Talk:Dollars Trilogy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Italian This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force. Westerns High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actually, in For A Fistful of Dollars, Eggers' character was named "Piripero". ---Posted by JS on 19 March 2007 at 2:36 PM

Mario Brega wasn't the only actor to appear in all three movies. Aldo Sambrell, Benito Stefanelli and Lorenzo Robledo were also in all three films.

Actress Marianne Koch, is also in all three films, with a major role in the first, however generally she has few actual lines across the trilogy and appears only incidentally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.70.152 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER WARNING NEEDED This page needs a spoiler warning at the very top. The fact that the movies have been around since the 60's doesn't affect the truth that a lot of people haven't seen them. Schwin47 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Schwin47[reply]

See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - LA @ 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In For a Few Dollars More Egger is "The Prophet." 24.60.239.47 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note, which might not mean anything, but the dollars in the safe in a For a Few Dollars More are

I'm confused as to why people think "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is possibly a prequel, or that they are in reverse order - The Man in Black dies in the film, while he is obviously very much alive in For a "Few Dollars More." I simply tend to think that the gravestone date inconsistencies in "Fistful of Dollars" is because Sergio Leone, being Italian and making a low-budget spaghetti western, made an honest mistake in regards to United States history. Deciding that "The Good" is a prequel or that the films were intentionally out of order is, I'm sorry, overthinking it just a tad. 68.200.180.97 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is absolutely a prequel to the other movies in the trilogy. Angel Eyes is played by Lee Van Cleef, who played Colonel Douglas Mortimer in For A Few Dollars More. That is not, even remotely, the same character. If you were going to make that kind of claim (that a starring character cannot be portrayed by the same actor in more than one movie of a franchise), then Ramón Rojo is apparently incapable of being killed, as Gian Maria Volonté (also credited as Johnny Wels) portrayed that character in Fistful Of Dollars and El Indio in For A Few Dollars More. More importantly, regarding evidence that this is a prequel instead of merely a sequel, you see Clint begin wearing his trademark poncho at the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. A poncho he consistently wears throughout the other 2 movies. No way was that a coincidence.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreadPirateSynch (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree on the chronology implications of "Blondie" acquiring the poncho in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". I've just been re-watching the trilogy myself and noticed that point. The whole scene with the mortally wounded Confederate soldier is entirely cuttable without that shot of the brown-&-white poncho going onto Blondie's shoulder in place of the battered coat. Call it original research if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.
I'm not concerned by the "reappearence" of Lee van Cleef either - the two characters are totally different, to the point of approaching antithetic, which might be a point Leone was suggesting. As the third product in the "non-"trilogy to be filmed, he may have been deliberately setting "hooks" up for the 4th, 5th ... elements of the trilogy - which didn't happen. I'm watching "Dollars" now, and I see that "Blondie" has lost the horse and saddle-bags of gold on his way to become "Joe" in San Miguel. I assume he stashed them somewhere (the Sierra Madre?) AKarley (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that the films are a trilogy with a chronology, prequels, and sequels, is because the fans made it up and they won't let it go. Not to mention there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet. That's all there is to it. Yes, there are similar characters, styles, costumes, props, and themes in all three movies, but it has been repeatedly demonstrated and proven that it was never Leone's intent to have the three films follow a singular, linear storyline.Harry Yelreh (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a trilogy if it's not the directors idea to make it a a trilogy? The audience can't choose what movies are related to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.19 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See "Blu-ray box set cover", it is Dollars Trilogy Telecine Guy (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]