Who killed the men that tried to kill Michael? Couldn't have been Fredo. Roths messenger boy Johnnie?

Paule B. Welcome to the boards. Your first post is an interesting one. Who killed the Tahoe Assasains has been a question that has been debated for many years on these boards. There have been many different theories by many different members on these boards, and while many of them have been valid, no one has been able to ever answer that question with 100% certainty.

Here are some links to some posts from the past which address the question :

http://www.gangsterbb.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002066#000002


http://www.gangsterbb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002741

http://www.gangsterbb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004613


Do you have any theories?


Don Cardi

I'm not paulieb, but I'd like to post a theory. My apologies for its length; but since I'm fairly new, I didn't get the opportunity to discuss this 3 or 4 times as others who have been members for years have been able to do. So I guess you could say I'm making up for lost words.

I read the links Don Cardi provided, hoping that my theory would be original and that no one else submitted it in the past. Well, darn, a couple of people did -- but I have some extra points to add. Here goes:

If we trust that Michael's hypothesis (voiced to Tom) is correct and was inserted by FFC to show Michael's intelligence and sharp antennae ("... unless I'm very wrong, they're dead already, killed by someone close to us, very afraid that they botched it"), then I think it backs up the following scenes/implications:

(1) How would the gunmen know that they "botched" it -- that Michael was still alive -- within minutes? The gunmen themselves would be on the run. Someone else with an interest in the proceedings would have to be close at hand to check the result. The first person we see on the scene is Rocco. The alarms have just been sounded when Rocco arrives at the house and sees Michael outside, making him the first to know that the hit has failed. His first words are "They're still on the property. Stay inside, Michael."

(2) When Michael orders Rocco to capture the gunmen alive, Rocco replies, "We'll try" -- a hint that he knows he will have to kill them.

(3) With Michael staying indoors as Rocco told him to, Rocco is free to lead the search unsupervised. Rocco has the opportunity to kill the gunmen without being seen. How?

First, he disperses the other searchers: We immediately see him giving orders for them to go to various sites around the compound.

Second, with his subordinates elsewhere, Rocco is free to head right for the drainage ditch. And how does he know he will find the assassins there? Because I think this is the planned escape route. We find the two dead men right at the mouth of a large sewage pipe (drainage pipe, culvert ... whatever you call it). Could this not imply that the sewer system is the conduit through which the would be-killers planned to escape the compound? At least the one pipe I saw was large enough for a man to crawl through.

(4) How does Rocco manage by himself to kill two men armed with machine guns? I think the only way this can occur is if the gunmen were approached by someone they trusted, which would be the case if Rocco were their co-ordinator or "insider." A knife is easily hidden -- up a sleeve, in a pocket, wherever. Rocco could simply be talking to them or instructing them one minute and whip out the knife the next, before the hit men could even aim and shoot their weapons.

Also, I think that the hit men are doomed regardless of how Rocco attempts to kill them. Defending themselves with their machine guns is out of the question, as the noise would attract the other searchers right to their location.

(5) When Tom Hagen orders Rocco to get rid of the bodies, Rocco looks around and asks, "Where's Mike?" It may be insignificant; it could simply mean that Rocco is taken aback by getting an order from Tom, since he doesn't know yet that Michael has made Tom temporary Don.

But I suppose one could also theorize that Rocco wants to gauge how closely Michael is watching him. Note how Rocco seems to take a special interest in the assassins' guns. If Michael is on Rocco's tail, observing him like a hawk, that could indicate that Michael has suspicions about him already, which Rocco wants to avoid.

(6) I think it's plausible that Rocco could have opened the drapes to Michael and Kay's bedroom. He and Al have access to the house -- in fact, they have a fair bit of freedom in it, in my view. (Isn't one of them allowed to take Connie upstairs to one of the bedrooms of the NY house at the end of the 1st GF?) Rocco sits in on Michael's meetings, whether in his office, in the boat house, etc. At an early point in the film, Michael even tells Senator Geary that "I trust these men with my life."

