Also don’t forget that in “Rango”, Rango meets “The Man with no name” (in this film he’s called the spirit of the west) after to the ‘other side’ of the crossroads
This isn't terribly far fetched. The order of the movies being reversed also makes a certain kind of sense as to why Clint wields an 1851 Navy cap and ball in TGTBTH, but a more superior and efficient Colt SAA in the Dollars movies.
This is definitely an interesting theory. I have never thought of connecting the three films, especially like this. Interested in more content like this you have to come.
*JOE "BLONDIE" MANCO* aka "The Man With No Name" across The Dollars Trilogy. Is interesting seeing the events of each film backwards and seeing "The Angel" help those on a better path and destroy the true faces of evil from the world. Good analysis.
right on time!!! I was just getting into spaghetti westerns I watch TGTBTU first then a Few dollars more, I havent watched A fistful of dollars, I know TGTBTU was the last of the dollars trilogy but with your essay Its even better!!! Will definitely watch A fistful of dollars last.
They're great in any order. Then again, Leone is one of my favorite directors, and the dollars trilogy some of my favorite movies, so I suppose I have some bias there.
In my mind, it takes on that of urban legend, when you ask different people what old western stories they're familiar with, many will have contradictory and often impossible stories about many real outlaws who actually were alive in the mid to late 1800s. Often hyperbolized to make the outlaws seem like the exact opposite of the greek hero type where they are inhumanly strong, cunning, etc. but have morals that aren't necessarily good. That's what I think Clint Eastwood and the other main characters are supposed to be in this trilogy. Characters of an ever changing urban tale, just like any other famous old western outlaw.
You forgot High Plains Drifter. It drives home your point even more. I know it's not often considered part of this trilogy but Eastwood's character has alot of the same characteristics.
Leone did not like High Plains Drifter at all although Eastwood pretty much plays the same Man With No Name as in his movies. You can see why: the tone is way more earnest and "serious" than in his trilogy.
Good question, it comes down to advertising and word of mouth, so please if you like what you see spread the word and share with friends and thanks for watching
Personally i think it takes place in 1863 because it has suddle hints saying the Union is winning because of things like how they will get gold soon instead of paper money
Great video dude! I didn’t realize that the entire trilogy was released backwards, so thanks for that! Definitely changes how I view the endings to For A Few Dollars More and A Fistful of Dollars!
I prefer to think of it as a TRILOGY where it BUCKS THE TREND of most Trilogies ie. the films get better with each subsequent installment. FISTFUL is GOOD, A FEW DOLLARS MORE is EXCELLENT and TGTBATU is SIMPLY DIVINE!!...as the number of key characters increase with each film from CLINT on his own with the 1st one; with LEE VAN CLEEF in the 2nd and with LEE and ELI WALLACH by the end...where Eli STEALS the show!!! The ONE constant factor...ENNIO MORRICONE's SUBLIME SCORE for EACH MOVIE!! R.I.P ELI & ENNIO.
This is fascinating! I think it's clear TGB&U happens before the other two (thinking of the poncho). That poncho thing is deliberate. I don't think Lee VC is playing the same character (he's not "bad" in FAFDM), just an actor the director liked? I do wonder about the weaponry that may, along with the poncho, put TGB&U prior. There are other comments about this. I don't know that he's an angel, but the idea that getting rich is a pretext is interesting. Maybe he's not poor when he shows up in the other two, or maybe he doesn''t really want money. It's a really interesting take! Good job!
