Thatâs for me also the main reason why I think this scene should be in, and not so much because it explains about how Sentenza gets the POW camp idea.
[quote=âscherpschutter, post:295, topic:307â]1) The three men in the beginning of Once Upon a Time in the West are part of the premise of the movie (an element of this premise is: Frank is a criminal with henchmen), they can only be questioned by questioning the premise (and therefore the entire movie). You may read this from time to time (about a film or TV-series): itâs an okay movie, but the premise is ridiculous (I read this about Terra Nova, for instance)
- Shortyâs presence is âexplainedâ by Blondieâs explanation for dropping Tuco: a sucker like you wonât ever be worth a large some of money. Itâs clear that he wants to continue the trick with another person.
Thereâs no similar (âlogicalâ) explanation for the appearance of Tucoâs henchmen, he enters the movie as a loner, not as the leader of a small gang, therefore this change ought to be explained. But, as said, it didnât bother me, like you say I had never thought about it before. At least I donât remember this. If people absolutely desire an explanation, you could also say that the reason is sous-entendu, that is: not given, but easily understood. Blondie is a good shot, a dangerous person, so one could say that Tuco asks some help. The Sentenza case is a bit harder to crack. But it doesnât ruin the film (or part of it) for me.[/quote]
Of course it is clear why he and Shorty work together. But we donât know, and we donât need to know, where he found him. If Blondie hired him, if he was an old acquaintance, or whatever.
Same with Tuco and his men. They are only a distraction and we donât need to know where he found them.
Both scenes work perfectly without knowing of the origin of these guys. The narrative of GBU does not need any âlogicalâ explanation for the appearance of Tucoâs henchmen. And it doesnât change his loner status. He has only hired them to get killed.
Like you said above, an explanation is ânot given, but easily understoodâ. And therefore not an continuity error.
[quote=âscherpschutter, post:300, topic:307â]That scene is not the one weâre talking about, it was always in the movie (and is a great scene)
Itâs the extra scene preceding it, in which Tuco hires those men. Without this scene, these guys appear out of nothing, thatâs why people call it a âcontinuity problemâ.
This scene was not in the original Italian edit, often called âdirectorâs cutâ, but it was added to the movie on the 2DVD release by MGM, called the Extended Cut[/quote]
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood then. The versions I always saw didnât include the scene with Tuco hiring them (Iâve never seen that scene and didnât even know about its existence) and I never had a problem with that. I think current audiences asks for too much explanation in movies which I find pretty boring. There are things that donât need to be explained and itâs not a continuity problem. Movies are not a faithful representation of life, theyâre full of ellipses just like any fictional story.
Of course movies or novels arenât faithful representations of life, nor should they be, but they should be consistent. A thing you canât do, is changing the premise of a movie halfway. A lot of things in GBU arenât realistic (the shooting abilities of the protagonists for example), but thatâs part of the show, in westerns, especially spaghetti westerns the heroes or anti-heroes are faster than lightning. But GBU is not a parody or a spoof, so none of the protagonists are allowed to show some of those qualities of a Sartana or a Trinity - if you do that as a director, you get another movie (one like My Name is Nobody, for example). In the same sense info about characters etc. must be consistent throughout a movie. A character canât be a poor beggar in the first half and a rich landowner in the second - that is: he can be, but in that case you need an explanation. So the essential question in the case of these inconsitencies of continuity problems is: Do we need an explanation of this change (in conduct, in a personal situation, etc.) or not? Apparently in this case (the henchman) some people say yes, others say no. Personally I donât think we need one, but I can understand that others think otherwise.
Of course, I was saying theyâre not faithful representations in reference to those who ask everything to be explained and put before their eyes otherwise they claim inconsistency or continuity error. There are plenty of movies that have those kind of mistakes, maybe there are some in GBU but in the case mentioned neither I or any of the people I know who has seen it thought it was inconsistent nor a continuity error.
Was the Grotto scene ever actually part of Leoneâs directors cut?
Apparently not, as far as I know he removed it from the theatrical version, often called âdirectorâs cutâ (the MGM version is therefore known as âExtended Cutâ)
I rewatched the scene this afternoon, itâs awful, hard to believe that Leone directed it. He must have had a bad day.
I donât think itâs a terrible scene, but it is dramatically unnecessary and doesnât advance the film; we can use our imagination as to where Tuco got his gang from. It isnât as if those characters are important. However, the scene with Angle Eyes in the destroyed fort with injured Confederate troops is fantastic, and needs to be in the film as Bill said, for the rhythm of the movie. Of all the changes, I think it is the best and should have been in Leoneâs cut.
Documentation about it is very contradictory.
It was probably in the premier version but not in the then released theatrical version. It was Grimaldi who claimed thatb Leone wanted it in and only cut ot forlenght reasons.
I also donât think it is a bad scene, but surely one of the weakest of GBU, maybe even the least remarkable.