(7) I think one of the most telling segments, though, is a cinematic one; and it occurs at the end of the film. In Godfather II FFC employed several scenes that parallel the first Godfather. For instance, both movies open with a lavish celebration during which the Don is holding court and hearing requests.

At the end of the first Godfather, the Don has his enemies and betrayers killed: Tessio, Carlo, Moe Green, the heads of the rival families. Likewise, there is a similar rash of killings on behalf of the Don at the end of Godfather Part II: Frank Pentangeli, Fredo, Hyman Roth ... and Rocco. Why is Rocco killed? I believe he is killed because he is also a traitor. By the end of GF II Michael has put two and two together and surmises that Rocco must have been involved in the Tahoe shooting.

I believe the meeting scene near the end (among Michael, Rocco, Al, and Tom) seals Rocco's fate. Michael is harshly critical of Tom because Tom didn't confide a job offer to him. Michael is testing the loyalties of his inner circle, and perhaps Rocco's presence was a deliberate move by Michael to illustrate how he demands absolute fidelity.

Of course, Rocco's other reason for being present is to receive his orders to kill Hyman Roth; and whether he refuses or accepts this mission, it is a death warrant. If he refuses, his loyalty will be in question and Michael would likely have him killed anyway. If he accepts, which he did, the FBI surrounding Roth will surely turn their fire on him. I believe that Rocco chose what he thought was the lesser of two evils: There was a chance he could survive the FBI shooting and then make a "deal." (And even if he didn't survive, as was the case, at least he knew the time and place of his death and that it would be a quick demise.)

None of this means that Rocco and Fredo were in cahoots, or even that they knew about each other's role. Roth/Ola may have approached each man separately.

However, I do have a problem with my theory straight off the bat: If Rocco was in on it, telling the shooters the site of Michael's house, the location of his bedroom, the way to sneak onto the estate... then what was left for Fredo to do that made him a traitor also?

As Don Cardi's links indicated, we just can't seem to come up with a perfect argument for who shot the shooters...

Its an interesting theory, but I don't think it is the case. Rocco lost out on a power struggle with Neri, and I think he went on the suicide mission to kill Roth to show his loyalty and nothing more.

Not bad, Cristina. You make some compelling points. I especially like the idea of the drainage ditch as the escape route.

However.....

Had Fredo known of Rocco's complicity he certainly would have told Michael during the "I didn't know it was gonna be a hit" scene. Why would he take the fall himself?

Even if Fredo didn't know that Rocco was involved, as dumb as he was he still would have realized that, given the death of the hitmen, he was not the only one involved on the inside, and offered some theory to Michael as to who else had participated.

Even without any disclosure by Fredo, I have to give Michael credit for being able to figure out that another or others on the inside were involved besides Fredo. He let Rocco stay as a member of his inner circle for an awfully long time, which leads me to believe that he didn't suspect him.

As flawed as the film is with respect to this particular (and important) aspect of the plot, I believe that if it was the intention of MP and FFC to have us believe that Rocco was a traitor we would have been given some concrete evidence of that somewhere along the way.

Fredo was the only one identified as a being traitor. I believe that it was the intention of MP and FFC to leave us thinking that it was Fredo who killed the hitmen, without realizing that some 30+ years later there would be fanatics like us still trying to figure the thing out.

I don't think Rocco would have betrayed the family, as he felt obligated that they were treating him very well compared to his old job as a policeman. Rocco was blamed for his failure as security chief of corleone compound, and this led him to being a suspect in the attempted assasination attempt of Michael. I don't think a traitor would go on a difficult, but not impossible mission.

I think that you're mixing up Rocco with Neri.

Neri was the ex-policeman, not Rocco.


Don Cardi

Cristina's Rocco theory really struck me as being very plausible.

I think the only thing left to figure out concretely would be Fredo's role, as it seems like there's just too many subliminal references towards Rocco being a traitor to count him out.

Itd be interesting to find out exactly how Roth had maniupulated and used Rocco and Fredo.