A Fistful of Dollars would be the second instalment in the trilogy, since there's a clear arc between that and a Few Dollars More that could not have taken place the other way around. In AFOD he is lost somewhere in the middle of nowhere, while in the next movie, he's clearly more experienced and well established as a bounty hunter. Sergio establishes that there has been some progress in the timeline by showing regular newspapers and passenger trains in what used to be the Wild West shown in prior movies. If we assume that is the correct timeline for the trilogy, and "The good the bad and the ugly" is its origin story, then ¿What happened between the end of that movie and "A Fistful of Dollars"? If I recall, in TGTBTU He rides away with 2 horses, weapons and 6 sacks of gold, but in AFOD, He arrives at some shithole riding an old mule and just a 50 cent coin in his pocket. ¿How he managed to lose the bounty? ¿Did "the ugly" caught up on him and stole the shit back? ¿Did he got robbed by someone else? ¿Did he gave away the money to charity? ... I think that the answer to that could be a 6 hour mini-series writen and directed by Quentin Tarantino, and Clint's son, Scott, taking on the role before he is too old.
Believe it or not you are actually correct and there is a Sumerian spiritual teaching on this very subject. There is the good udug And a bad udug But you can't tell them apart however they are assigned to a person whose soul is in limbo (in the balance) neither saves or damned the the two beings work to guide the person into becoming themselves whether that be a soul to be redeemed or a soul to be lost.
I like your video, interesting analysis; however the movies are not related, see for example the same actor dying in one and showing again (even though as a different character). You are right about the chronology, with the third one being the first one in time order, unfortunately the movies had not been conceived as a trilogy with its very meaning. They are a trilogy of the Spaghetti western genre because they share a few things in common like the director, actors, music, locations, themes etc. It would have been absolutely amazing to have trilogy a-la Star Wars but they are still some of the best movies ever made, the best of the genre for sure. Chapeau Sergio!
Why does few dollars more come before fistfull? It's in the names. Yes, Tg, TB, TU is first , because he get his Poncho at the end. Fistfull is next, then More. In Fistfull, Blondie gets beaten up and his gun hand severely injured. In More he wears a brace and when confronting Cavanagh he fights without using his right hand.
I've heard this before about Colonel Mortimer sister dies in a few dollars more but I'm pretty sure it's indigo's sister, and Mortimer is a guy who gets shot three times in the bedroom
"Once Upon a Time in the West' There are other similar movies: "My Name is Nobody," "Johnny Yuma," "For a Few Dollars Less," "Once Upon a Time in America"...
It is strange that the order you picked for the movies to view. How can Lee Van Cleef appear in what you call the second movie when he dies at the end of what you call the first?
It's "convenient" to call this a "trilogy", but it really isn't. Sure, GBU takes place over a year or more during the Civil War, and Leone knew Eastwood wasn't going to make any more films with him, so introduced the iconic outfit in this film. I saw all the spaghetti westerns on original release in theaters, etc.
Remake what? _For a Fistful of Dollars_ is not a plagiarism. It just took a cue from Kurosawa's film Yojimbo and made a different and, above all, successful one with record box office and a shoestring budget; something that did not happen to Kurosawa's film.
Despite Leone's words at the end, i c nothing deep in this trilogy. I've seen this trilogy more than i can count, seen every doc i could find & listened to several ACS (audio commentaries;) nobody has suggested what u said including Sir Christopher Fraying...u know...Sergio Leone's biographer
@@moosetrailpictures669 oh for sure man, and i mean, i love these movies so much, i practically watch them on repeat, so its great to find content about them
Interesting, but I think you’re simply taking things way too seriously. Enjoy them as stand alone movies, only with a few reoccurring actors. Clints role in TGTBaTU quite different from his in FAFDM.
Now it makes sense watching the pale rider, cause how I see it client is basically the pathfinder and the guider for the characters throughout the film. In place rider he's just totally a ghost that seeks justice not a vengeful shoot-ist not bounty hunter just a sketchy man with no goals just there to take gang and just leaves without reasons
This is a really interesting theory, and it makes sense. I rewatched The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly recently, and I noticed that multiple times throughout the movie, Blondie escapes from near-death situations due to what seems to be pure luck. For example, the scene where Tuco holds a gun to him and orders him to hang himself. Blondie follows his orders and it seems like he's perfectly willing to hang himself without putting up a fight when all of the sudden a perfectly shot cannonball destroys the building and Blondie miraculously escapes into thin air. I thought this was odd, as it is a known rule in storytelling that you can get characters into trouble by bad luck, but you never get them out of trouble with good luck. I think this definitely serves as evidence for Blondie being an angel of some sort.
