Talk:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly/Archive 1

The comments below BEGIN with a major spoiler

spoiler

spoiler

spoiler

spoiler

van cleef dies in good the bad and ugly, but is in fistful. So i don't thnk GBU can be a prquel to the other two. Just wonderin if there is anymore basis to that then the clothing

Van Cleef didn't play the same character in the two movies he appeared in, so I don't think it really matters. As far as I'm concerned, the clothing observation only supports the assertion that GBU is the final episode of a trilogy... not a prequel. I don't know the plot details enough (i.e. Civil War period dates, etc.) to know either way. Edwardian 22:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just as a little support for GBU being a prequel. The Civil War ended in 1865. The gun The Man with No Name uses in Fistful is a Colt .45, not introduced til 1873. Although off the top of my head I don't remember what pistol he uses in GBU. Van Cleef was not in Fistfull, he was in FDM. --Talison 19:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

GBU cannot be a prequel to the other films. Despite the acquiring of the poncho and the date of the gun. Contrary to statement above, Lee Van Cleef does play the same character in both films. He is referred to as Mortimer at least once when he is in charge of the prison camp. His character also retains the signature music used in FDM. Mortimer also recognises Blondie in the scene where Tuco is first rescued from the noose. --jk

Although I used to believe the GBU prequel idea, I have more grown to believe that the collection of films, although a trilogy, are really just based on ideas, scenarios and common myths about the West, and although they share the same actors in places, the characters (and indeed the names of the chars) are really just "placeholders". Perhaps something to this effect should be added in a sort of analysis of all three films?Nikevs 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Prequel or not, GBU is set many years before the events of FAFDM! Mortimer is a well known Civil War veteren - GBU is set during the war. Based on the age of the Van Cleef Character in FAFDM - Eastwood's character is more likely to be the younger brother of the man in GBU!Daisyabigael (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Budget

In the infobox is written that the budget was $1,200,000 (est.). But in the article itself is written that Spanish extras cost was $1,600,000. Melah Hashamaim 22:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain the exact story of the English dubbing? Was the film originally in Italian? Did Eastwood originally speak in Italian? Thanks for the clarification. Reply: As far as I know, the film was originally in Italian. However, Eastwood, as well as some of the other main characters, did not speak Italian (indeed, Eastwood could speak only a very little amount of the language).

The three main characters all spoke english and the rest Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BauerPower (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The actors each spoke their own laugage, eg clint english. So actors spoke spanish, italian and english. It was the job of someone else to correctly dub each of the laugages into english. There is information about it on the special eddition DVD i have of GBU. Ill find some more info and add it to the article unless someone else wants to.

Should be fixed up

This should be fixed up. Some details are out of sequence, etc. (e.g. Tuco and Blondie stole the uniforms BEFORE they went to the monestary).

--Also, it says "Angel Eyes, is established as a ruthless cold blooded murderer yet in the opening scene after killing a man and his wife, he leaves their son alive." He actually kills the man and his son, leaving the wife and her other son alive. Not sure what the original writer was getting at here.

movie theme

what are the words in the theme, "the good, the bad, and the ugly"?12.5.74.158 17:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC) brethdunn@yahoo.com

It says GO GO GO AMIGO! Superior1 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think they say "amigo". I believe they say "Go, go, go, FUEGO!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.113.147 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dollars" connection to "El Mariachi"

I think it should be noted in the trivia that Tarantino called Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" trilogy Rodriguez's "Dollars" trilogy after making Desperado. I also believe that the "El Mariachi" trilogy, while not originally meant to be a similar event to the "Dollars" trilogy, became so for One Upon a Time in Mexico, as Tarintino said that the movie should be a good, bad and ugly style story. 4.249.78.67 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cemetery

Does anyone know where the cemetary is which is in TG, TB, TU? Was it constructed for the movie, or did/does it exist?