Some people here look at Rocco's volunteering for that "suicide" mission to kill Roth at the airport as expiation for his alleged role in the Tahoe shooting. That would fit in with Cristina's analysis. BUT:

In the sequencing of the film, Michael says to Tom, "...and then I'll know who the traitor in my family is..." The film immediately segues, bold and loud, to Fredo and that phone call from Johnny Ola. Then Michael, knowing that Roth was behind the shooting, goes to Cuba with only his bodyguard--literally into Roth's lair, the place where he knows Roth plans to have him killed--for one purpose: to find out who the traitor is. The traitor, of course, is Fredo. After he confirms Fredo and makes the attempt on Roth's life, there's no further emphasis on the Tahoe shooting--except for Michael to lure Fredo into his own lair and whack him.
Now, we know Michael never gives an enemy or traitor a pass. If Rocco had been part of the Tahoe plot, why didn't Michael whack him? You might argue that dispatching him on the "suicide" mission was Michael's vengeance, but I don't agree:
A subtheme of GFII [sound of plawrence groaning] is how Neri pushes past Rocco, and tries to push past Hagen, to become Michael's Number Two guy. Rocco is essentially reduced to being a glorified bodyguard in GFII while Neri participates in strategic discussions, business deals, etc. Neri was clearly more valuable to Michael than Rocco. So, in the penultimate boathouse scene, after Michael humiliates Tom ("...if history proves anything, it's that you can kill anyone"), he immediately says, "Rocco?" He doesn't say "Al?" because he needs Neri, but Rocco has become dispensable. Rocco volunteers, IMO, as a last-ditch effort to ingratiate himself with Michael and get back on equal footing with Neri-- not because he had a role in the Tahoe shooting.

I've also postulated in the past that while Michael charged Rocco with pulling of the Roth Assassination, he did not require that Rocco himself be the asassin.

Presumably, Michael had to approve any plan that Rocco came up with, and had he come to Michael with an alternate but viable scheme, there's no reason to think that Michael would not have approved it.

You know, just when I start to think I'm "smaht" and can come up with a decent theory, there turn out to be two counter-arguments for every one good argument I propose.

But let me postulate this: Would Fredo necessarily know that the gunmen had been killed? When Tom Hagen ordered Rocco to "get rid of the bodies," I guess one could surmise that he meant that they should be disposed of the "mafia way" -- make 'em disappear as if they never existed. Fredo, or anybody else, could just be left to think that the gunmen had simply gotten away. Possible?

Those are good points, and it is true that the Tahoe incident isn't re-visited after Fredo's confession. But I think there is a reason why it would re-enter Michael's mind near the end of the movie. What I originally thought is that Michael didn't suspect Rocco's involvement until much later in time.

Before Fredo confesses, Michael travels out of state without Al or Rocco. He has a new body guard instead. This was right after the murder attempt, so I believe he was a bit shaky in the trust of all his subordinates (except Tom). Since the assassins were after Michael and not his family, he felt it safe to leave Al and Rocco at Lake Tahoe under the watchful eye of Tom.

After Fredo confesses, Michael has found the traitor in his family; there was no need to search any further. We see Al and Rocco become more involved again. Rocco is even in Washington with him during the Senate Hearings helping him with paperwork in the hotel room.

I think it was after Mamma's death, when Michael was cementing his plans for Fredo's fate, that he began to mull things over. How could his brother have arranged everything about the hit on his own -- sneaking into his home to open the drapes, killing two gunmen, etc.? He realized that Roth probably needed a second party for these logistics. Rocco was allowed into his home. Rocco was first on the scene to see Michael alive. Rocco led him to the hitmen's corpses.

Note that at this point Michael is becoming quite paranoid. He even questions Tom's loyalty. Rightly or wrongly, he started to believe Rocco could have been swayed by Roth; and Michael would have no qualms about killing Rocco to be "extra sure" about his own future safety. If Rocco hadn't volunteered for Roth's killing, Michael would have had Rocco killed some other way if he now convinced himself that Rocco was a traitor.