Another Deus-Ex-Machina is coming across Bill Carson's stagecoach in the middle of the desert. Meanwhile A Fistful of Dollars seemed like a perfect story to me.
@@GMfishTuco references the Bible the whole time, more than anyone else. He's the main character. Blondie and Angel Eyes are an angel and the Devil fighting over his soul (the gold)
@@Palendrome….Who told you that? Oh, just made that up yourself. Those were three cowboy films where the budget got bigger as they were filmed. Do you think Leone had any clue about TGTBATU when he directed Fistful? Not a chance!
I had long considered these three movies as a trilogy, but for some reason it never occurred to me that they were in reverse order. A little frustrating, though, because GB&U is the longer and more expansive movie. It just feels like the concluding movie.
GBU should definitely not go at thebeginning. Yes chronologically it makes sense, but I feel it works better to keep it at the end, or do Fistful as the introduction to the character, GBU as the origin 2nd, then finish with For a Few
Ermm..It's an INTERESTING Theory; but you shoot yourself in the foot with the idea that Blondie is Tuco's Guardian Angel...sure, he helps him out and there is a sort of friendship there. But remember it is Blondie that leaves Tuco out in the desert without any water. How could he be sure that Tuco would survive?? ...and why would he want him to?? When Tuco clearly stated that anyone who double-crosses him and lets him live....knows nothin of Tuco....nothin!! My FAVOURITE WESTERN of ALL TIME...followed by THE MAGNIFICENT 7 ...followed by McKENNA'S GOLD....and what do all 3 have in common...the amazing ELI WALLACH!!!! :-)
Considering tucos screen time survivability maybe blondie tested him again if he goes again to kill him or confront him once more?.....like though he deemed tuco changing good path that doesn't mean he won't revert back?....tgtbtu is basically saying In theory that blondie is still at the distance watching him from a war if tuco is trying his best to changed
Of course TGTBTU occurs chronologically first, it is the origin story for the character, his iconic clothing, wields an older pistol, set in an earlier year during the Civil War, etc., etc.... I don't see any evidence that "For a Few Dollars More" is supposed to occur prior to "A Fistful of Dollars." The naming conventions of the films themselves would seem to refute this. TGTBTU shows the origin of the character, "Fistful" happens some time after that, and "Few" is a natural evolution and conclusion to the character. What happens after "For a Few Dollars More?" Manco actually tells us in the movie: He plans to get himself a little place and retire.
A1 content man keep it up. Recently finished the dollars trilogy and have been lookin for a good video about it and you cleared me up. I'll be checking out your other content too, you just earned yourself a new subscriber. Good, quality stuff man, love it.
Hey Thanks a lot. There will be other videos coming in The Magic Lantern series and the rest of the channel for now is a platform to release old and current short films. But thank you for the encouraged comment.
THE MAN WITH NO NAME, HUH!??? In A Fistful of Dollars, he is called "Joe" by the undertaker, Piripero, and Eastwood's role is credited as "Joe". In For a Few Dollars More, he is called "Manco" (Spanish for "one-armed"; in fact, in the original Italian-language version he is called "il Monco", a dialectal expression meaning "the One-armed one") because he does everything left-handed, except for shooting. SO... JOE MANCO IT IS!!!
This is such an amazing video. Part fan theory, part breakdown, college essay, and all done very well. The script being read is used perfect between long clips and utilized the music to enhance the spoken word as well as the obvious clips in the movies. Been a big dollars trilogy fan since I discovered them early in high school, and while some of this stuff was obvious, I was amazed how much insight was given.
