The Dollars Trilogy Timeline & Connections EXPLAINED
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- The Dollars Trilogy, otherwise known as The Man with No Name Trilogy, was never intended to be a connected film series, but director Sergio Leone did include a lot of connections and references that suggest his three Spaghetti Westerns might actually be following a connected timeline, with a chronological order that might make you reconsider the order in which you watch the Trilogy in the future.
So this video will break down all the clues and connections between A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly that validate the theory that Clint Eastwood is actually playing the same character throughout, albeit on a timeline that is completely different to the order that the Italian film series was originally released.
0:00 The Confusing Dollars Trilogy Timeline
0:28 Are The Dollars Trilogy Movies connected?
2:42 The First Dollars Trilogy Movie Chronologically
3:05 The Second Dollars Trilogy Movie Chronologically
3:38 The Third Dollars Trilogy Movie Chronologically
4:35 What order should you watch The Dollars Trilogy
👇 Let me know in the comments below: What was the FIRST Dollars Trilogy movie that you remember watching?
▶️ You might also want to check out this video counting down the Top 10 BEST Spaghetti Western Movies Ever Made: • Top 10 BEST Spaghetti ...
ℹ️ Disclaimer - The information presented in this video was gathered through online research from various publicly available sources that are generally considered reliable. However, I cannot personally verify the validity or accuracy of every source. Therefore, while the information in this video aims to be as accurate as possible, it should not be considered as undisputed facts.
✅ Fair Use Notice - All copyrighted materiel in this video belongs to their respective owners and is featured sparingly and in good faith for the purpose of either reporting, commenting, criticising or educating in line with the Fair Use guidelines laid out in Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
#TheDollarsTrilogy #ClintEastwood #SergioLeone - บันเทิง
![20 Things You Didn't Know About The Good, The Bad & The Ugly [1966]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7G7x3hmKyIE/mqdefault.jpg)
![20 Things You Didn't Know About The Good, The Bad & The Ugly [1966]](/img/tr.png)
About 20 years ago I sent an email to Sergio Donati who was one of the writers of For A Few Dollars More. I asked him if he thought that Eastwood's character was the same individual in all 3 films. Not really expecting a reply, he wrote back stating that he did believe it was the same character.
Hey, in the film Eastwood said it is a mule. If Eastwood said it is a mule IT IS a mule. Even if it has fangs and flippers.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly is the first film I watched, and it is my favourite of the bunch. The 3 main characters are excellently done. I can never decide which is my favourite character.
Same, it is hard to pick a favourite, but Tuco really steals the show
'Dollars Trilogy and Once Upon a Time in the West' are a brilliant Quadrilogy.
Dang it, always thought it was 3-1-2, now this has earned a rewatch for 3-2-1. Thanks :)
I never noticed the bullet holes until you pointed them out 😂
First time I watched it was in the exact opposite order (Fistfull / Few more / GBU), and a few things naggingly did not add up. Now I know why, and will rewatch it in the proper chronological order. Win for me.
So far, I've only seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Thanks for telling me that it's still worth seeing the other two.
Wow, what an eye opener of him finding the poncho, Col Mortimer shooting his hat and wearing a hat with bullet holes. I must have watched these films dozens of times and only now I see it. Big thanks for this! 👍🏻
First I watched A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. Second I watched FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE. Third I watched THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY. I can’t believe this whole trilogy was in reversed chronological order all along but now after watching this video, it makes perfect sense.
I saw in release order first time. You properly break down the timeline. Reason I still watch in release order is still odd Joe “Blonde” Manco would get so much money then as he goes along works/ pursues for less and less. But that’s me. I am not arguing your breakdown as it is well done
My headcannon is that he is not doing it solely for the money, but rather because he is either A.) A man with a death wish; or B.) he is a thrill seeker.
@@jahimuddin2306 that’s very good reasoning/head cannon
Astonishingly good films, and no huge budget nor technology needed. It's in the writing, acting, directing. They put most modern films to shame. ❤️
We are waiting .Thanks
I have an exact replica of this poncho! I love it.
I loved the films individually, the same with the latter named Once Upon a Time trilogy. Characters were different and really it did not matter to me what order they were watched, for they were all great on their own individual merits.
Looking forward to it 🎉🎉
My order was Goo, Bad and Ugly, Fistful of Dollars and then Few Dollars More.
I saw them in the order of release and have always watched them that way, even though I’ve know for years the GBU was technically the first. Next time though, I’ll try the 3-2-1 sequence.
Nice video... Where did all the great behind the scenes footage come from... I don't recall it being included on any of the DVD / Blu Ray special features.
GBU was first for me. Thanks for clarifying this trilogy for us.
I always thought it to be 3, 1, 2. But this makes more sense
Interesting theory
I watched them on in release order on Max. Awesome westerns, and “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” is my favorite!
I first saw these films on TV in the late 1970s, and the first one I saw was "For a few dollars more", which was at the time featured in a series of Lee Van Cleef films on the BBC. It was perhaps a year later that I saw "The Good , the Bad and the Ugly", and then a few months after that I saw "A Fistful of Dollars". Even then I noticed that "The Good, the bad and the Ugly" came first in terms of date, and that "A Fistful of Dollars" came last.