Of course, the flaw with this argument is that I'm reading Michael's mind, making assumptions about what he's thinking . But from the start I had a strong intuition that this is the point where he began to suspect Rocco, even if out of paranoia. It is clear that Michael is losing his grip on whom to trust. Fredo has to go. Now Rocco has to go "just in case."

And that's the rub -- the issue that puts a big damper on the Rocco theory. Fredo is so obviously the traitor. He has to be -- for dramatic impact, because of the scenes Turnbull mentioned, because of his confession to Michael, etc.

Even if Fredo were the main traitor and Rocco a secondary traitor, it still doesn't pan out logically. As I mentioned before, if Roth & Ola had Rocco as the insider who would open the drapes, check to see if Michael was dead or alive, plan the escape route through the drainage pipes, and/or kill the gunmen -- then what did they need Fredo for? To sneak the hitmen onto the estate? To identify Michael's house? To point out where the bedroom window is situated? OK, but these are all things Rocco could have done since they had him on their side anyway.

This is getting to be a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle. I have to think about it some more ...

That supposes, though, that Michael believes that it was Fredo who killed the assassins.

I certainly don't believe he thought that to be the case.

Michael didn't feel "safe" leaving Rocco and Neri under Tom's thumb (no pun intended). Either or both could have squashed Tom like a bug. For all he knew at that time, either or both (or someone else) was the traitor, and was still there at the estate. He left Tahoe because he knew that a) he was the intended target, but b) Roth was ruthless enough to kill his wife (and his kids, if they'd been in the room) to get at him. By removing himself from Tahoe, he removed the primary target, so he was reasonably sure that they'd be (temporarily) safe.
As long as you're pondering conundrums, Cristina, consider this anomaly:
Rocco was strongly identified with Michael. No doubt Michael listed him as "chief of security" for his estate and/or his "legitimate" enterprises in Nevada. We see him in his "security" role during Anthony's party, when he's constantly next to Michael and very obviously scanning the crowd. Therefore, thousands of people knew he "belonged" to Michael.
After all that brouhaha at the Senate hearing, how would it look for Michael when his chief bodyguard--a guy who was attached to him at the hip--turned up as Roth's assassin?

I think we both agree that Michael knew a second traitor was involved -- one whose role was to kill the hitmen at the very least, since Fredo could not have done it. I think we just disagree on the timing.

You believe that Michael knew -- even after Fredo's confession -- that there was a second traitor to be caught. Michael right away would have launched an investigation. If evidence pointed to Rocco, he would have dealt with him long before the Roth hit.

The flaw with that argument is that the movie doesn't show Michael investigating any of his subordinates or even dwelling on the Tahoe shooting. Furthermore, if one believes that Rocco was completely loyal, then Michael would have uncovered the real traitor, since he never gives a betrayer a free pass. We don't see any such punishment meted out.

As Turnbull noted, the Tahoe shooting seems to be on the back burner. Other events are preoccupying Michael: the Senate hearings. his next move on Roth, his mother's death, and particularly his separation from Kay, which brought his anxieties about losing his family to fruition.

This is why I surmise that the thought of a second traitor never even occurred to Michael until he began to exhibit signs of paranoia, with every little perceived lapse in loyalty nagging his thoughts. When he thought that Rocco could very likely be the killer of the assassins, he then "took care of him" via the Roth assassination.

If Rocco suspected that he was being used by Michael in the Roth assassination attempt as a way of evening the score for his participation in the attempt on Michael, wouldn't he have run the other way?

I agree with Turnbull here. Rocco's designation of himself as the Roth assassin was his way of trying to regain his former position in the family, which had seemingly been usurped by Neri.

Besides, if Michael suspected Rocco he wouldn't have found it necessary to contrive the elaborate scenario in which Rocco kills Roth. He would have simply had him whacked the moment he was convinced of his suspicions.

Suppose Rocco had been taken alive (which is a whole 'nother question - why the guys guarding Roth shot and killed Rocco, rather than try and capture him)?

Turnbull and plawrence, I enjoy this debate with you. You raise so many good arguments, I can barely keep up. But I'm enjoying the challenge of trying.

And don't worry, I don't intend to make a habit of arguing against every little point you raise. The only thing is, if I read something you post and I have a quick reply in mind, I like to post it before I forget; it makes me feel "smaht." It's not often that I can think and express myself on the fly, so I like to enjoy it when the opportunity presents.

Now on to Turnbull:
Holy moley. Rocco, like Fredo, was "stepped over." Rocco must have been involved in the plot.

In the rest of your post you state that it's your opinion that Rocco volunteered for the Roth shooting to "ingratiate himself with Michael and get back on equal footing with Neri -- not because he had a role in the Tahoe shooting." Well, if my colleague was promoted over me, considered by my boss to be "clearly more valuable" while I was "dispensable," I'd have a serious case of sour grapes over my employment situation. In that setting, I can understand why Rocco, if approached by Roth or Ola, could be led to help them with their plot in exchange for a fat reward. Who's the smart one now, Neri?

I think it's possible that, by the end of GF II, Michael had his suspicions and sent Rocco on an assignment he couldn't refuse. It was either be killed by Michael for being disloyal, or be killed (or at least shot at) by the FBI.

You got me there. I see that we agree, though, that Michael couldn't afford to trust any of his right-hand men at that point.

While scanning older threads on this board, I came across a cogent observation: that one of the themes of GF II was to illustrate the treachery and double-crossing Michael could expect to contend with in his career, and how this inability to place trust affects his behaviour and decisions. (In fact, did you write that Turnbull?)

Sometimes, I'm rather surprised when people say things like "Rocco was absolutely loyal to Mike. He would never have been involved in his murder." Is there any such thing as true loyalty in that world? How do we know Rocco wouldn't behave like Tessio, like Paulie, or like Fabrizzio if pushed far enough or if given the right incentive? As Michael said, "All our people are businessmen. Their loyalty is based on that."

On the other hand, I also find quotes like the above understandable. Wouldn't it ring false if Tom Hagen were revealed as a traitor? It's because FFC and the actors brought full-fledged characters to life. We feel as if we know them and all their complexities. Some people cannot believe that Rocco had anything to do with the Tahoe shooting because they see no evidence of it in his personality as portrayed in the film.

Anyway, that's my two cents on that. I must get back to my thinking...

Tell me about it.

That's because there is none. The answer just wasn't figured into the story in an obvious way.

At least not as obvious as the fact that Fredo didn't know.

So people can come up with their endless theories for the next 30 years (which is apparently what's going to happen). Each will be discussed, argued with, and have its own hole. It's another of several flaws to the film...none of which seem to inhibit the greatness of the overall, predominant story.

That is, when people simply sit back and enjoy the overall, predominant story.


Apple

You can run, but you can't hide, from Michael Corleone.

I think that, during the meeting scene, Michael's harshness toward Tom over a perceived disloyalty made an impression on Rocco. He was going to be the next to be exposed.

So when Rocco is ordered to kill Hyman Roth at the airport (actually he was asked -- but a request from Michael Corleone is the same as an order, I would think), he has no real escape. If he refuses, it is more proof to Michael that he was disloyal all along and Michael would likely have him killed anyway; after all, Michael thinks he had a role in the Tahoe shooting (in my theory). If he accepts, which he did, the FBI surrounding Roth will surely turn their fire on him. I believe that Rocco chose what he thought was the lesser of two evils: At least he would know the time and place of his death and that it would be a quick demise.
Yes, I have to concede that it is more logical for Michael to have Rocco killed right away. His engineering Rocco's death by way of Roth's death is certainly convoluted, but I think that's a case of cinematic impact trumping logic.

In The Godfather Part II FFC employed several scenes that parallel the first Godfather. They open the same (with an outdoor family celebration) and they close the same (with Don Michael having his enemies and betrayers killed). In Part II, these are Frank Pentangeli, Fredo, Hyman Roth ... and Rocco. I think this is a clue to the audience that Rocco somehow betrayed Michael. By the end of GF II I believe Michael has put two and two together and surmises that Rocco must have been involved in the attempt on his life -- or at the very least his paranoia convinces him of Rocco's involvement.