Clint hardly watches over Eli Wallach... He is collecting the bounty on him, then freeing him to pull the con again in another town.... But still The Dollars trilogy is the finest trilogy ever made
Watching over him as inkeeping him safe and preventing him from hanging, He pulls the same con with another partner after ditching Tuco, until Tuco catches up with him and prevents him from shooting the rope
An accurate analysis, in gnosticism: Blondie and a Angel are indeed the sons of God and Tuco Ramirez is a foretold prophet and desciple of Blondie: 12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
One small note is that the good the bad and the ugly is that it takes place in 1862. This is because that the backdrop of the story is the new mexico campaign of that year
J didn't know that but there again I didn't think about it, and now that I do, it won't change my life! All are good. They stand alone quite easily as the best of the period and much better than the crap produced today.
I'm just finishing up the Breaking bad, Better call Saul and el Camino trilogy. You can truly see the influence the film writers got from these spaghetti western films. Even how Jesse fires through his pocket in el Camino. Tucos are also in both series. Clint Eastwood will forever be my favorite guy. So handsome and just the epitome of cool.
who are you to add your non sense voice to this piece of art!!! if you want to comment do it but aside by the opera itself. It's like adding your name on Mona Lisa picture.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly is too fucking great. John Williams takes Star Wars to a place few films can ever get to. Ennio Morricone takes this movie to the same place. The way they are both edited puts them in God tier films. Fucking love this trilogy. I don't particularly care for Clint Eastwood as a human but I FUCKING LOVE HIS ACTING!!! Separating the artist from the art is a gift few of us possess. I've had it since childhood and will continue to love performances separate from politics for the rest of my life. I hate Clint but I have a poster of him from this film on my wall.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
Also don’t forget that in “Rango”, Rango meets “The Man with no name” (in this film he’s called the spirit of the west) after to the ‘other side’ of the crossroads
#MarilynMonroe
If you consider the angel theory to be true than a good argument can be made that Rango is canon to the Dollars Trilogy lol.
This isn't terribly far fetched. The order of the movies being reversed also makes a certain kind of sense as to why Clint wields an 1851 Navy cap and ball in TGTBTH, but a more superior and efficient Colt SAA in the Dollars movies.
Actually it’s a Colt Navy conversion that uses standard .38 S&W Special (amd some other .38 I can’t recall) cartridges.
but angel eyes dies
@@jeffwhiz6380 ikr
And how he first recieves his classic clothes and poncho hrom Angel Eyes & the dying soldier in the last film.
@@jeffwhiz6380 The movies are reverse but Angel Eyes and Colonel Douglas Mortimer are different people just like Ramon and El Indio
This is definitely an interesting theory. I have never thought of connecting the three films, especially like this. Interested in more content like this you have to come.
Thanks, I currently uploaded a few for the Halloween season, so please check them out.
*JOE "BLONDIE" MANCO* aka "The Man With No Name" across The Dollars Trilogy. Is interesting seeing the events of each film backwards and seeing "The Angel" help those on a better path and destroy the true faces of evil from the world. Good analysis.
not the man with no name it is the man with no head.
I love the Van Clleef who played the colonel or Angel Eyes, his facial features a face of a viper ready to strike twas fierce
TH-cam algorithm finally getting better
o9i
Just wait until skynet becomes self aware....
Correct aliya
One of the greatest trilogies
right on time!!! I was just getting into spaghetti westerns
I watch TGTBTU first then a Few dollars more, I havent watched A fistful of dollars, I know TGTBTU was the last of the dollars trilogy but with your essay Its even better!!! Will definitely watch A fistful of dollars last.
They're great in any order. Then again, Leone is one of my favorite directors, and the dollars trilogy some of my favorite movies, so I suppose I have some bias there.
I always treaded this series as an anthology series. It shuffles around actors in to different roles with the only consistent roll being Eastwood’s.
In my mind, it takes on that of urban legend, when you ask different people what old western stories they're familiar with, many will have contradictory and often impossible stories about many real outlaws who actually were alive in the mid to late 1800s. Often hyperbolized to make the outlaws seem like the exact opposite of the greek hero type where they are inhumanly strong, cunning, etc. but have morals that aren't necessarily good. That's what I think Clint Eastwood and the other main characters are supposed to be in this trilogy. Characters of an ever changing urban tale, just like any other famous old western outlaw.
