So a treatment means he wrote a full idea with a beginning, a middle and an end and I’ve been fretting over what would have happened in it. All I know is that Tuco would have returned and pursued Blondie’s grandson for his half of the $200,000.
That’s pretty much all I know about it was well. I’m glad nothing ever happened because it never sounded like that great an idea, and I’m one of the few who considers Clint to be playing the same character in all three films albeit a very enigmatic one with the films all taking place at different points in his life. As Clint himself said it’s better… “to leave a good thing alone”. I would still be fascinated to hear more about the original ideas though if anybody here knows anything else.
Eastwood was considered for narration as the Man with No Name, who became the posthumous mayor of a town, and Angel Eyes had a twin brother… the idea sounds daft (unless if that twin brother was Shadrach or something).
But since Blondie’s still bounty hunting in A Coffin Full of Dollars and Tuco is fine in A Dollar to Die For, I have nothing to worry about.
I’ve never actually read any of those books, are they worth tracking down?
Some of them are pretty wild stories. Not exactly high quality but they’re enjoyable and creative. I’ve written reviews on four of them to help readers know what they’re in for.
Cheers for the links.I’ll see if I can get hold of them
Not that it matters … but I always wondered how ‘Blondie’ squandered his share of the gold so quickly? … or does he run into an army patrol who confiscate the fortune and put him in jail … therefore not reappearing until the mid 1870s when ‘Fistful of Dollars’ is set.
I remember reading that Joe Dante wanted to do a follow up story, but thankfully that never happened. How can you improve on (near) perfection !?
Also, Clint might have followed his own advice and avoided returning to the ‘Dirty Harry’ sequels in the 80s … what a mess they were!
The comic says he donated the gold to Pablo Ramirez’ monastery, which would hypothetically make sense.
Which was later stolen by his evil twin ‘Groggy’ ?
That “weird” Apache torture you mentioned involving ants was a very real thing.
That’s only because these are 2 different characters in 2 different films …
Correct. It’ll save a lot of brainpower to just accept this.
LOL … so, in fact ‘Blondie’ rides off with the loot, becomes mayor of Carmel California, legalises ice cream consumption in public, and is never heard of again! - I don’t think so … !!!
Except that Leone took care throughout the film to mould the Joe character of GBU into the Joe character of Fistful.
Where and when on earth did this come from? I’ve never heard anything about a potential sequal!
It gets mentioned a lot in Peter J. Hanley’s GBU book.
Yeah … and he chuckled every time when he thought about what people will do with this in the future …
… and actually there in no one called Joe in GBU, and in FAFDM the similar looking guy is doubtless called Monco. If Leone wanted him really being the literally same amigo, it hadn’t been too difficult to do so.
That western actors wear the same clothes in several westerns was absolutely not uncommon before. Just one of the genre traditions Leone liked to copy.
See James Stewart, see Glenn Ford, see John Wayne, see …
I read about that in my first Leone book. Published in 1984 and written by Oreste de Fornari it contains an essay by Vincenzoni, in which he gives a detailed synopsis of his treatment.
He ends with writing:
“Eastwood has given his assent to lent his voice and to produce the film. A producer came to Rome and offered a million. Leone must not direct the film, this could be done by a young American Joe Dante. But for the moment Leone refused his approval. Who knows, why?”
Frankly said, I doubt that this film would have worked.
We have been over this before you know . I insert from the film’s thread:
And Eastwood is not the first western actor wearing the same clothes in several films, any basically playing the same character in not connected movies.
True, but this is not the point here. Blondie enters the film in an entirely different outfit than in the two previous films. Then he is transformed throughout the film. His frock coat
and his straw hat are left behind in the desert. Then in the prison camp Angel Eye throws him a bundle of cloths, with the sheep skin waist coat and the hat [edit: and the denim shirt, I think]. Then in the scene with the dying solider, he covers the solider with his skin coat. Instead of retrieving it, he picks up a poncho. Only when he arrives at the grave of Stanton, he is fully transformed to the character we know from the two previous films. I think this is a pretty clear that Blondie the bounty hunter is in fact Manco the bounty hunter.
If Leone wanted him to be the same he could have named him Joe in all 3 films, but he didn’t.
But he did, at least in GBU. Throughout the script he is consistently called Joe