The cemetery has been set up once more by the Spanish army. The location was in the Valle del Tabladillo near Burgos, Spain. : Some Italian fans of the movie keep up a nice now-and-then homepage [1] about the location. --El Suizo 08:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Analysis

Most of the "analysis" of the film is nothing but original research on behalf of some people who saw the film and wanted to share their interpretations here. If it can't be sourced by scholarly material from outside Wikipedia, it should go. CRCulver 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Movie origin

There was a Kurozawa movie black and white with three men looking for buried gold, each one bound to the other in a similar way, two having one piece of the info. Can someone verify if this movie inspired Sergio Leon's movie? I believe this was Kurozawa, seen it once but don't see it in his movie lists.., also the basis for fistfull of dollars, and magnificant 7 in two other of his films.

I think you have your facts wrong, but you maybe thinking of hidden fortress, a Kurosawa film. The basis for fistfull of Dollars is yojimbo there was no basis (that I know of) for the good the bad and the ugly. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Somebody added this: "The rifle is a winchester, not available at the time where the movie is supposed to take place." But I'm pretty sure the rifle is a Henry (made by the Winchester company, but named after the designer), and was in fact available in 1863. If someone else can confirm this without my having to drag out my DVD copy, then it should be changed or removed. Fred8615 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the above the somebody has written that the pistol appears to be a black powder model but the characters were loading with brass cartridges. This may not be an error because many early cartridge carrying revolvers were made by converting the cap and ball revolvers. It was cheaper to have a gunsmith modify an existing gun than to buy a new one. jacksjb

• In regards to the Henry, I deleted the Winchester reference as it is in fact an 1860 Henry rifle and was available by 1862(time the movie takes place) so it is correct. I added a section in Trivia on this issue.
• As regards the cartridge revolvers, they are incorrect for the period on the guns used. There was a cartridge revolver available in the form of the Smith & Wesson .32 revolver in 1856, the world's first cartridge revolver. But it was never made in great numbers as the small S&W shop couldn't make them fast enough and they were never adopted by the Army. Colt couldn't make one until the Smith & Wesson patent ran out in 1870, after which Colt began making cartridge conversions of its cap & ball guns. Then in 1873, Colt made the famous Peacemaker. So for all practical purposes, there were no mass produced cartridge guns until 1870, and then things really took off after 1873. I'll try to add some of this in as i get proper references together. G.T. Hemingway 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The stated trivia: In the Big Audio Dynamite song, Medicine Show, all of the spoken sequences are from the earlier parts of this [The good, the bad, and the ugly] movie. "Three coffins are ready.....Wanted in 14 counties of this state, the condemned is found guilty of the crimes of murder, armed robbery, etc, etc, Duck you suckers!"

Is incorrect. The line used in its first few seconds of the song is not "Three coffins are ready" but rather "Get three coffins ready" and comes from the first movie: A Fistful of Dollars. Clint Eastwood's character speaks this line to the old man that makes the coffins on his way to the Baxters camp/house in an effort to prove himself an excellent gun fighter right before what I consider one of the best monologs ever spoken:

"I don't think it's nice you laughing. You see my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might be able to convince him that you didn't mean nothin' by it"

After the subsequent gun fight, Eastwood tells the coffin maker: "My mistake: four coffins".

Cast list...

...like would it be too much trouble for someone to add a cast listing?

trezjr 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the "Dollars" films really part of a trilogy?