With this theory, it wouldn't be too far fetched to tie High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider in with the Dollars trilogy.
You forgot High Plains Drifter. It drives home your point even more. I know it's not often considered part of this trilogy but Eastwood's character has alot of the same characteristics.
Well, in that one he's the reincarnation or vengeful spirit of a man wrongly killed getting his revenge.
And what about Joe Kidd?
Leone did not like High Plains Drifter at all although Eastwood pretty much plays the same Man With No Name as in his movies.
You can see why: the tone is way more earnest and "serious" than in his trilogy.
Bro wtf, how do you not have more subscribers??
Good question, it comes down to advertising and word of mouth, so please if you like what you see spread the word and share with friends and thanks for watching
great explanation! I think the good, the bad & the ugly takes place in 1862
Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback
Personally i think it takes place in 1863 because it has suddle hints saying the Union is winning because of things like how they will get gold soon instead of paper money
@@eggisfun4217 perhaps. I think at least partly 1862 because of the Battle of Peralta
This theory also fits with Eastwood's characters in Hang'em High, High Plains Drifter, and Pale Rider.
Great video dude! I didn’t realize that the entire trilogy was released backwards, so thanks for that! Definitely changes how I view the endings to For A Few Dollars More and A Fistful of Dollars!
Thanks
@@moosetrailpictures669 no problem :)
I prefer to think of it as a TRILOGY where it BUCKS THE TREND of most Trilogies ie. the films get better with each subsequent installment. FISTFUL is GOOD, A FEW DOLLARS MORE is EXCELLENT and TGTBATU is SIMPLY DIVINE!!...as the number of key characters increase with each film from CLINT on his own with the 1st one; with LEE VAN CLEEF in the 2nd and with LEE and ELI WALLACH by the end...where Eli STEALS the show!!! The ONE constant factor...ENNIO MORRICONE's SUBLIME SCORE for EACH MOVIE!! R.I.P ELI & ENNIO.
This is fascinating! I think it's clear TGB&U happens before the other two (thinking of the poncho). That poncho thing is deliberate.
I don't think Lee VC is playing the same character (he's not "bad" in FAFDM), just an actor the director liked?
I do wonder about the weaponry that may, along with the poncho, put TGB&U prior. There are other comments about this.
I don't know that he's an angel, but the idea that getting rich is a pretext is interesting. Maybe he's not poor when he shows up in the other two, or maybe he doesn''t really want money.
It's a really interesting take! Good job!
Just as when i end watching the film, and search for The Trio film theme, this got recommended
I love this guy, I'm subscribing
Thanks, I appreciate it, share it with your friends
@@moosetrailpictures669 hey I'll try.
A Fistful of Dollars would be the second instalment in the trilogy, since there's a clear arc between that and a Few Dollars More that could not have taken place the other way around. In AFOD he is lost somewhere in the middle of nowhere, while in the next movie, he's clearly more experienced and well established as a bounty hunter. Sergio establishes that there has been some progress in the timeline by showing regular newspapers and passenger trains in what used to be the Wild West shown in prior movies. If we assume that is the correct timeline for the trilogy, and "The good the bad and the ugly" is its origin story, then ¿What happened between the end of that movie and "A Fistful of Dollars"? If I recall, in TGTBTU He rides away with 2 horses, weapons and 6 sacks of gold, but in AFOD, He arrives at some shithole riding an old mule and just a 50 cent coin in his pocket. ¿How he managed to lose the bounty? ¿Did "the ugly" caught up on him and stole the shit back? ¿Did he got robbed by someone else? ¿Did he gave away the money to charity? ... I think that the answer to that could be a 6 hour mini-series writen and directed by Quentin Tarantino, and Clint's son, Scott, taking on the role before he is too old.
