Luciano Vincenzoni's treatment for 'Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo' sequel

Because of the headstones or crosses in the graveyard scene - Silvanito, helping Clint’s character points out a grave of the only man in town who died of natural causes, and it’s 1874, or there about.
Edit:
My mistake, 1873 … 'Esteban Garcia died of pneumonia :cry:

1 Like

It’s clearly a nickname - that sort of goes without saying really… Joe Schmo, Average Joe, G.I. Joe etc etc…

1 Like

Does it?
It is obvious that Leone wasn’t much interested to give his heroes a real name nor a biography or a background.
But still I see no reason why Joe shouldn’t be his real name, the tavern owner is not the only one who calls him Joe. And I never doubt that when watching the film, even not really after reading that in connection with the Man With No Name labeling.

In the end it is of no importance if the Dollar Trilogy’s hero is exactly the same guy, or just a variation of one role model. At least Monco wears a hand wrist for certain reasons, which the other 2 don’t.
That he is the same guy is, just like the ghost theory for OUTW, only a fan theory, but I think most people do not think so, and I can’t remember that in any of the many books I have read about Leone or the SW the one guy theory was expressed. Actually I do not remember that it was even mentioned that they can be brought in a timeline. I also can’t remember that Leone ever has said that.

The answer should be taken from the films, and in them Eastwood is always a poor guy at the beginning who wants to make money, and after the then chronological first he is already a rich man. And the Eastwood character is not one who would give his wealth away, or would waste it. And then, I might say that again, if Leone wanted him to be the same, no matter if the used names are real names or nicknames, he could easily just have given them the same name. But in the end he clearly didn’t.

Another point is that it brings the films nothing if he is the same guy, that doesn’t change the reception a tiny bit, while the ghost theory at least changes some aspects for the reception of OuTW.
And at least Leone’s first 2 films are clearly set in a fantasy west.

So it doesn’t hurt to view Eastwood as exactly the same guy, but it also doesn’t help for anything to construct this.

Is Volontè the same guy? :open_mouth: Is Luigi Pistilli the same guy? :open_mouth: Is Mario Brega the same guy? :open_mouth: Is Lorenzo Robledo the same guy? :open_mouth: Can someone write a book on this??

1 Like

Considering the newly discovered outtakes where the clapperboard clearly names the film ‘Ray, il Magnifico’ … it’s very doubtful that this was Leone’s idea at all. Eastwood has stated that the script was pretty rough, and that he cut many of the lines of dialogue and much of the humour must have been Clint’s improvised version of the dialogue.
Leone was just wanting to make a western - and I’m sure he never conceived it would be such a huge success … the fact that it was, and in no small way due to Eastwood’s laconic manner, meant that he could get a much bigger budget to bring that character back for a new adventure. Audiences wanted to see the cool American in untypical western clothes, doing more of the same. So to me, it’s clearly the same character … and I’ve never had a second of doubt on that score. It is what it is … a sequel!

To go on:

  • Is Cat Stevens the same guy as Trinity?
  • Is Hutch Bessy the same guy as Bambino?
  • is Django on every movie the same guy?

These things are personal IMHO.
For me the Dollars trilogy is with different characters. Although Blondie is transformed during GBU, I never have thought him to be the same guy every time. (He never mentioned that Mortimer looks familair :wink: as he looks much like angel eyes)
In AFFD “Joe” has some sort of a past, the “I once knew a girl like you” sentence to Marisol. If leone would have connected the movies he would have used that girl I think.

I even do not see the connection between the original Django and the official sequel. They are too far apart from each other.

1 Like

Is Angel Eyes or ‘Sentenza’, Colonel Douglas Mortimer’s evil twin ? :laughing:

But the difference is that Eastwood does not only play a similar character who does similar things, he also wears the more or less same clothes in 3 films made by the same director.
To view them as one person is at least understandable, while the others are just actors playing different characters in different films.