156.110.47.73November 9, 2006

By "JS":

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" (1966) is commonly thought to be the "prequel" to two other films, "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964) and "For A Few Dollars More" (1965). To what exact film GBU is a prequel to is rather obscure, although if one examines the films as carefully as possible (as I believe I have done my best with the technology available), there may be a chance one could answer these puzzling questions. Now, GBU is often thought of as a possible prequel to FofD. However, FofD may be the true prequel to the Film released subsequently FFDM, since the Clint Eastwood character knows an old man (he calls him "PROPHET") he can visit to gather information about Mortimer, the Lee Van Cleef character for "A Few Dollars More". The old man appears to be played by the same person in both FofD and FFDM, which indicates that FFDM may be a follow-up of FofD (and the title "For A Few Dollars More" may be a reference to "A Fistful of Dollars", suggesting that FFDM may indeed be a continuation). Also, Lee Van Cleef character appears to be the same. Cleef is referred to as Mortimer at least one time in the death camp sequence; he also recognizes Clint Eastwood when he and Eli Wallach ("TUCO") are defrauding authorities. (Why Lee Van Cleef became so evil, I will never truly understand. However, Lee Van Cleef does ask Clint to come along with him as he and his henchmen ride off toward the cemetery, and often tells his men "keep that blonde alive", which may (or may not) refer to their earlier bond within the previous film. But why would Clint kill Lee Van Cleef if they had become such good friends earlier? [He didn't kill Wallach, that's for sure!] Hey, maybe these films aren't part of a trilogy!) Also Clint appears to carry the same pistol in all three of the films. (If I'm wrong there, someone debunk that quickly!) This makes me believe there is a certain continuity among the three films that makes the films in certain respects similar. However, Leone and his various collaborators may have never intended for the films to be linked into a trilogy of any sort for the exact same individual. (Indeed, Clint's character has three different names in three different films!) It may have been UA who linked the three films together? I DON'T KNOW!!! In any respect, we should not seriously think of these films as a collective trilogy (just like the "Hunter" trilogy of WB), because they simply may be just satirical films over different ideas that were commonly being accepted in Westerns at the time.

Thank you.

There's a quote in the article from Leone which out-and-out says that Van Cleef is not the same character in both. I have a feeling that the alleged reference to "Mortimer" in the camp scene -- I've never caught it myself -- was probably done by the film's distributor while dubbing the film into English to enhance the connection of the films, rather than something Leone intended. ThatGuamGuy 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)sean

The Van Cleef character CANNOT be the same man! FAFDM takes place some years after the Civil War - Mortimer was a Colonel in the Confederate army. Angel Eyes dies in GBU which takes place during the war.

As for GBU being a prequel - just how does Eastwood's character manage not to age? Mortimer is meant to be quite old - so the war was some way back. If Eastwood is playing the same character - he hasn't aged.Daisyabigael (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The movies are a "trilogy" of ideas, themes, non corporeal things, not a trilogy like Star Wars. Things werent planned out like that in the 1960s. So it's a loose trilogy, not a literal triolgy. In any case, anacronism runs wild. I live in Texas and never heard of battles near San Antonio, nor nearly enough desert in this part of Texas, plus all the nit pickers point out all the guns are wrong, etc. SO please dont take it all so literally, it's a movie, enjoy it, have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the analysis section was quite interesting

Please, bring it back, or could someone just post the text in this discussion page, I quite liked the analysis myself.

Posted by JS on November 28, 2006, in response to the brief discussion of bringing back the analysis section: I also enjoyed the analysis part of the section of the article (which talked about its fascinating interpretive parallels in religious and moral ambiguity), and I was saddened when I found out it was deleted in mid-2006. Fortunately, I printed out the article before the analysis was edited out, so as soon as I have the time, I will re-edit the article and bring the analysis sections back.

The analysis was deleted because it violated WP:NOR. IIRC, the writer of a large portion of the analysis also posted similar commentaries on several other films, where only his own personal musings were presented and there was no reference to published scholarship. The deletion of these commentaries was approved by many film article editors. Do not bring it back, it must stay deleted. CRCulver 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Posted by JS on December 4, 2006, in response to the argument of not bringing back the analysis section: Thank you for presenting this information to me before I re-edited the section back into the article. You are right; a person should not present their biased and unverified opinions in an article. I still enjoyed the interpretations, so if anyone can find some sources of which to cite such interesting opinions, please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.110.47.73 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Richards Colt Conversion

The gun Blondie used is a Richards Conversion. Angel Eyes on the other habd is using a Remington cap and ball. The percussion caps can be clearly seen in the final showdown sequence.129.130.179.231 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also these were not available until after the war was over. There was no large scale production of brass cartridges.129.130.179.231 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. The first Colt conversions were not available until 1870. I'm sure using cartridge conversions were much more conveniant for the armorers in the movie, though.G.T. Hemingway 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A Typo?