He handed his share of the gold in and got a small reward
phenomenal video
Well done! Now I’m gonna go watch them in reverse order.
This is great content you should have more subscribers
Believe it or not you are actually correct and there is a Sumerian spiritual teaching on this very subject.
There is the good udug
And a bad udug
But you can't tell them apart however they are assigned to a person whose soul is in limbo (in the balance) neither saves or damned the the two beings work to guide the person into becoming themselves whether that be a soul to be redeemed or a soul to be lost.
Enjoyed the theory and thinking!
The poncho gives it away as it doesn’t appear until the end of Good bad ugly.
When I first saw this movie it gave me strong Star Wars vibes, especially viewing it after seeing the Mandolorian
You earned a subscriber.
great video
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best Western genre film ever made. Clint Eastwood is the goat of films and directing.
I like your video, interesting analysis; however the movies are not related, see for example the same actor dying in one and showing again (even though as a different character). You are right about the chronology, with the third one being the first one in time order, unfortunately the movies had not been conceived as a trilogy with its very meaning. They are a trilogy of the Spaghetti western genre because they share a few things in common like the director, actors, music, locations, themes etc. It would have been absolutely amazing to have trilogy a-la Star Wars but they are still some of the best movies ever made, the best of the genre for sure. Chapeau Sergio!
what if they are all part of an alternate/parallel universe and that is why we see the same characters in each movie...hmmmmmmmm
That’s interesting but tbh it doesn’t really matter. They are fun and enjoyable films
Why does few dollars more come before fistfull? It's in the names.
Yes, Tg, TB, TU is first , because he get his Poncho at the end.
Fistfull is next, then More.
In Fistfull, Blondie gets beaten up and his gun hand severely injured. In More he wears a brace and when confronting Cavanagh he fights without using his right hand.
I've heard this before about Colonel Mortimer sister dies in a few dollars more but I'm pretty sure it's indigo's sister, and Mortimer is a guy who gets shot three times in the bedroom
Josie Wales...??? Similar anyway... he appears as a priest of sorts...
"Once Upon a Time in the West' There are other similar movies: "My Name is Nobody," "Johnny Yuma," "For a Few Dollars Less," "Once Upon a Time in America"...
It is strange that the order you picked for the movies to view. How can Lee Van Cleef appear in what you call the second movie when he dies at the end of what you call the first?
They are two different characters Angel eyes and Douglass mortimer
It's "convenient" to call this a "trilogy", but it really isn't. Sure, GBU takes place over a year or more during the Civil War, and Leone knew Eastwood wasn't going to make any more films with him, so introduced the iconic outfit in this film. I saw all the spaghetti westerns on original release in theaters, etc.
What makes you put A Fistful of Dollars after For A Few Dollars More?
Colonel mortimer reads a paper dated june 1872, in the first film a tombstone is dated 1873.
nice video
Remake what? _For a Fistful of Dollars_ is not a plagiarism. It just took a cue from Kurosawa's film Yojimbo and made a different and, above all, successful one with record box office and a shoestring budget; something that did not happen to Kurosawa's film.
He could be a judge, like samson from the bible
My mistake. Four coffins.
this explains Pale Rider
Despite Leone's words at the end, i c nothing deep in this trilogy. I've seen this trilogy more than i can count, seen every doc i could find & listened to several ACS (audio commentaries;) nobody has suggested what u said including Sir Christopher Fraying...u know...Sergio Leone's biographer
The good the bad and the ugly takes place in 1862 during the New Mexico campaign.
The correct order is The Good the Bad and the Ugly, AFistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.
Tf only 50+ subs???
Great fucking video
Hey thank you that means a lot
@@moosetrailpictures669 oh for sure man, and i mean, i love these movies so much, i practically watch them on repeat, so its great to find content about them
Interesting, but I think you’re simply taking things way too seriously. Enjoy them as stand alone movies, only with a few reoccurring actors. Clints role in TGTBaTU quite different from his in FAFDM.