No, obviously not, but Hill and Spencer play the same character in the 3 Colizzi films, but in them it is clear that they are the same ones. The 2nd one is even set directly after the first one.

With Django it is more difficult. It was just a name too often reused. Even Prepare a Coffin, made by some of the original Django crew, and intended to be a prequel to the Corbucci film, is not really that. Hill looks very similar to Nero and he also wears similar clothes, but the few things we know about Django in the 2 films do not really match.
In the end there was only one real Django … :wink:

In Yojimbo, the original where AFFD is taken from, the main character also has no name. He names himself after the mulberry fields which he looks upon. The name does not matter, only the story. I like that idea.

Seeing the life Blondie lived with trying to get money from “shooting” Tuco out of the gallows every time, I think he was pretty happy with his money and went away.
In the other dollar films he never uses the rifle again that way or is in such a need for money that he has to use tricks. But the trick of getting a bounty is re-used in OOTITW by delivering Cheyenne. You could also say that Blondie and Harmonica are the same guy but played by different characters.

But as said, everybody may have his opinion about the matter.
For me the transformation of Blondie was just a gimmick.

Back on topic: I am glad no sequel of GBU was made. Most sequels do not add to the original but extend it in a dramatic way.
There are just few examples of a sequel that was better than the original. A masterpiece should be left as it is. The “man with no name” comics of Dynamite did prove that for me.

Good point - yes his “name” is “Kuwabatake Sanjuro” but that is of course not his real name.

Yes it does. I mean there is a theoretical reality in which the character’s name is “Joseph” since “Joe” is often short for “Joseph” (think of Joe Montana who is a “Joseph”). However, you have to admit you are really clutching at straws.

Absolutely not.
This is not theoretical. It is the other way round, if one is named Joe in a film it is more likely that his name should indeed be Joe, instead of being just a nickname.

Joe is a simple common name, and I think a very often used one, like Jim or John. Let’s not forget the unforgettable Joe Cartwright. :wink:
And of course it is mostly short for Joseph, but not always.

Most famous is of course Banana Joe :joy:

Going by Wikipedia, the German correlate of “Average Joe” would be “Otto Normalverbraucher”…

The Baxters don’t call him Joe … the Rojos don’t, nor does Silvanito or Marisol or any other fucker in the film … just the coffin maker … and it’s like saying, “How are you mate” , or “Hi there buddy” … his name isn’t ‘Joe’ - How many times will you refuse to accept that you’re wrong ???

Sure, but at the same time Otto is a simple common name.

And frankly said if someone is called Otto or Joe I would not assume that this is not his real name. And to go one step further, if someone watches FoD for the first time, without knowing anything about the film, he would simply think that the hero’s name is Joe. He would not think that it might be a nickname.
Everything else is constructing in hindsight. Possible constructing, but constructing.

As long as I’m not wrong, there is nothing to refuse.

But you should probably read what I write more closely. And be more relaxed.

You are sure that Silvanito does not call him Joe. Only the coffinmaker? (which would not really change my position)

He he, this is a quite funny little discussion …

Sure but that would be a naive as believing Mifune when he says his name is “Mulberry bush” - hey it’s within the realms of theoretical possibility (although technically perhaps not since the Japanese government does have restrictions on what can be used for names, but perhaps that was not the case back in the Edo period)

But that’s then obviously not a real name, and that’s a big difference.
And Kurosawa makes clear that the Ronin invents his name, but Leone didn’t.

And btw you also do not think that he is the same lille fucker in all 3 films, where’s the point for you if his name is really Joe, or not?

Frankly said I would have liked it if Clint hadn’t any name in all 3 films …

Btw getting interested I just checked a few scenes, and in the German version, which was made long before the English version, he is called Joe throughout the film by Silvanito and Piripero, and also at least once by one of the Rojos. In the same scenes in the English dub only Piripero remains in 2 scenes.

But I don’t know if the German or the English dub is closer to the original Italian version

Yes, of course, I noticed it the last time I watched it, then I forgot.

When would you say FAFDM is set, by the way?