I think this is inaccurate:

"We find him actively obtaining information about the coins - part of a Confederate payroll - from a man, whom he later mercilessly kills, along with the man's son and wife"

I recall the man and his eldest son being killed. I don't recall the wife being killed. Can someone check this, please?

24.113.80.249 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Budget details

The budget in the infobox says $1,200,000 which is taken from imdb's box office & business section. In the body of the article, it says that $1,600,000 were paid to 1,500 militia extras. On imdb's trivia section, it says it was budgetted overall for $1,600,000, and in a separate note, that 1,500 militia extras were cast. So which number should be used for the overall budget, 1.2 or 1.6 million? Also, I am changing the wording in the article so that the 1.6 million is not connected to the militia casting. Dirty Apes Talk 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Excessive citation needed tags

I believe it is a little out of hand. Using the standard exercised in this article, every other sentence in every Wikipedia article would have a citation needed tag. This is just pedantry. For example, the score is one of the most recognized in the western genre. Who is going to argue with that? That's not "original research" that simply not living in a cave since the movie came out. I mean, come on. Some seem valid, but some of them are simply the worst kind of non-productive nitpicking. 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If the score is one of the most widely recognized then certainly you can find at least one source somewhere that talks about it. I agree with you that it is one of the most recognizable, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of ideas that are commonly believed by editors. These articles need to have verifiable sources for the claims in them. If it is important that the score for this film is widely recognized, then someone would have mentioned it. In fact, I bet there are numerous places where a reliable source discussed this in a movie review or DVD review. Vivaldi (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, if you applied that kind of standard to everything written on Wikipedia, very little would ever be written. Hit the random article button ten times, and you'll find ten articles with multiple statements you could hit with a "citation needed" tag. The point of Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a pedantic indulgence in having every sentence end with a citation, but it seems to be more of a precaution against the true abuse. Some of these citations aren't even very definitive. Finding some fly-by-night online magazine or some joker's blog who says the exact same thing everyone else is saying hardly makes an article better. 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The standard you refer to should indeed be applied to all articles on Wikipedia. All claims should be verifiable and attributed to a reliable, notable source. I don't believe Vivaldi ever suggested that "Fly-by-night online magazines or some joker's blog" should be utilized. There is a wealth of published material devoted to Leone and his films that can be cited. If information cannot be sourced to a notable writer/critic, interview, or reference material, it should not be included in this article.-Hal Raglan 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who says that? Nowhere does it say that citations must be pedantically applied to every bit of information that anyone could possible dispute. And you know what? There's not even anywhere on the site that is carried out. Even if you could find somewhere in the rules where that is said, it is carried out *nowhere* on Wikipedia, and this is easily proven. Any article of moderate length has statements that are unverified, debatable, and subject to a "citation needed" tag even if they're necessary. People seem to be able to give dull recitations of what they think the rules mean, but they conveniently ignore that 1) Giving a citation for every piece of information as I've described would be impossible, 2) Nowhere on Wikipedia does this, 3) If you slapped a citation needed tag on every piece of information in question, the articles would be illegible. Go over to the Tale of Two Cities page, there's no citation for the lines in the book being the most famous. You can find this type of thing on any article. Sticking a number that 95% of readers won't look at it in front of an obvious statement does nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Look at the Abraham Lincoln page. It says he was "a leader in the western states." Says who? I demand a citation. It also says "Lincoln's leadership qualities were evident in his close supervision of the victorious war effort." Says who? I want a citation there. "Historians conclude he brilliantly handled the factions of the Republican Party by bringing the leaders into his cabinet and forcing them to cooperate." What historians? I want a citation there. "Antiwar Copperheads criticized him for refusing to compromise on slavery." Who criticized him? When did they do it? Let's get a citation. Do that with any article. You'll find out on average with 8 sentences you'll find 4 sentences that need citations needed tags by your standards. 09:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.32.116 (talk • contribs)