I also have to wonder why Rocco didn't wear a bullet proof vest. His volunteering for the job showed his loyalty; why sacrifice his life unnecessarily in the bargain? The reason, I believe, is that he thought the protection of a bullet proof vest would only delay the inevitable. He had been found out. It was only a matter of time before Michael administered the punishment. Why suffer the dread of waiting for the axe to fall?

And Rocco would never have been taken alive because FFC just wouldn't allow it. It would "screw up all his arrangements" and dilute that cinematic impact he was aiming for.

Again, that's just my two cents...

If you think about it, its really ridiculous to think that Michael would approve the Hyman Roth hit plan if he knew that Rocco himself was to be the shooter. Here's a man, in his mid 40's, with a bad leg, who is widely known as a Corleone top man, trying to carry out a high profile assassination in broad daylight on a man who's flanked by FBI agents, in an airport of all places.

This made me think of the exact moment when Rocco is shot, you can see him clearly turn towards the shooters, almost as if he is welcoming the bullets. This would back up your theory that he hoped he was going to die there, except for the fact that it was probably shot this way just to make the squibs more visible.

While reading this topic, I kept wondering, could all of this supposed phasing-out of Rocco simply be because the actor, Tom Rosqui, was an older man, and perhaps had health problems or something? He died in 1991, but it just made me think his lack of scenes may have been because of professional reasons, and not story-line reasons.

I also wanted to point out the fact that if Rocco did know what his eventual fate would be at the hands of Michael, did he perhaps take notice of the situation with Pentangali, where his family was taken care of because he sacrificed his life for the family? As far as I know, Rocco was a bachelor with no kids, and he also may have had no knowledge of the situation with Pentangali, as he doesnt seem privy to inside information later in the film, but you never know I guess.

It's kind of interesting that if FFC and Puzo did have intentions of subliminally indicating that Rocco was a traitor, why did they not include ANY references or scenes indicating this?

Come to think of it, theres not only a lack of a "Rocco-traitor" scene, but Rocco barely has any scenes at all in the middle section of the movie.

I looked it up on the script, and he literally has zero dialogue between the "Where's Mike?" line following the assassination attempt, until way towards the end, when he has one insignificant line in the hotel in Washington, and then his next appearance after that is during the planning of the Roth hit.

Did FFC and Puzo really want to hide Rocco's treachery so deeply that they completely eliminated him from the storyline for most of the film?

Makes you think we may all be looking into this a bit too deeply.

Another possibility: There may have been more to Rocco's story, but it got left on the cutting room floor.
We know from the deleted scenes that are included in the "extras" DVD and in the "Saga" version that FFC filmed many scenes that didn't make the final cut. I'm sure those scenes are just the smallest part of the total. Somewhere, someplace, perhaps there's a scene showing what Rocco did (or didn't do) during the Tahoe shooting. Perhaps there's a scene showing how the shooters were killed (and who killed them). And much, much more.
I'd give anything to see those scenes. But then there'd be less to post about here.

Ya think...???

Look, I enjoy discussing these films as much as anybody. But there's a time to quite overANALyzing and simply appreciate the story. There are certain aspects and subplots that simply come to you over time after enjoying the movies for what they are - VERY GOOD ENTERTAINMENT.

But then....I guess that's why the BB is here!!



Apple

over ANALyzing ... So we're anal-retentive about this? Who, us?

IMO, analyzing aspects of the movie and enjoying the movie's entertainment value are not mutually exclusive. Both can be done at the same time -- and that's what we're doing.

Apple, you may well be right that there is no theory about the assassins that will fit because it wasn't thought out in the narrative. But the enjoyment is in trying to find one that's reasonable -- even if only 80% or 90% plausible. It's like working on a challenging puzzle. Another factor that makes it interesting is reading what others think, especially when they notice implications and relationships that you and I might miss.

