in the novel only barzini and tatt get it b/c the don realized barzini was using tatt as a puppet. thus by eliminating those two the other sheep would follow the corleones, and this eliminates the huge burden of having to whack all 'five', which seems unrealistic to me.

http://www.gangsterbb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005943#000000

i had hoped to get some discussion on this.....'all along it was barzini'..... in the novel mike and the don use this knowledge and realize who they must hit.(barzini&tatt).....what benefit comes of this knowledge in the movie? he just whacks all five resulting in a rambo style ending. we get no indication of how mike managed to lure the 5 fam. into his trap, or get them to drop their guard so he can whack all of them the same day.

The scene requires viewers to have one of those "leaps of faith" that movies demand of us periodically. Of course Michael didn't have to kill all of them. But doing so accomplished several things for the benefit of GF and, as it turned out, the later two films:
--It showed Michael's ruthlessness;
--It established him as a person who never gave an enemy a pass (especially valuable when Fredo betrayed him);
--It gave FFC the opportunity to put a big, gory finish on GF, in much the same way other directors used stylized violence to jazz up their films (compare, for example, Sonny's demise with the ending of "Bonnie and Clyde").

As a practical matter, Michael would have had to kill all five within minutes of each other--any delay would have sent them underground or marshalling their armies against his. This would be an almost impossible task under any circumstances. Then again, how many of Rambo's (or any other movie hero's) achievements were realistic?

seemingly mike makes no use of the barzini information, like he does in the book. knowing barzini was the ring leader, is a meaningless tidbit in coppolas version. agree??

I agree that only the two Dons needed to be killed but that was a hell of a scene if you ask me. But there are plenty of questions you can ask Ice like for example there was no Marry Mike had two sons I guess they changed one of his sons to a girl so that Mike would be more upset when he only has one son and Kay has an abortion in II. Also you can ask where was Nino or Jules? The point is the movie and novel are different in many ways and if we spend all our time picking out bits and pieces that differ in novel and movie we wont have time to enjoy either of them.

too, you don't whack a booss without the permission of the commission....

Mike wasn't the type to ask permission to whack two of them...it would be stupid to ask...it might bring all five families down on the Corleones...it certainly would mess up their move to Vegas

better to do it...and ask forgiveness of the successors.

Barzini and Tattaglia had to go for direct and obvious reasons, the others because of the implied or actual threat they caused during the Sollozzo business...even sitting on the sidelines is not the act of a friend.

Connie hit he nail on the head she calls him a lousy cold-hearted bastard

No mama, i dont necessarily think that way of mikey.

As Turnbull said, as long as they were all killed within minutes of each other so as not to send the surviving Dons diving into hiding, there really was no "trap" or "dropping of their guard" necessary.

Don't forget, Don Corleone had made peace with the other families years before, the truce was in effect and working, the war was long since over, and there was no reason for anyone to feel as though they were in danger from Michael.

Except, of course, for Barzini, who was wise enough to perceive Michael as a threat and realize he needed to be eliminated.

Or maybe Barzini convinced the other Dons that with Vito dead Michael was no longer bound to honor Vito's peace treaty with the other families, so the Barzini plot against Michael was approved by the heads of the other families, causing Michael to believe that he had to eliminate them also.

Michael didnt want to wipe everybody out, just his enemies.