Apart from being imo unnecessary I also think unlike the âdestroyed fortâ scene this one damages the rhythm of the film, the grotto scene makes the film too long at a place where GBU already runs the risk of wandering too far from the main story.
The lost Socorro scene would be even more problematic for this part of the film.
Talking about unnecessary scenes:
I just re-watched La resa dei conti with a friend, and he also thought that the ranch scene makes the film drag and unnecessarily overlong.
[quote=âStanton, post:310, topic:307â]Talking about unnecessary scenes:
I just re-watched La resa dei conti with a friend, and he also thought that the ranch scene makes the film drag and unnecessarily overlong.[/quote]
Yeh, that scene just goes on for ever and ever. Does not help the pace of the film at all.
[quote=âStanton, post:310, topic:307â]Talking about unnecessary scenes:
I just re-watched La resa dei conti with a friend, and he also thought that the ranch scene makes the film drag and unnecessarily overlong.[/quote]
Personally I never understood what he had in mind with this scene. It doesnât even really fit into the movie. There must be an idea behind it that I donât get.
About the Grotto scene: Itâs not very long, so it doesnât make the movie that much long-er, but I just think the dialogue is ridiculous it also has a strange, artificial look, I donât how to say it, almost as if itâs shot in some Disney Land location.
Grotto:
It runs 3:30 min, sure, thatâs not that much, and I donât think it is a big problem to have it in the film (the Socorro scene would be), but sometimes even a minute too much can give the impression that a film slows down too much.
I always like to watch deleted scenes on DVDs, especially if the director comments them. There are often short pieces cut outfrom 90 min films of which the director says they were beautiful but he had to cut them out because they slowed the film down at that certain point. And I often donât understand this, because there are really scenes amongst them which would improve the film imo.
La resa:
Probably a message scene? But which message?
Yeh, that scene just goes on for ever and ever. Does not help the pace of the film at all.
Personally I never understood what he had in mind with this scene. It doesn't even really fit into the movie. There must be an idea behind it that I don't get.
Thanks to Nieves Navarro, the bull-related interlude and the powerful entrance of Lee Van Cleef the ranch sequence is one of my favourite scenes in the film! 
Seconded!
I like to do that too. Sometimes watching the deleted scenes is more fun than watching the film itself
3m30s shouldnât be a problem when talking about the length of this or any other (nearly) 3 hours movie.
I remember from the time that I ran such tests that the critical limit in this aspect is 5%. It means that if a change is less than 5%, it is generally not noticed. So if you take one apple (ball or whatever) away from a pile of one hunderd, probably no-one will notice. Same for 2, 3 and 4, although at this point some may start to become a little suspicious (hey, whatâs going on?). If you take away five or more, apperently things start to look or feel âdifferentâ. Funny thing is that tests with animals give the same results. If you give a monkey or a rat 100 cookies (or something) and you take away 2 or 3 he doesnât notice, if you take 6 or 7 he becomes nervous or angry.
The same thing goes for speed, loudness etc. (This means that the PAL speed-up shouldnât be a problem under normal circumstances). Things differ a little from person tot person, but only a little. In general people all of a sudden people become aware of the change. If you, for instance, put up the volume gradually, and ask people to give you a notice when the music gets louder, they nearly all say this at the same time, at about this critical limit of 5%
I guess in the case of a movie, an extra scene may ruin the rythm or break the spell, and this is more harmful than the extra length in minutes it causes
Thatâs what I basically meant. These extra min are no greater problem in relation to a 3 hour film, but they may be the reason that the cat and mouse part starts to get rhythmical problems.
And I didnât meant that the whole film becomes too long, but only the cat&mouse part in which Tuco chases Eastwood (and the Socorro scene would be also part of it). Thatâs between Blondie leaving Tuco behind in the desert and the arriving of the stagecoach with Jackson in it. And for that part alone the grotto scene is beyond 5 % .
But unlike La resa dei conti nothing that really hurts the film for me, not even this cat&mouse part. Small problem in an almost perfect film.
The Harmonica Rising scene in OUTW, which runs only 1:30 min, is on the other hand for me a real let down.
[/URL]
Happy New Year, and take your pick, folks:
[url=http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/The_Good,_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly_-_Review_(scherpschutter)]http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/The_Good,_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly_-_Review_(scherpschutter)[url]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/lebonlabruteetletruand.jpg/[/url]
![http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/The_Good,_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly_-_Review_(scherpschutter)[url]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/lebonlabruteetletruand.jpg/[/url]](http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/The_Good,_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly_-_Review_(scherpschutter)%5Burl%5Dhttp://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/lebonlabruteetletruand.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/The_Good,_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly_-_Special
Happy new year to all and many thanks for that great work,Scherps 
Great work Sherp, nothing better than starting a predictable hard and difficult new year, with one of my favourite films.