character from Hogan's Heroes). We didn't care for the George Hamilton character because we were expecting a Tom Hagen in the form of Robert Duvall.

I don’t think she did good but I also don’t think that she is the reason why the movie wasn’t as good as it could’ve been. I still enjoy the movie very much especially watching it in 1080p. When I really pay attention to her scenes I can see that she was outclassed in her scenes with Garcia and others. But when I am just watching the movie, she doesn’t take anything away from it.

Does anyone see a similarity between Michael and Paul Castellano at all? When Michael said he wanted more lawyer and less gangsters, it reminded me of Castellano rubbing Gambino members the wrong way because he was trying to turn the family into a more business like organization. Obviously Michael(although fictional) was a more effective boss than Paul.

There is a distant similarity in that Castellano was thought of as the"white collar" guy while underboss Neil Dellacroce was the "blue collar." But, Castellano was still the boss of one of the Five Families, while Michael, at least nominally, had left that behind by GFIII.

I too felt Sofia was alright especially compared to the performances of quite a few of the seasoned actors....

My take, for what it is worth!

I believe Vito “would have minded it if his capos started their own family” alongside the Corleones especially as he needs “trusted Clemenza and Tessio [!] to be his capos”

Vito would let the above happen, only once the Corleones were no longer in New York ie: not in coexistence with the Corleones

In my view, Vito always the ‘nice’ guy
Vito says a lot of things he doesn’t mean nor have any intentions of implementing, even when detrimental to Michael

Well put. I agree.

Expanding on the Castellano and Michael comparisons, what qualities separated Michael from Castellano?

She did alright in spite of incest storyline and dubious dialogue

Michael's greed

Extracts:
Success?It seems to me, on further review! Michael wasn't greedy as such because Michael thought “Roth acts like I'm his son, his successor” and Roth was 'gifting'! Michael Roth's business until the Tahoe shooting

Didn't he move Klingman out of casino owned by Roth

While Castellano had a big legitimate business (wholesale meat), he never pretended to be anything other than the Don of the Gambino family. He was also a near-recluse. Michael tried to convince himself that he was no different than other powerful men, and was obsessed with appearing legitimate. Look at Anthony's party. Look at the money he contributed to charities and legitimate causes in II and III--Castellano never did that.

Sure thing Capri However Michael didn't act on it until Roth's blessing!

Johnny Ola to Michael at Anthony's party and Michael believed! Roth's message not even suspecting Tahoe shooting was in store for him

Extracts:
“The casino you're interested in.....I've been instructed to tell you that if you move Klingman out, our friend in Miami, Roth the real owner [with the old Lakeville Road group from Cleveland] will go along”

Michael: “That is very kind of him. You tell him, that's greatly appreciated”

As per the Board's productive and weighty discussions - the Trilogy theme of under / over estimating each other, both Michael and Roth were initially underestimating each other

Then Michael and Roth were flattering and playing each other even after the Tahoe shooting when Michael twigged “It was Roth who tried to kill me in my home. It was Roth all along”

The charade finally exposed with Michael's “Who had Frank Pentangeli killed?” and Roth's soliloquy

How senator Geary find out about Klingman

TB, did you watch Michael's Franzese's interview about his sitdown with Castellano about bad chicken?

I saw an interview with him, but I don't remember bad chicken.

Mike said that his chicken vendor sold him chicken infested with maggots. Mike found out belatedly that it was Castellano's company.

Now, there's an interesting situation. As Obama said of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, "Whose ass should I kick?

If your question is, how did Senator Geary find out about the Corleones plan to to move Klingman out?

Extract:
Geary tells Michael “Now, my sources tell me that you plan to make a move - within a week, you're gonna move Klingman out”

Once again Consigliere Tom didn't dig deep enough same as Sollozzo's drug proposal unlike Geary's sources

Whose ass should I kick?

Vito for appointing Tom consigliere or Tom a good lawyer not Mafia consigliere Both

I started a thread on this subject here:

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=761864&Searchpage=1&Main=29538&Words=%2Bliability&Search=true#Post761864

In fairness to Tom, I reckon in this instance Tom might not have been incompetent

The registered owners are Jacob Lawrence, Allen Barclay both Beverly Hills Attorneys
The real owners are the old Lakeville Road group from Cleveland and Roth
Meyer Klingman, the licensee runs the store, a piece of it, too

It is not rocket science! for Geary to figure if Michael is interested in the casino, he has to move someone out and to get the license it had to be Klingman

I mentioned this in another thread but Franzese did a really nice interview for the media outlet Buzzfeed on YouTube where he reviews scenes from mob movies. One of the scenes was the Moe Greene scene and he rated it 0/5 on a scale of how realistic the scene was. His main issue was that Tom couldn’t be consigliere because he wasn’t Italian. He also said Greene would’ve been beat up or killed on the spot for talking to a boss like that.

Another question: Are there any references to made men in The Godfather? I don’t remember ever hearing anyone talking about someone having their button or being straightened out like they do in other mob movies and areas of entertainment. It seems to be such an honor for people in that life and while it’s safe to assume that the main male characters have all been made, there is no mention of it. Michael most likely went through the ceremony and was made acting boss as soon as he got back to New York.

I didn't realize this thread was the book forum!

