The conventional wisdom is that Vito wanted something "legitimate" for Mike, and even he tells Michael this at the end of his life. I wonder, however if this really was his wish. In the beginning of GF, there is the scene with Kay where Michael goes on about how he is not like his family, and there is the deleted scene where Vito makes it clear that he wants Michael in the fold.

What I am wondering what Vito's state of mind was at the point he knew Genco would die. First he had to be very aware of his own mortality, and that he was nominally going to pass the torch to Santino. While nepotism had something to do with Vito naming Tom Consigliere, I also think he did it to use Tom as a person who could keep Sonny from cutting off his nose in spite of his face.

But in truth, after Sonny died because of his temper and Tom's inability to control him, he is not especially surprised. When he announces that he never thought Tom was a bad consigliere but that Santino was a bad Don, he is not exactly sending anyone a news flash. He is just saying what everyone already knew.

I make these points because Vito was no fool. He had to know in advance that Sonny was not going to be a worthy heir, and I believe in the back of his mind he always really wanted michael to be his successor. With Michael in the family business, perhaps Vito, had he not been shot, would have figured out a way to allow Michael to take control of things using Tom as a kind of go between to keep the Michael Santino relationship smooth. In other words somehow allow Santino to think he was running things when he really was not. This would have meant Michael would not have had a career in politics, or as a union leader as some have suggested, but instead something closer to "home." Thoughts?

As usual, a good topic Dontomasso.

Nearly all fathers want their sons to have a better life than they themselves have had. Look at Tony Soprano as a comparison - he stated emphatically that he didn't want A.J. to follow into the family business because it was a tough life.

I think part of what happened with Vito and his sons was different because - in the novel - Sonny saw Vito kill Fanucci. In the film, obviously, it's not as clearly defined. But Vito said "every man has but one fate" and Santino's fate was sealed when he witnessed his father kill a man. I think that Vito would have better protected Santino from the family business had Santino not witnessed Fanucci's murder. But once that happened, Vito felt that the next best thing was to indoctrinate him with tools to succeed "in the life." Much to Vito's chagrin, Santino often disregarded the advice in a stubborn way.

Michael, on the other hand, was adamant in not following in his father's footsteps. And Vito, not wanting to make the same mistake with Michael that he made with Sonny, went to extra efforts to keep Michael out of the family business.

As DT said, Vito was no fool. He saw that Michael was much smarter than Santino. But Vito wanted to use Michael's intelligence in the legitimate world. Vito knew Sonny never saw the big picture, whereas Michael had vision. I think Vito planned to have Michael exert his influence and contacts, where as Sonny could be used to crack heads when necessary. But I think Vito always wanted Michael to not get involved in the seedy aspects of their family, which was why Vito was so upset to learn of Michael's role in Solozzo's murder.

So in the much maligned GF III was Michael trying to become what his father wanted him to be? If so, everything goes back to Turnbull's mantra "Crime doesn't pay."

As usual, good topic, dt. And, as usual, the novel provides more detail.
As Goombah notes, Vito selected Sonny by default, for the reasons he said. Vito wanted Sonny to be a lawyer because, "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns" (apologies, dt and Klyd). But, it was not to be.

And yes, Vito in the novel knew he wouldn't live forever, and considered Fredo unsuited and, really, Sonny, too. Clemenza told Kay on the way home from Connie's wedding that Michael would inherit the family business.

And yet, Vito claims he never wanted Michael involved in the Olive Oil Business. So, what did he want?

I've posted before that, if Vito's had his way, Michael would have gotten his law degree and run for Congress, later Senate or Governor (not inconceivable in those days notwithstanding Michael's family connections). Then he could have worked to legalize gambling--either in New York or nationwide--and channeled his father's labor connections into monetary and political support for himself and fellow politicos who supported Michael's efforts to legalize gaming. Sonny, in that scheme, would be head of an ever-shrinking illegal Corleone enterprise.

If that had happened, it would have made an interesting story to see how Michael and Sonny shared power--or fought over power.

Yes, an excellent topic!

I think that Michael would have been on the "legitimate side" of the family business and would have played a huge role in .... as you say ....channeling his father's political connections into building a legal gambling empire in Nevada. And if Sonny had lived he just may have been the "Frank Pentangeli" back in New York running the illegal end of the family business.

But this brings up another question. Let's say that Sonny had lived. Would Barzini have continued on his mission to bring down Vito and the Corleone empire? If so, Vito still would have had to get Michael back to America safely thus calling for the big sitdown with all of the families. The Corleone's would have had to make it appear that they were weak while they plotted to take out the heads of the families. None of that would have changed. The only difference ( and it would have been a HUGE difference ) was that Michael, being a "pezzanovante" in the "legitimate world" obviously would not have been the major player in the plot by Vito to take back control. So with that being the case, would Vito have been able to pull it off by plotting with and setting up Sonny to become the new boss after taking out Barzini and company? What other option would Vito have had?

I don't think Michael was trying to live according to his father's wishes. I think that GFIII was more about Michael trying to repent for what he himself had become. Michael realized by the end of GFII that he was acting more like the irrational Don than their wise father Vito.

Michael was always much more disciplined and mentally strong when compared to Sonny. Michael's strength was more aligned with the same qualities in Vito. However, Vito never become "blood thirsty" to the degree his sons evolved. Sonny certainly was and Michael slipped to that level by the end of GFII. No better evidence than killing Fredo, Pentangelli, and Roth. And I think Michael was horrified that he allowed himself to be lead to such a fate. Even Tom Hagen recognized it in the boathouse when he said "You've won. Do you have to wipe everybody out? Translate that to "When will you ever be satisfied? Does anyone who crosses you in any way have an automatic death sentence?"