Very interesting. Could you make a video on revisionist and acid westerns?
I watched the movies in a different order: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; A Fistful of Dollars; and finally, For a Few Dollars More. I enjoyed all three of them.
I saw all three in the order of release in the UK. ( At the time of first release) ...Always knew the G B & U was set in the earlier civil war timeline due to the correct use of the blackpowder revolvers used , although not sure if the cartridge conversion type would have been available until the end of the war? Interesting idea about the timeline nevertheless ! 👍🤠🌵
The cartridge conversions are indeed anachronistic. Percussion revolvers have such a convoluted loading process, I get why they put the conversions in there though.
Chronology for me follows The Man with No Name's character arc, where he goes from mostly self-serving in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly to self-less in Fistful of Dollars.
I never thought these were intended as a trilogy. Three different films with three different characters.
You are correct.
Eastwood plays, acts and look the same in each film. It doesn't make sense at all
@@abbfilmann3735 that’s true, but he has a different name in each film. Leone never intended to make a trilogy when he made the first one (Fistful). The Man With No Name trilogy was a marketing concept by United Artists when the 3 films we’re released in the US in 1967.
Clint is playing 3 different characters. Sergio legally couldn't use the character of Joe from the first film. Unconnected movies apart the same use of cast and crew
Very good. I think it was the same character
I watched these in the cinema when they originally came out in the 60's. So I still look at them in the FOD, FAFDM and TGTBATU order that I remember them in. The chronology of the character has never really bothered me, even though I have always looked at him as being the same person in each film.
It’s weird cuz you would think he was much more skilled in “for a few dollars more” and the title of the 2nd film sounds like a sequel. Great observation.
You would think after the GBU that Eastwood’s character could have retired as a young man with those bags of gold.
Also argued Joe Kidd was TMWNN..described as retired Bounty Hunter😉🤠
I first saw The Good, the Bad and the Ugly when I was 11 at a big sleepover party. I didn't see the other two movies till I was 17 or 18. Yeah I think it has been fairly obvious all these years that GBU takes place first, between the whole Civil War setting and Clint's character not wearing his signature poncho until the end of the movie. As for Fistful of Dollars though, I've heard another fan theory that he was actually referring to his own mother when he said to the mother in the movie "I knew someone like you once, and there was no one there to help". It certainly would give us a little bit of actual backstory for the Man with No Name, since we don't know much more about him. Still, the possible reference to A Few Dollars More works too I guess, even though he only actually knew the girl's brother (though I guess he at least knew her story).
And the mother was named Marisol and the baby Jesus....
Me alegra encontrar a alguien que tiene la misma teoría que yo. Sólo hay que fijarse en las armas, ropa de Clint Eastwood y su mano derecha, para saber que El Bueno, el Feo y el Malo, es la primera película, cronológicamente hablando. Pero, al ver tu vídeo y sobre todo los agujeros de bala del sombrero de Eastwood, me he dado cuenta de mi error. Por un puñado de dólares, es la última y no la segunda, más que me pese. Ahora, la pregunta del millón. ¿Qué pasó con todo el dinero conseguido en El Bueno, el feo y el malo y en Por un puñado de dólares más? Está claro, que no se lo gasto en ropa. 😜
Good theory but what about the broken hand? He breaks in fistful of dollars and wears a brace on it in a for a few dollars more
Thanks! I believe it's Joe's right hand that is injured in A Fistful Of Dollars, whereas he wears his leather gauntlet on the left hand in For A Few Dollars More, so not sure it is worn for reasons related to that injury.
@@JustWesterns interesting!
@@JustWesterns I DUNNO about this. In reversing the timeline sequence could these details with which you are changing the order just be CO-INCIDENTAL ?....After all each movie was an individual project & possibly Leone had no intention of these connections pointing to any particular timeline chronological sequence. Perhaps it is just US READING IT IN Post Facto ?
It’s not a brace. It’s leather to cover his palm when fanning his Colt
Good video, handy thought about the holes in the hat!
Another, side note, in the original language Eastwood character’s name is never revealed, in the first film the bartender calls him Joe, probably because he is an American; in the second film the sheriff tells Mortimer “they call him Monco”, revealing its just a nickname; in the third film it’s Tuco who calls him blondie, probably referring to the fact he is from the US rather than Mexico.
So the appellative “man with no name” is correct, nobody knows who he really is.
I don’t know why they slightly changed the dialogue in the English version.
I first watched them in release order then I watched them in the order of: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; A Fistful of Dollars, and For a Few Dollars More.
I actually viewed the dollars trilogy like this knowing the times the films are set and what happens to the man with no name in each one with him dawning his famous attire and getting the bullet holes in his hat is definitely enough to prove that it is the same character all along but that his name just changed in each film because he’s called the man with no name since all three names Joe manco and blondie are just his nicknames and that I saw tuco bringing up chico and Ramon was presumably foreshadowing to fistful but probably was just a coincidence at the same time
And I saw each film in chronological order fistful of dollars to for a few dollars more to the good the bad and the ugly
I was today years old when I learned this.