These aren't "my" standards, they are Wikipedia's standards. Look at the bottom of this page: "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." If you follow the provided link, you'll find a fairly detailed article that probably will alleviate your confusion regarding this policy. Interestingly enough, the Abraham Lincoln article was demoted from Featured Article status in October of 2006 because it didn't have enough inline citations. The Good the bad and the Ugly article contains several claims that need to be supported with reliable sources. Instead of simply removing the material, editors have helpfully added citation tags indicating where sources should be cited.-Hal Raglan 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there seem to be alot of nerds out there who see policing the site as their contribution to society and take things a bit too far. This is an extreme and and pretty funny example. 68.166.70.107 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone deleted the entire article so I am returning it to the previous version before the deletion. -Theleap59 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To help spot clever vandalism/slanting, here is the article's intro text (from May 2007), defining key facts/links. Much vandalism (or POV slanting) corrupts the intro facts in subtle ways (perhaps linking off-topic phrases):

Note that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was filmed in Spain, not Italy. -Wikid77 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that long 'intro text' from here. If anyone wants or needs to see it, Click Here (It's from 2007) Joe Hepperle (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

other characters section

Is that section really needed? Most of the characters are minor at best. -- Scorpion 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is neccessary; maybe a short list, at most. ThatGuamGuy 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)sean i think that most of the characters should have a paragraph at most as it adds to the detail of it. wikipedia is meant to give information not restrict it!MasterEditor99 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

When I first looked at the article, it had two spoiler warnings but no tags to say that the spoilers ended. So I added them in. It didnˈt look right so I removed them. Instead I removed the second spoiler warning and added the end tag after the two spoiler sections. If you think it doesnˈt look right, just put the tags back how they were. Althought it does seem incomplete to leave the tags open.
Seraphim Whipp 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When I came across this article, it has a spoilerend tag and no spoiler begin tag. I added them and then I got removed. The two tags are up at policy debate right now. - Time Immemorial 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile as the plot summary is clearly marked "plot" it can be assumed that any reader will recognise that it will contain details of the plot. It's not a good idea to keep unnecessary and distracting clutter in a Wikipedia article, so I've removed the spoiler tag altogether. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to exercise a little common sense and put the damn spoiler warning on it. Just because the section says "plot" doesn't let the reader know that entire film, including the ending, is explained. Not putting a spoiler tag on it just because it's the plot section is borderline retarded. That's kind of the whole point of the spoiler tag. 68.166.70.107 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER, Wikipedia's policy on when to add spoiler warnings. Goldfritter 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the plot summary section of a Wikipedia article doesn't cover the most important details of the plot, which will necessarily include all or most so-called "plot spoilers", it's a poorly written one. The existence of the "Plot" section heading or something similar means "read beyond here and you'll learn things about the plot which you did not know." Which is cool, because we're an encyclopedia and not a fan site. People come here to learn about stuff, so it's a bit silly to warn them that they're about to learn about stuff. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Posters

There are currently three film posters on the page and I was wondering if all three are really necessary. I'm not sure what the policy or usual practises are with them, but I think the original one should be the one used as the lead image. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Overview

The overview section could easily be merged into the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I've asked User:Time Immemorial to explain his edits to the lead section. I am unable to comprehend what his edits were supposed to accomplish, why he removed reliably sourced information, and why he merged lead material into other sections. —Viriditas | Talk 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's been an escalation of edit war between me and Viriditas, I propose we freeze it for the time being. A stand down of at least 24 hour to cool down. I'm posting both lead section here.