Well, in fact Sonny did live through the killling of Solozzo, and he as well as Tessio and Clemenza followed Michael's disagreement with Hagen that there could be a negotiated solution. Everyone knew the killing of Sol was going to bring on a full scale war, which it did. Problem is Sonny mismanaged the war. Lets say he had lived. Michael was off in Sicily, and would eventually see his wife die in what was an attempt on his life. That would have happened regardles of whether or not Sonny lived or died. By that point in the story, Michael's fate was sealed. He had killed a police captain and Solozzo, and there is no way he could have returned and had a shred of legitimacy. Lets say Sonny lived...how would it play out?

I think there would have been a war of attrition, and as Vito regained his health, he would have had the good sense to make the peace and get back to business. I could see him cutting the same deal to bring Michael home, but I do not see Sonny having tha ability to raise a secret regime, to bluff Carlo into thinking he would become his right hand man in Vegas, or to publically fire Tom as consigliere. I also do not See SOnny as being secure enough in his own skin to bring in badly needed new blood such as Neri. Instead, I think that under Sonny's leadership Tessio would have been joined by Clememza in treachery, and the family could have been fragmented. Once Vito died, Sonny probably would have bought that nonsense about going to the meeting Brooklyn where he would be safe, and then "badda bing."
Does that leave Michael holding the bag? Or does it send Michael to Vegas to run a legitimate gambling business with Hagen as his lawyer, and abandoning New York altogether?

Well argued, dt.

If Sonny had lived, Michael wouldn't have been the Don. I posited earlier that Michael could have finished law school and been elected to Congress, then Senator Corleone...Governor Corleone...But that scenario was if he hadn't killed Sol and Mac. That act made him a soldier in the war, not a civilian. He'd always be a target for retribution. As you said, Vito would have had to make the peace to get him back from Sicily even if Sonny lived.

But Michael would always have needed to be in the Family to be protected. In that scenario, Michael would have gone to Nevada to open the "legitimate" part of the Family. As long as Vito lived, he'd be protected. But afterward? As you speculated, Sonny's temperament probably would have incented Tess and Clem to plot against him, and he would have missed the cues Michael saw. So, after Vito died, Michael would have had to think and move real fast to secure his place in the family--and that might have made for a deadly conflict with Sonny.

It sounds as if Sonny and Michael would have become like the brothers in Richard Condon's Prizzi series, Eduardo and Vincent. Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside. I don't think , outside of a few occasional normal brotherly flareups there would have been too much static between them because Sonny wouldn't have felt passed over, actually being boss of the muscle end, and Michael likely wouldn't have been as condescending and cold to Sonny as he became to Fredo, since Sonny's death actually had a lot to do Michael's personality path.

Sonny and Michael wouldn't have the natural conflict that Michael and Fredo had because theoretically each of them would be boss in their own bailiwick. And although Sonny isn't as smart as Michael he's not as dumb as Fredo so I don't think he would run around doing dumb things designed to make people think he's someone.

I think for all his bravado, Sonny could/did recognize that Michael was smarter and could be the future of the family while Michael would never feel the need to be responsible for Sonny. I see Michael taking over legalized gambling, huge construction companies, banks, sports teams, etc while being able to rely on shrinking but still loyal/deadly East Coast crews.

That said, if there were a NY conflict with the Rosatos I don't think, unlike Pentangeli, that Sonny would ask Michael's permission before handling it or see the full ramifications of doing so. So that could cause some problems...

If you assume the Corleone family was like the Roman Empire, then the Michael-Sonny divide would be much like the way the Roman Empire split into two...one with capitals in Rome and Constantinopes (but in this case New York and Las Vegas). To take the analogy a step further, the barbarians at the gate who overran Rome would be akin to the Rosatos who were taking over New York, while the new legitimacy -- in the case of Rome, Christianity, and in the case of the Corleones Legal Gambling, would overtake the Corleones completely. The real problem is that in the case of the Corleones the hand behind both threats was the same -- Hyman Roth, who could summon muscle when he needed it and schmooze with pezzanovante at the same time. Sonny would have never been able to ourlast or outwit Roth.

With Roth running roughshod over Sonny in New York, what was Michael to do? Surely Roth would have probably planned a hit on Michael in Nevada even if Sonny lived, and he would have done to Sonny what he did to Pentangeli-- or worse. Where would that leave Michael?

I think the fulcrum in all the tensions and problems Michael had with Roth were Fredo. Fredo resented being "passed over" as he saw it. Now whether he "ran into Johnny Ola" and got used and manipulated or actually sought out Roth/Ola and suggested certain things, it's Fredo's issues which allow Roth to make his move.

But would Fredo have had those issues if he was firmly under big brother's Sonny's thumb in NY? I'm not so sure. Sonny would not have been able to see the big picture like Roth or Michael, but on the other hand with Sonny in Pentangeli's position Roth would have had no belief that he could make an attempt on Michael's life and in the case of failure try to blame Sonny. Michael held back on settling accounts with the Rosatos to close financial deals with Roth and find out who set him up. Would Michael have been so blase about this chess game if it were Sonny's life at stake as opposed to Pentangeli's? Well the Michael by the end of GF2 would be sure. But earlier?

With Sonny around with his famed temper and unquestioned loyalty I think Roth would have had to find a different approach to deal with Michael. And I wonder if the Rosatos would have even had the stones to challenge Sonny, as opposed to Pentangeli. Either way I don't see Sonny asking permission to war with the Rosatos. He would have come out blasting. Of course it's Sonny so maybe he still makes a fatal mistake in a barbershop or club somewhere...

But I think the Michael:Sonny or even the Sonny:Fredo links were much much stronger than the Michael:Fredo relationship. And maybe Sonny, as opposed to Michael, keeps Tom around, which would likely make both Tom and Michael much less stressed..