It seems to me the order is 3-1-2. The newspaper in 2 is an archive merely meaning FAFDM is later than 1872, not necessarily the year they are in. So the 1873 headstone is irrelevant. He had so much money at the end of 2 there is no way he would have finished up riding a mule in 1 if it was later. The hat is curious of course but the holes in it might have well been to show he was broke and could not afford a new one (they are too close together to fit the likely result of the 2 shooting anyway) - or merely an accident of props chosen - or to show he had been in gunfights before - and then Leone might have just mischievously put the hat shooting into 2. Nerd City this!!
I originally saw the films in late 1979 (when I was only 8!) thanks to a forward-thinking Uncle. I saw them in this order: A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. However, I think that the best way to watch them would be: A Fistful of Dollars, then The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and finally, For A Few Dollars More. It’s just because I like Lee Van Cleef so much I like to see him go out a hero, killing the main villain Indio, at the end of For A Few Dollars More.
I wonder if anyone has asked Eastwood himself on whether or not he thinks that he was playing the same man in the trilogy? Has Sergio Leone himself ever addressed the question in a past interview?
Actually kind of makes sense
👍👍
3,1,2
Nts 2:44
Problem with this continuity is Lee Van Cleef plays two entirely different characters. The first is an enemy who is shot in 1867, the second an ally in 1872. I think Sergio just put those details in to show that studio he could of made them more like prequels/sequels if he wanted.
Another problem is that Gian Maria Volonte plays the same character twice and dies twice. So my standpoint is that Leone deliberately was ambiguous. The movies are artistically a trilogy but not necessarily more.
The changing of Eastwood's character name wasn't just about the studio. Changing between FFD and AFDM is understandable for getting past the studio, but changing it again was just a way of stiffing the writer/creators of the role.
Much the way Leone tried to rip of Kurosawa by completely stealing the story from Yojimbo, then denying it. He ended up in court and lost, paying Kurosawa 15% of the box office and $100k, plus giving credit in the titles of later releases
I think at the end you can watch it both ways, as a trilogy of reverse secuenced movies or just as stand alone films. Both ways make for an interesting view.
To add to some comments, a very strong incontinuity is Blondie´s skill with the rifle, in GBU he is way better than mortimer ever got to be, like shooting the rope on your neck 300/400 yards from the target, multiple accurate fast shots just above everyones head shooting their hats kinda good, Mortimer was good at long range, but not that good, blondie was godly. In a FFDM Blondie (now Manco) is not even interesed in using a Rifle and in AFOD he is straight up antagonized by a man with a rifle making the "man with a pistol ss man with a rifle" plot.
If TGTBATU is the first one, what happened to all the gold?
Hypothetic. The Dollar-Movies were never planned to be a triology. Source: “Something to do with death”, the Leone-Biography by Sir Christopher Frayling.
First I watched the good the bad and the ugly then fistful of dollars and then for a few dollars more
Actually their is a fourth movie, and that is the UNFOREGIVEN.
Not a trilogy at all, just use a similar character. Blondie could never have spent $100,000 in gold to need to become a bounty killer (For a Few Dollars More) or a drifter (A Fistful of Dollars). I saw GBU in theater in 1968 and the other two as double feature a few months later. I saw ALL the spaghetti westerns in theaters, was fortunate.
Hang on a min, how can The Good the Bad and the Ugly be the first when the Colonel gets shot and killed? I always thought it was the last as the characters all seem to be far more experienced and better written. The Fistful of Dollars I figured was the first as Clint seems the youngest and cheekiest in that. That leaves For a Few Dollars More as the one in the middle, where we first see the two bounty hunters. The last one, The Good the Bad and the Ugly is the final showdown, with the final shootout.
Well, the colonel and Angel Eyes aint the same Person. Also, Clint seems younger in a fistfull of dollars, because it released in 1964, while the Good, the Bad and the Ugly released in 1968.
@@theallmightyspycrab169GBU was released in 1966, but I agree with you. The movies are best seen as separate. Clint can't age in reverse, and Lee Van Cleef plays two entirely different characters.
Mortimer & Angel Eyes are two entirely different characters. Just so happened that both were played by the same, charismatic actor - Lee Van Cleef.
GBU was released in December 1966 in Italy, not worldwide.
I know one thing...the guy is terrible with money! Gets fortunes and appears to blow the lot everytime.
Any connections are imaginary. Three different characters.
No video needed. This wasn't a trilogy.
It’s a trilogy of Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns.
Or rather a trilogy of spaghetti westerns starring Clint Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone.
Wrong
Well, the screen writer who doctored the the rough drafts to the final scripts thinks that they are connected. So too does Sergio
Personally though I just see them as a set of adventures for the Man with no name and try not to over analyze.
60+ years later for the truth
After reading my comments on another TH-cam video ;)