How about actually contributing content to the article instead of removing reliably sourced information and removing cite requests for unsourced information? —Viriditas | Talk 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is Viriditas':

Viriditas' Lead Section

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Italian: Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) is a 1966 Italian epic spaghetti Western directed by Sergio Leone, starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach in the title roles. The screenplay was written by Age & Scarpelli, Luciano Vincenzoni and Leone, based on a story by Vincenzoni and Leone. Director of photography Tonino Delli Colli was responsible for the film's sweeping widescreen cinematography and Ennio Morricone composed the famous film score. It is the third film in the Dollars trilogy, following A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For a Few Dollars More (1965) The plot centers around three gunslingers competing to find a fortune in buried Confederate gold amid the violent chaos of gunfights, hangings, Civil War battles, and prison camps.

Composer Ennio Morricone's distinctive original film score complements the film's American Civil War setting with memorable motifs of gunfire, whistling, and yodeling. The film's famous climax, a three-way Mexican standoff, is considered one of the most electrifying scenes ever filmed, and the music is an integral component of the drama. The film is also notable for several Leone trademarks: the sparse dialogue (the first ten minutes and thirty-five seconds have no dialogue), long scenes that slowly build to a climax, and contrasts between wide, long camera shots and extremely tight close-ups. Filmed in Spain, the cast includes 1,500 local militia members as extras.

Opening on December 23, 1966 in Italy and in the USA on December 29, 1967, the film grossed $6.1 million, but was criticized for its depiction of violence. Leone explains that "the killings in my films are exaggerated because I wanted to make a tongue-in-cheek satire on run-of-the-mill westerns...The west was made by violent, uncomplicated men, and it is this strength and simplicity that I try to recapture in my pictures." To this day, Leone's effort to reinvigorate the timeworn Western is widely acknowledged: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been described as European cinema's best representative of the Western genre film and Quentin Tarantino has called it "the best-directed film of all time."

Sorry, but at no time have I ever claimed this lead as my own. You have misrepresented these edits as I explain below. —Viriditas | Talk 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's Time Immemorial's:

Soundtrack

The score is such a major part of the film, that I was surprised there was not a section devoted to the film score. But I see the mere mention of Morricone's name is a point of dispute. Well, a soundtrack section would be a good place to put that name. Anyway, a new article, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (soundtrack) has been started, so perhaps a smaller, summary section that addresses the soundtrack could be included at the end of this article? I am happy to assist with that. — WiseKwai 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I can help out as time permits, although I think we can safely call the section "Score" or "Music" instead of soundtrack. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, Viriditas. I'll try to get started on it in the next 24 hours, unless you get to it first. — WiseKwai 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA?

The page has come along quite nicely in the last week and I apologize for not playing a larger role in its improvement - I've been very busy. I was wondering if anyone had a timeline for when we would try to get the page to GA and eventually FA status. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It needs more references, first. There is too much reliance on the Frayling, it appears. I'm not sure where to start looking, though. — WiseKwai 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegory section

Comedylife added an allegory section [2] from listing-index.ebay.com, which has no attribution other than to say it was taken from Wikipedia. I've removed it per WP:NOR. —Viriditas | Talk 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

what the hell

ok i think that you should revert the other characters list to that of MasterEditor99 because it gives more detail and also is in a table. what do other people think? Oluk 12:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MasterEditor99's edit in question can be seen here: [3] His edit was reverted by Scorpion0422 [4]. I think it is safe to say that Scorpion0422 has consensus on his side, simply due to the fact that MasterEditor99's edits are breaching the 900 word plot length by continuing the plot in the cast section. —Viriditas | Talk 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of OR and non-standard headings

I've reverted the modifications made to the headings which are standardized per WP:MOSFILMS. I've also removed the OR "Gaffs" and placed them here. Feel free to find sources and add the material back into the article. —Viriditas | Talk 07:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaffs

Even to admirers, Leone's pretense to authenticity has always been suspect. Film critic Richard Schickel has pointed out that Leone should be looked to for masterful storytelling rather than accurate history. In his evaluation of Leone's historicity, Schickel is partly wrong and partly right. Where Schickel is wrong, he has considered the events that form the historical backdrop of the film to be entirely minor and, on at least one occasion (a televised panel discussion on Leone's film), has said he believes that the events might have occurred in Texas. Actually, the New Mexico Campaign of the American Civil War, which Leone explicitly references, is arguably of some historical significance, and the film is clearly set in the New Mexico Territory, as references to such cities and places as Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Fort Craig make amply clear.

Schickel is right, however, to be suspicious of Leone's claims to historical accuracy which are often mixed. Leone went to great lengths to retain the use of a vintage railroad train that is accurate to the period but not to the place: No railroad was built in New Mexico until after the Civil War. One of the most expensive scenes in the movie involves a battle at a bridge over a river, presumeably the Rio Grande, but during the Civil War there were no major bridges in New Mexico, few minor ones, and none on the Rio Grande. There were no prison camps built by either side in New Mexico, and Andersonville, which is mentioned in the film, had not yet opened in 1862 when the New Mexico Campaign took place. In both the battle for the bridge and the prison camp scenes, of course, Leone was taking artistic license to make comments about war in general.

Numerous gaffs occur in the film. There are anachronistic references to persons, as when General Ulysses S. Grant is described as the leading Union commander, although, actually, he was relatively obscure until later in the war. There are also baffling geographical errors, as when Tuco and Blondie, after mentioning their proximity to mountain ranges in northern New Mexico, suggest that by travelling west they might reach Texas. A glance at a map shows that Texas is east of New Mexico.

But, if you are in Eastern New Mexico (Say, Carlsbad), you would have to travel West to reach El Paso, TX. By the way, there are mountains beyween Carlsbad and El Paso. 12.1.40.2 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The film is somewhat less liked by female IMDB users, failing to crack top-50 with them.[5] Is there a way to mention that as there is the popularity of The Notebook with female users?--T. Anthony (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ilbuonoilbrutto.jpg

Image:Ilbuonoilbrutto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ecstacy of Gold

it sounds a bit funny that the this article states the moeny was in an unmarked grave in the cemetary but then goes to say Tuco was too late to hear the name because Carson had died before he could tell him.

unmarked means their is no name so Tuco owuld have already known at that point fromt he way it is worded. shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Screen shots public domain?

I don't know anything about Italian copyright law, and my knowledge of Italian isn't great, but the images on the Italian wikipedia imply that Italian-produced films more than 20 years old fall into the public domain, and that the images in this article could be considered free (see it:Immagine:Buono Brutto Cattivo head titles.png, for example, or any of the other pictures in the article -- this first one explains that it applies to multinational productions that premiered in Italy as well). If this is true, it would be a great boon to the free content of this article, as there would not have to be the cumbersome fair use exemptions on all the pictures. Can somebody more knowledgeable about Italian copyright law sort this out? The Italian Wikipedia seems to think they're free, as this is today's featured article so I imagine somebody would have checked it out if it was suspicious (if not, we should probably let them know). Or are there rules on the English Wikipedia that would override this? Rigadoun (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Italian wikipedia is incorrect. "Simple, documentary photographs" expire after 20 years but this is probably not a photograph (at least in US copyright law "motion pictures" have their own category) and even if it is, is not a "simple documentary photograph" which normally includes things like passport photos etc.--the idea is that those require minimal creative input, which is clearly not the case for one of the best movies ever made. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I review the mentioned article 87 of the Italian copyright laws, stills from movies are defined within the range of the 20-years policy - "Sono considerate fotografie...Dell'arte figurativa e i fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche.". I can't really see further restricting passages within the law. El Suizo (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Good the bad and the ugly poster.jpg

Image:Good the bad and the ugly poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie references

Sergio Leone was noted for basing aspects of his work on earlier westerns. This was especially so in the later Once Upon a Time in the West. Examples in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly include:

• The Magnificent Seven. Mario Brega's part as the bullying Corporal Wallace mirrors Robert J. Wilke's role as the railroad bully Wallace, who was killed by James Coburn in the famous gun versus knife fight.