荒野大鏢客❤
I thought he did it for the money.
I don’t think he gets robbed
I don’t think it was meant to be a trilogy
Limbo is not biblical.
The way I see it, The Man with No Name is a mythical folklore legend of the west. No one knows his story, neither do we.
Now it makes sense watching the pale rider, cause how I see it client is basically the pathfinder and the guider for the characters throughout the film. In place rider he's just totally a ghost that seeks justice not a vengeful shoot-ist not bounty hunter just a sketchy man with no goals just there to take gang and just leaves without reasons
荒野大鏢客❤
"Were you gonna die alone?". One of the greatest scenes.
I always loved that. He's so damn cool
8:52
This is a really interesting theory, and it makes sense. I rewatched The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly recently, and I noticed that multiple times throughout the movie, Blondie escapes from near-death situations due to what seems to be pure luck. For example, the scene where Tuco holds a gun to him and orders him to hang himself. Blondie follows his orders and it seems like he's perfectly willing to hang himself without putting up a fight when all of the sudden a perfectly shot cannonball destroys the building and Blondie miraculously escapes into thin air. I thought this was odd, as it is a known rule in storytelling that you can get characters into trouble by bad luck, but you never get them out of trouble with good luck. I think this definitely serves as evidence for Blondie being an angel of some sort.
This is a very good point and that cannonball scene is a great example of the character seeming almost immortal by fate's standards.
In that scene doesn't Tuco also give a bible reference? Something like when judas hung himself there was a storm too or something
Another Deus-Ex-Machina is coming across Bill Carson's stagecoach in the middle of the desert. Meanwhile A Fistful of Dollars seemed like a perfect story to me.
@@GMfishTuco references the Bible the whole time, more than anyone else. He's the main character. Blondie and Angel Eyes are an angel and the Devil fighting over his soul (the gold)
@@Palendrome….Who told you that? Oh, just made that up yourself. Those were three cowboy films where the budget got bigger as they were filmed. Do you think Leone had any clue about TGTBATU when he directed Fistful? Not a chance!
The video is great, and makes total sense. But I like to think of him as just a dude killing for money, who still understands the value of life.
Fr me too
I had long considered these three movies as a trilogy, but for some reason it never occurred to me that they were in reverse order. A little frustrating, though, because GB&U is the longer and more expansive movie. It just feels like the concluding movie.
GBU should definitely not go at thebeginning. Yes chronologically it makes sense, but I feel it works better to keep it at the end, or do Fistful as the introduction to the character, GBU as the origin 2nd, then finish with For a Few
You've just somehow made these movies so much cooler for me lol
Ermm..It's an INTERESTING Theory; but you shoot yourself in the foot with the idea that Blondie is Tuco's Guardian Angel...sure, he helps him out and there is a sort of friendship there. But remember it is Blondie that leaves Tuco out in the desert without any water. How could he be sure that Tuco would survive?? ...and why would he want him to?? When Tuco clearly stated that anyone who double-crosses him and lets him live....knows nothin of Tuco....nothin!! My FAVOURITE WESTERN of ALL TIME...followed by THE MAGNIFICENT 7 ...followed by McKENNA'S GOLD....and what do all 3 have in common...the amazing ELI WALLACH!!!! :-)
Considering tucos screen time survivability maybe blondie tested him again if he goes again to kill him or confront him once more?.....like though he deemed tuco changing good path that doesn't mean he won't revert back?....tgtbtu is basically saying In theory that blondie is still at the distance watching him from a war if tuco is trying his best to changed
Of course TGTBTU occurs chronologically first, it is the origin story for the character, his iconic clothing, wields an older pistol, set in an earlier year during the Civil War, etc., etc.... I don't see any evidence that "For a Few Dollars More" is supposed to occur prior to "A Fistful of Dollars." The naming conventions of the films themselves would seem to refute this. TGTBTU shows the origin of the character, "Fistful" happens some time after that, and "Few" is a natural evolution and conclusion to the character. What happens after "For a Few Dollars More?" Manco actually tells us in the movie: He plans to get himself a little place and retire.