You got it! Many films are forgettable right after one sees them. We don't even care about the plot holes and the unanswered questions. That's what's so great about the Godfather movies. They're such masterpieces that we can't help but be fascinated with every mystery they present.

I don't know if it over ANALyzing. I look at it more as our love for the films and how interesting it is that everytime we view the films we find out something new or discover the possibility of another deep sub plot.

It's what makes the movies so great! And it's what keeps us ALL coming back to these boards for more discussion. Personally I really enjoy hearing others views on certain aspects of the movie and enjoy the different interpretations of various scenes.


Don Cardi

I never thought of that. You guys are making it harder for me to shore up my Rocco theory . I had surmised that some kind of betrayal -- real or perceived -- prompted Michael to choose Rocco as Roth's shooter. But your observations show that this decision would cause great personal damage to Michael. Why send Rocco at all? When if Rocco had lived and cut a deal?

In fact, plawrence posed that question ("When if Rocco had been captured alive?") earlier in this thread, and I dismissed it (I'm embarrassed now ), saying that Rocco's death was a given. It was staged by FFC for dramatic effect. Now you've pointed out a flaw in that argument as well:

You caught me there, MM Tom Hagen. If FFC was so intent on dramatic impact, as I had postulated, why didn't he include a confrontational scene unveiling Rocco's disloyalty, like the one between Michael and Carlo in the 1st Godfather?

Yes, the answers to our questions may very well be right there.

I believe it was plawrence who had posted in an older thread that there are several plot holes in GF II: loose ends not tied up, lapses in logic, etc., as if Coppola and Puzo were on a tight deadline and didn't have time to think everything through. (I think it was plawrence who posted that. Apologies if I got it wrong; I'm relying on memory here.) The important thing, though, was the overall narrative. As plawrence also noted, the filmmakers would never have guessed that 30+ years later, people like us would be examining every little loose end.

Or, it could be that they did think things through; but, as Turnbull noted, time constraints meant they had to edit several scenes out.

But it still doesn't mean I can get this "Who killed the killers?" question out of mind so easily!

As I hope everyone knows, I love the films, too (except for Part III). It's what brought me to the BB in the first place.

But the day I notice things like a harmonica playing and then Deanna holding something long & silver in her hand and begin wondering what the association is...or the day I notice that nobody's sobbing at the cemetary after Vito's death ... that's the day I'll know I'm watching just a bit too hard and maybe looking out for things that don't necessarily matter, but might give me an excuse to go & harp on the BB.

Of course, when this happens and that day may never come...I'm sure there will be those fellow BB members who will be happy to nitpick and ANALyze every single detail along with me.

Maybe we can make that an addition to the GAME forum...how many absolutely meaningless details can you find in any of the three GF films - and somehow make them worthy of discussion or .

Finished venting...held it in long enough.

I shall speak no more on this matter. Everyone, enjoy your discussion. I'll just enjoy the movies.



Apple

Harmonicas and such notwithstanding, this particular question is hardly a "meaningless detail."

The entire plot of the movie revolves around the Tahoe assassination attempt. It's the absolutely pivotal scene, and to leave such a gaping plot hole is a huge flaw in an otherwise great film is unconscionable IMO, and certainly suitable fodder for extensive analysis.

Here's another good "Who Killed the Assassins" thread for your enjoyment.

http://www.gangsterbb.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004607;p=1

And I said OUR love for the films and everytime WE view the films. Are you not a part of OUR or WE? Did I imply that at all in my post? I think not. I am fully aware that you have a love for the films.

And BTW, I don't think tht you need to inform us everytime you decided to withdraw from a dicsussion or topic. If you wish to refrain from continuing in a discussion, then just refrain. No need for announcements.

Mke sure that you Enjoy the book too.


Don Cardi

I love the fact that in any other film, these types of things are called "plot holes" and "loose ends," whereas in reference to the Godfather Pt II, theyre "puzzle pieces" or considered scenes left "open to interpretation."