Needs refs and should be incorporated into primary, rather than trivial homage section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoof

• Get Smart did a spoof of the gunfight-between Maxwell Smart and two Kaos Agents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.130 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Please make an effort to help source anything needing a citation. I will begin removing them and placing them on this page in a week. Viriditas (talk)

An unexplained part in the plot

Although it is explained in the DVD why Angel Eyes came to the prison camp, it is not known why wallace takes orders from him, as it didn't appear like he was stationed there before. 89.138.71.123 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia section

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in popular culture

• In the 1970 war film Kelly's Heroes, a nod to Eastwood's spaghetti westerns pops up during his standoff with the Tiger tank when the soundtrack uses a small bit of music reminiscent of Morricone's work.
• A song from the band Gorillaz is named "Clint Eastwood", and features references to the actor. The iconic yell featured in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly's score can be heard at the beginning of the video.
• A song from Big Audio Dynamite named "Medicine Show" features many sound-bites from the film.
• The song "You Know What You Are" from the 1988 album The Land of Rape and Honey by industrial metal group Ministry repeats the song title (a portion of Tuco's final epithet at Blondie) as a background sample.
• During the opening shot of the 2006 film Crank, starring Jason Statham, the special edition DVD of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly can be glimpsed on a table.
• The South Korean western movie The Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008) is inspired by The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
• In his introduction to the 2003 revised edition of his novel The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger, Stephen King revealed that the film was a primary influence for the Dark Tower series, and that Eastwood's character specifically inspired the creation of King's protagonist, Roland Deschain.
• In the PC game Fallout 2, there is a scene where the main character is sent by his employer to track down a man who robbed him. Upon finding the man, the main character offers him his freedom in exchange for the money. The man then leads the main character out into a large desert graveyard and shows him the grave where the money is buried. The main character tells the man "There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig." This scene is quite reminiscent of one of the last scenes in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Name of cemetery

Is not the name of the cemetery "Sand Hill" and not "Sad Hill"? Anyway, "Sand Hill" is what I hear on the movie.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "Sad Hill" is what is displayed through closed captioning and subtitles. Can't always go by those, though, I know, but at least it's something... — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Misnamed Characters

It almost seems to me that the original Italian designations of each of the three characters makes more sense than the now accepted American one. Originally Tuco was "Bad" and Angel Eyes "Ugly"; assuming these adjectives were descriptions of behavior and not physical appearance. "Ugly" behavior seems worse than merely "Bad" (as in common criminal); set in 1863, just 16 years after the Mexican-American War makes it seem as if Tuco did not have many options in life (allowing for some understanding of his actions) but that Angel Eyes, being an officer in the U.S. Army did and so was the real "Ugly" one.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article length, Tuco's picture, Tarantino's quotes and superfluous sentence

This article is, at 49k, IMO, a bit on the long side. It is, after all about one film; a very good film, but nonetheless, one film.

There is something about the picture of Tuco about halfway into the article which doesn't look right, or is Eli Wallach left-handed? I would turn the picture round myself but I don't know how. Could somebody oblige?

The two Tarantino quotes are almost identical, ie: "best-directed film of all time" (in the intro) and "best film of all time" (about three quarters of the way through); are they the same?

I have removed this sentence which appears in the 'Film' section: "Because they were cut, the scenes had not been dubbed in English and were only available in the origional Italian dub on the DVD release". Virtually the same information is present in the 'DVD' section, (which follows).

RASAM (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)