 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right.
GBU is the first chronological film.
Blondie becomes MWNN by the end.
Same character in all films. He never says his name
I believe in the original concept of GBU he was a different character. Ditched that idea.
Why? Coz he picks up a poncho?
Flailing on scraps, marshall.
All of this is recent theory revisionism.
Nobody in 1966 or 68 thought GBU was the first film in the trilogy. Not even leone. No matter what he said to Frayling in the 80s or made up in later years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your misinterpretation is so predictable.
When UA agreed to finance GBU they also acquired the US rights to the $ films.
So that there would be some continuity ala JAMES BOND they concocted the MWNN as a selling point.
So the filmmaker had the idea the Blondie would graduall acquire his iconic costume as the film progressed.
If you check the dates of the first two they clearly take place after the Civil War.
But yes it was not originally conceived as a trilogy.
Obviously!
Btw Sentenza wants you to join him for lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you concede that the first two films - were the same character but, you're saying, the last biggest budget film was a prequel - coz he was the man with no name in a coat for 7/ 10s of the film and the man with no name in a poncho for the last bit?!
Tell you what i reckon. They hadnt got a clue what they were doing - it was three films, one after the another, they struck on a winning formula and i dont think for one minute they analysed who was what and when. They were fun action films that made money. You are putting more effort trying to make sense of it now than the people making it ever did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill we agree to a point.
FOD was a surprise hit so they made a sequel.
For a fistful of dollar
For a few dollar more
= sequel.
GBU was sold to UA without a script.
They retroactively made it sort of kinda definitely a prequel.
Its ten pm. Go to bed!
Brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes well enough of this banter.
Wait, wasnt there a scene in GBU where one of the cannon at the bridge wasnt made till after the civil war, thus dating the film four years after the mexican revolution, and not really in the civil war at all??! 
Its 11pm actually and ive been asleep since you started posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Nobody please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill we agree to a point.
FOD was a surprise hit so they made a sequel.
For a fistful of dollar
For a few dollar more
= sequel.
GBU was sold to UA without a script.
They retroactively made it sort of kinda definitely a prequel.
Its ten pm. Go to bed!
Brm
Maybe your right, but we should not underestimate Sergio Leone who knew and love his subject. Its only after this trilogy that he didn't want to do another western.
Eastwood didn't want to do it. Especially when he realized Tuco would be the main character.
Part of UA getting him to do it was a huge payout plus pwrcentage (which naturally they tried to weasel out of paying).
No way UA was going to finance it without Eastwood on board .
Remember the first two films had no English language versions until UA stepped in
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the Dollar films in 1968, several times each with my cousin. When we were at work we discussed (for hours) the merits of each film and both agreed that, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly was the prequel to the Dollar films, followed by Fistful and then finally For A Few Dollars More. We often discussed the level of detail that Leone brought to these films, we especially liked the way in For A Few Dollars More that the Man with No Name wears his poncho back to front to obscure the bullet holes that Ramon put in it at the end of Fistful.
That were, and still are marvellous films, three of the best westerns ever made, with three of the best ever music scores written for westerns. I've just scene the trailer for the 4K restoration of Fistful, it looks tremendous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFWYI5buWlY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
