Man with no name trilogy without Clint Eastwood


(I...I...Idiot) #1

While these movies greatness can not be denied (by the majority), I wonder how these movies would have fared if say Franco Nero, Terrence Hill or Thomas Millian had the starring role instead of Clint. On the other hand, how mush more successful would Django, Death Rides A Horse or The Great Silence have been if Eastwood starred in these movies.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #2

I think Eastwood played a big part in the success of these movies. He pretty much set the standard that all the other SW stars would aspire to.

Its really hard to speculate on what might’ve been. Who really knows? For example what would’ve happened had Lee Marvin or some Hollywood actor accepted the role for A few dollars more, and Lee van Cleef thus would’ve never had gotten an opportunity to be a star in europe, or atleast that opportunity would’ve been postponed. Or what if richard harrison not turned down the role and given it to Clint. Its not somethign I would like to think about! LOL


(I...I...Idiot) #3

The way LVC was portated in American westerns (like most others) was clean cut. His look, to me, was made for the grittier sw genre. Lee Marvin would have been interesting.


(Silence) #4

I think it would be a big diference. Clint is like made for that role, Nero fits the Django or Keoma kind of role much better.


(I...I...Idiot) #5

But might Django have been more successful if Clint was in Django. Of course they fit these parts better because we are used to seeing them portray these roles.


(Dillinger) #6

I think you can’t tell how everything would have been…

Let’s put it this way. We all know, that Leone was a great director. The trilogy would be different with, let’s say, Nero. But it still would be great.

Eastwood wasn’t Leone’s man of choice. He wanted Fonda for it. So, Eastwood is only a substitute, but nevertheless the trilogy is awsome, so it would be awsome with someone instead of Eastwood.


(I...I...Idiot) #7

I agree, but Clint has an intangible edge that Fonda (in all his greatness) doesn’t. Maybe he was his second choice but it’s funny how these things happen sometimes. Just ask Pete Best.


(Novecento) #8

Apparently Clint’s laconic style is his own doing with him excising much of the original dialogue. If I remember correctly, Frayling discusses this in some detail.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #9

Good point.


(AceHigh) #10

I think no other actor could have been near as good as Eastwood. But the trilogy would still be quite great with, say, Terence Hill. The films had the great Leone, regardless of the lead. Death Rides a Horse is the perfect example of no Eastwood, though… I’ve often thought that DRAH would have been ranked right with the trilogy films if Eastwood had been cast. Some rank it up there anyway. Even though I love DRAH, it’s a step down from the trilogy IMO. Eastwood was born for those films.


(I...I...Idiot) #11

I agree again. But since Eastwood was in Leone’s first effort, could it be said that he helped spring Leone into greatness. I’m sure the trilogy would have been great regardless. After my first viewing of DRAH, I found myself asking how much better would this movie be if Clint were the lead. But after more viewings, JPL adds a certain innocent affability that Clint never would have been able to pull off. Clint is too intense by nature & , in my opinion, would not have the same vulnerability to make the ending as touching as it is.


(AceHigh) #12

Yes but I think it could be said they helped springboard each other into greatness. Also, on DRAH, I enjoyed JPL’s performance; he’s got a certain star quality about him even though he might not have been the best actor in the world. I still think JPL’s role was tailor made for the great Eastwood.


(Spaghetti Monkey) #13

Yes, but the real question is, could Clint have done DANGER DIABOLIK so well ;D


(I...I...Idiot) #14

DRAH would have definitely have been more popular if Clint was in it & still a great movie.


(Stanton) #15

I often think it’s probably the other way round. If LvC wasn’t in it (and instead a less popular actor), maybe nobody would care much about it.

What DRAH needs imo, is Leone not Eastwood.


(I...I...Idiot) #16

[quote=“Stanton, post:15, topic:1657”]I often think it’s probably the other way round. If LvC wasn’t in it (and instead a less popular actor), maybe nobody would care much about it.

What DRAH needs imo, is Leone not Eastwood.[/quote]

interesting view Arch


(Bill san Antonio) #17

[quote=“Stanton, post:15, topic:1657”]I often think it’s probably the other way round. If LvC wasn’t in it (and instead a less popular actor), maybe nobody would care much about it.[/quote]I think you’re right. I can imagine this film with some other older actor (Ghidra for example), it would probably still be a good film but not like the top10 film as many people rate it.


(Stanton) #18

And Ghidra would have been most probably better in the role

I already prefer him in The Last Killer over LvCs similar role in Day of Anger. It’s btw also the better film for me.


(uncknown) #19

I have always wondered if ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST would have been a box-office successs (in USA at least) if it starred Clint.