Sonny was a hothead can't talk business with him Tom's appointment was in peace time

Vito wasn't exactly overrun with choices He knew Sonny was a bad Don, Tom wasn't a wartime Consiglieri

I don't think Tom put all the pieces together of Michael's baptism murders master plan In fairness they played everything close to their chest and needed him to be clean

He knew they were going to come at Michael but then says he thought it would have been Clemenza not Tessio He knew Tessio was a dead man but I reckon he didn't figure the brutality of it all No one did!

He did find out about the existence of Rocco's secret regime but reckon that was because of the finances, they were being paid more than their jobs worth and Rocco was reporting direct to Michael not through him

In his Senate subcommittee testimony in II, Cicci mentions that "at first I was a button," and explains what "button" means. It's not clear that Michael was "made," since he happened into the job after Sonny was killed. For that matter, it's not clear that every made man went through a ceremony we're familiar with. One of the nice things about being an absolute sovereign (the Don) is that he can do what he wants. Fat Vinnie Teresa, a former New England mafioso turned government rat, said that there was no ceremony there: "the boss just called you to The Office one day and said you were in."

Fair point Evita makes sense

So no “My compliments” to Geary Poor Tom still copped the look from Michael
The licence seemed done deal, with good man Turnbull Nobody saw the squeeze coming!

Fair point. Like you, I think that it is implied that they were “made”. But during this period in the mafia, some families seemed to be much more close-knit so maybe a ceremony wasn’t always necessary for some people. Vito’s kids were very much born into that life and grew up in it even though he did not want them to enter his world and his two key capos Clemenza and Tessio were with him from the beginning. Before the american mafia was organized into separate families.

Another note is that Lucky Luciano actually wanted to get rid of the ceremony altogether but Vito Genovese persuaded him to keep it.

Thanks for the link reference

Vito liability more than Tom He caused all the problems
1 permitting Carlo marry Connie
2 treating Carlo outcast
3 allowing Carlo beat Connie
4 appointing Tom consigliere
5 letting himself be shot
6 Sonny bad Don
7 Sonny killed because Carlo beat Connie
8 Fredo was well
9 Michael never wanted this for you

10. Sending Luca Brasi to his death

Why do we never see a loose side of Michael? Just for some character involvement etc.. I always get the impression Pacinos character is a bit..just one sided...

I understand the films and the seriousness, but to have or at least see another side of him as a charachter might of added some depth that’s maybe missing...

Good point, Fergie. We do see one example of Michael's playful side in a deleted scene from GF. He's in a hotel bed with Kay in NY. He convinces her to play a telephone operator, calling Tom Hagen "long distance" so Michael can tell Tom he's still in New Hampshire and will be at the Mall later. He and Kay giggle.

As far as I know, Michael makes one--count 'em, one--joke in the Trilogy. At his party in III, Johnny Fontaine sings "Salcicc' His Own" (a pun on "To Each His Own), and Michael leaves the room. He says he's going to the kitchen to get a "salcicc' sandwich." Yuck yuck.

There's this deleted scene in the hotel room with Kay:

https://youtu.be/gX2nxwYkXDA

I don't know if it gets into any video versions.

Edit: what TB said above.

There's also the deleted scene when Michael interviews his niece's fiance and jokes about his wealth.

What might have been....perhaps glimpses of “loose side of Michael”!

The Godfather

• Michael and Kay

after “The Bells of St. Mary's” at Radio City Music Hall -

Kay: Mike, would you like me better if I were a nun? Like in the story, you know?
Michael: (after pausing) No

Kay: Then would you like me better if I were Ingrid Bergman?
Michael: Now that's a thought...

• Michael and Clemenza

during Clemenza tutoring Michael about the noisy gun to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey -

Clemenza: All right, you shot them both Now what do you do?
Michael: Sit down, finish my dinner...

• Michael and Apollonia

Sicily scenes

The Godfather II - deleted scene [what Olivant said above]
Sonny's daughter Francesca and fiancé Gardener Shaw

This was a really nice scene indeed showing Michael having a heart! as the loving, caring family man, joking and laughing as opposed to the ruthless, murderous Mafia Don

Sadly, it also showed how Fredo was not part of Family matters nor Family business nor....“And Fredo -- well -- Fredo was -- well --”

...and, sadly, earlier in the boathouse, Tom excluded from the discussion with Johnny Ola.

The Francesca scene is, as you said, really nice. As I've mentioned before: in the "Saga" version of GF and II shown many times on US cable TV, there's an additional ~10 seconds at the very end of that scene. Michael turns to a hulking young man in a plaid sports coat and says, "How's the football, Santino?" "Fine, Uncle Michael," he replies. That guy is Sonny's second son (his oldest son, Frank, was shown reading a "Get Well" card to Vito when he returned home from the hospital in GF).

I'd be curious to know about the evolution of Fredo from book to movie? In the book, Fredo is portrayed as a tough guy who falls to pieces when Vito is shot. Were they writing with Cazale in mind when they changed him into a pipsqueak bumbler? Did they audition tons of guys for the role?

Well, not really Pete. In the novel it says that at 30 he's still living with his parents, is dutiful, and has no animal force. It's Sonny who says that Freddie was always a pretty tough guy. So, there's really nothing in the novel except Sonny's statement to assess Fredo as a tough guy.