A1 content man keep it up. Recently finished the dollars trilogy and have been lookin for a good video about it and you cleared me up. I'll be checking out your other content too, you just earned yourself a new subscriber. Good, quality stuff man, love it.
Hey Thanks a lot. There will be other videos coming in The Magic Lantern series and the rest of the channel for now is a platform to release old and current short films. But thank you for the encouraged comment.
Nope..I was searching for this..not by TH-cam algorithm 😂
THE MAN WITH NO NAME, HUH!???
In A Fistful of Dollars, he is called "Joe" by the undertaker, Piripero, and Eastwood's role is credited as "Joe".
In For a Few Dollars More, he is called "Manco" (Spanish for "one-armed"; in fact, in the original Italian-language version he is called "il Monco", a dialectal expression meaning "the One-armed one") because he does everything left-handed, except for shooting.
SO... JOE MANCO IT IS!!!
Damn that was deep! Loved every second of it!
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
Nice pfp
excellent - really well thought through...
Thanks, I'm just doing these videos for fun so the positivity is great to hear
This is such an amazing video. Part fan theory, part breakdown, college essay, and all done very well. The script being read is used perfect between long clips and utilized the music to enhance the spoken word as well as the obvious clips in the movies.
Been a big dollars trilogy fan since I discovered them early in high school, and while some of this stuff was obvious, I was amazed how much insight was given.
Clint hardly watches over Eli Wallach... He is collecting the bounty on him, then freeing him to pull the con again in another town.... But still The Dollars trilogy is the finest trilogy ever made
Watching over him as inkeeping him safe and preventing him from hanging,
He pulls the same con with another partner after ditching Tuco, until Tuco catches up with him and prevents him from shooting the rope
The title said you woule explain it, but now I am mire confused than before XD
Loves his movies. The Best. Clint Estwood.
An accurate analysis, in gnosticism: Blondie and a
Angel are indeed the sons of God and Tuco Ramirez is a foretold prophet and desciple of Blondie: 12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
but he does have a name, in Fistful its "Joe", in Few $ more its "Monco"
This theroy works beter for the pale rider
Great video so what order would you recommend to watch them in?
Reverse
One small note is that the good the bad and the ugly is that it takes place in 1862. This is because that the backdrop of the story is the new mexico campaign of that year
Español
Good job
Great review
My favorite line from the series is, "If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
These are three different films. Historical chronology might help watch them but no connection besides the main character's goal
U have only 79 subscriber hers what! U deserve so much more
The High Plains Drifter continued his crusade.
4 mins - 26 secs - and helps those less fortunate souls 👍
But angel eyes dies ?
Wait hold up.
A Few Dollars More is set after Fistful of Dollars.
J didn't know that but there again I didn't think about it, and now that I do, it won't change my life! All are good. They stand alone quite easily as the best of the period and much better than the crap produced today.
“REGULATORS !!!”
I'm just finishing up the Breaking bad, Better call Saul and el Camino trilogy.
You can truly see the influence the film writers got from these spaghetti western films. Even how Jesse fires through his pocket in el Camino. Tucos are also in both series.
Clint Eastwood will forever be my favorite guy. So handsome and just the epitome of cool.
dude you went too deep..its just a random story in wild west
And it's better that way
who are you to add your non sense voice to this piece of art!!! if you want to comment do it but aside by the opera itself. It's like adding your name on Mona Lisa picture.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly is too fucking great. John Williams takes Star Wars to a place few films can ever get to. Ennio Morricone takes this movie to the same place. The way they are both edited puts them in God tier films. Fucking love this trilogy. I don't particularly care for Clint Eastwood as a human but I FUCKING LOVE HIS ACTING!!! Separating the artist from the art is a gift few of us possess. I've had it since childhood and will continue to love performances separate from politics for the rest of my life. I hate Clint but I have a poster of him from this film on my wall.