Isn't THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY a prequel to the other two?
-
bigmac79-1 — 16 years ago(September 05, 2009 07:39 AM)
And in Few, The Man with no name has no shotholes in his hat in the beginning. Than he gets two shots in it.
In Fistful, the Hat has got these 2 Bulletholes.
And the Poncho in The Good is the "proof" that this is the first one in the "Trilogy"
Part 1: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: 1966
Part 2: For A Few Dollars More: 1965
Part 3: Fistfull of dollars: 1964
But has anybody from the makers ever said that Eastwoods Character is always the same?
Van Cleefs isn't either. -
Fullhouser — 16 years ago(October 29, 2009 12:54 PM)
You do know that it does not matter if the same actors play different characters in the movies? when its about movies its about characters, you don't have lee van cleef in the next 2 movies, you have 1: Douglas Mortimer and 2: Angel Eyes.
So if you say that they have to be seperate movies because of that then your wrong.The Three movies are just stories envolving the same poncho wearing cigar smoking man with no name. It don't matter even when these three movies happen. the movies only connect thru the character played by Clint Eastwood now if that makes it a trilogy then it does. if not
Jake: She says he's pretty.
Joey: Yeah, well, you make him ugly. -
wtl471629 — 12 years ago(April 12, 2013 11:59 PM)
I think it is a prequel to the other two. This is discussed at The Good Bad and the Ugly IMDB board under the Prequel thread. Be sure to note the grave at the graveyard scene has 1873 on the tombstone in A Fistful of Dollars. Of course TGB&U takes place during the Civil War.
-
movie_nazi — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 12:30 AM)
There is no order because Eastwood plays different characters in all the films. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
My Vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings
