News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Joe, Manco and Blondy  (Read 59841 times)
gimpy
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


Tough IS Enough!


View Profile Email
« Reply #80 on: February 08, 2005, 11:13:39 PM »

SORRY ABOUT THAT KC! haha I've made you merge too many threads already, better start reading the older ones.
Logged

"No one eats ketchup with their hotdogs!"
-Dirty Harry
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2005, 12:13:55 AM »

No problem, gimpy ... sometimes those old threads get kind of lost. It's nice to revive them once in a while.
Logged
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 315



View Profile Email
« Reply #82 on: February 11, 2005, 07:35:21 AM »

Lordy, does this bring back memories.

Using my Bond anology (yes Im watching waaay to much of James Bond these days) I think Sergio Leone had the same character in mind when he made all four movies (including ONCE UPON A TIME)..as to whether they were the actual same person? Im not really sure.

I think that because of the titles and consistencies in the movies, everyone agrees FISTFUL and FFDM are the same characters. Where we had the problem was linking the GBU series in because of the timeline.

If keeping the spirit of the "man with no name" was Leones intention, then absolutely, with no question, its the same guy.

But for us fans...us over analytical obsessive fans, we gotta ask the timeline questions. Im curious as to whether or not the guy in FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is the same guy as DIRTY HARRY, timelines not withstanding  :D
Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
Grave unknown
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile Email
« Reply #83 on: February 11, 2005, 10:52:07 AM »

hes wearing the sam outfit in ffd, ffdm, and near the end of gbu. clearly Leone is pointing them as the same. Even at the end of GBU he takes off his duster and picks up the poncho.  Leone was trying to show us at the end they were the same.  Also in GBU he looks a lot older so the timeline thing could work.  If he were in his early 20s in ffd and ffmd, he could be in his early forties in GBU. O0
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #84 on: February 11, 2005, 09:37:45 PM »

Grave unknown, if you would read through this whole thread, you would be reminded of the fact that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is set during the U.S. Civil War (1860-1865). Specifically, it takes place around the time of the Battle of Gloreta Pass March 26-28, 1862. Various clues (a date on a tombstone, the model of the guns) tell us that the other two films are set in an era more than a decade later, in the mid-1870s. Though The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was flmed last (1966; A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More were filmed in 1964 and 1965 respectively), it is the first in the chronological sequence.

So, if he looks older in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly , that would be a sign that he's not meant to be the same character. 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2005, 09:55:40 PM by KC » Logged
Doc Holliday
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


To us and those like us. There's damn few left.


View Profile Email
« Reply #85 on: April 07, 2005, 01:35:21 PM »

Blondy and Manco could be the same person.  Both are bounty hunters and both carry a Henry repeater rifle, which was introduced and widely used in the Civil War.

Joe didn't seem to have a vocation, he was just a drifter who wandered into a money-making situation.
Logged

"I'm your huckleberry."  "You're a daisy if you do."
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #86 on: June 25, 2005, 01:37:19 AM »

In terms of the timeline I think it is worth mentioning that Blondie seems a lot wiser than Joe and Manco.

WKC.
Logged

Mr Soul
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


"It's no joke, Tuco. It's a rope."


View Profile Email
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2005, 05:20:44 PM »

Yes...no...maybe so!
Logged

"Hey, ho-Let's go!"-The Ramones
Concorde
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


"I made you ready...for spaghetti!"


View Profile Email
« Reply #88 on: August 08, 2005, 05:30:26 AM »

I'm chiming in really late here, but I just took a quick look at my un-enhanced domestic DVD of FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and noticed that there is an onscreen date at least once.

It's in the scene where Col. Mortimer goes to the newspaper office and sifts through the paper's archives. The date is a little hard to read on my screen (maybe somebody with the 16x9 enchanced foreign disc can make it out more clearly), but one of the papers appears to be dated 1873. Heck, it could be 1878 too...As I said, the resolution isn't quite sharp enough on my copy of the disc, as shown on my projection TV set.

Remember that this is an old newspaper -- a back issue from the paper's "morgue" -- so the action of the film proper would be set after the printed date.

Sorry if this fact is old news (pardon pun) but I didn't remember it being mentioned before, and I didn't see it referenced during a recent quick skim of the previous six pages (!!!) of posts.....

 :-\
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #89 on: August 08, 2005, 06:30:32 AM »

I've also noticed that newspaper, and I've strained to make out the date. Like Concorde, I had trouble deciding exactly what it was.

Hope you weren't too bored reading the past six pages, Concorde!  ;)
Logged
Concorde
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


"I made you ready...for spaghetti!"


View Profile Email
« Reply #90 on: August 08, 2005, 12:37:29 PM »

Not bored atall, KC!

That newspaper date is maddeningly elusive....On my TV set, it's just blurry enough to be visible as the shape of a date but not distinct enough for a clear reading thereof...

 :o

I'm sure thinking it's 1873, though....
Logged
Manco66
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


Feeling lucky!


View Profile Email
« Reply #91 on: September 13, 2005, 04:27:21 AM »

The timeline in the movies don't fit, but the timeline in Clints life does:

J, M and B is William Munny. and so can the Preacher in Pale Rider. Movies are fantasies and if you say for you self that hi is, hi is.  :)
Logged
vik
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2802


flags of our fathers


View Profile Email
« Reply #92 on: September 13, 2005, 05:06:28 AM »

i don't think so

similar but not the same i reckon

sure all are ce though

i don't think the preacher is the same as the drifter
although he could be a sorta backlash to the way the
drifter behaved

its a nice sort of intro for a western a preacher, big surprise
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 12:34:11 PM by vik » Logged

england -  its flag the St George flag
Macahan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile Email
« Reply #93 on: October 02, 2007, 10:38:42 AM »

I find it odd that in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Blondy finds
"the poncho" sitting on a fence next to a dying confederate
soldier.
Logged
Neurolanis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2008, 04:02:59 AM »

Much of this discussion is ridiculous. Allow me to post some facts to silly questions:

A. Joe, Manco and Blondie are all the same person. Blondie is just a nickname (obviously) and Joe and Manco may or may not be nicknames or his real first and last name (I don't think it really mattered to Leone.) The Man with No Name was a gimmick made up by the executives, but it isn't so far from the truth.

B. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" was set during the Civil War and thus a slightly earlier timeline to the other two films. It was determined, and did not necessarily matter a whole lot to Leone, if it was technically the same character or not. But when Blondie dons the exact same poncho at the end as he had worn in the first two films, it gives fans the knowledge that he is the same character after all. We are left to speculate as to what happened to the money before a Fistful of Dollars. Did he gamble it all away, or was he robbed, or lost it in some risky business venture to turn it into bigger dollars? We don't know, and ultimately it doesn't matter a whole lot. At the beginning of "Once Upon a Time in the West" there are three men who got shot down by Bronson, and he in turn gets wounded. Leone had originally intended these three men to be the Man with No Name (Eastwood), Tuco (Wallach) and Colonel Mortimer (Van Cleef), but the actors refused. It seems pretty clear how disguised these characters are...

C. Therefore, Colonel Mortimer is not the same man as Angel Eyes (especially as Angel Eyes dies in an earlier timeframe.) Leone believed in hiring the same actors and crew over and over as a sense of family, so loyalty and communication were strong. This was a directing technique which Eastwood would later attempt to follow himself. And so you have Van Cleef playing two different supporting characters, as you have many familiar faces if you look closely enough. But you will notice that Van Cleef's two characters in the trilogy dress quite differently; this used to clearly distinguish the two (just as the poncho which Blondie dons clearly identifies him as the same character that he had been playing.)

D. The reason why the so-called Man with No Name looks older in "Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is due to two reasons: A. Eastwood wasn't getting younger. And B. All that time Eastwood was spending in the hot desert areas of Mexico (it burns your skin (easy to forget that with all the advanced sun bock lotions we have today.)

E. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is the single greatest western ever made, period. Look at its perfect balance between myth and realism, drama and comedy, character and plot, and this added to Leone's brilliant visual style, the actors spot-on performances, Morricone's astonishing music, the quality costume and set design, the large epic scale of the work, and how every element resonates on its own and yet grooves perfectly into the film (the previously edited out scenes of course discounted.) And on top of all of this, magical moments in time, such as Tuco's run through Sad Hill. And when you look at the film's impact on the audience, its artistic influences and its staying power, no one other western comes close (besides the first two parts of the trilogy, that is.)
« Last Edit: July 20, 2008, 04:05:31 AM by Neurolanis » Logged
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2008, 04:10:32 AM »

Much of this discussion is ridiculous. Allow me to post some facts to silly questions:

Facts to you perhaps.   Flawed wishful thinking to others  ;)
Logged

icnmedia
Guest


Email
« Reply #96 on: July 22, 2008, 01:02:54 AM »

I refuse 100% to believe that he had a name! (I believe I might have already wrote a post on this awhile back).
When he was called JOE once or twice by the coffin maker in AFFOD, it is like a nik (ala Buddy, Mac, etc), in the GB&U, the same with Blondie,(ala angel eyes, etc). Its in FAFDM where the sheriff calls him Manco once that bugs the Heck outta me!!!! STILL, I refuse to believe that he has a name. Some silly dude in the dubbing dept was high, lol
I know, I know I also heard clint say it was a stunt from the studios, but I was a little boy of 8 when I saw these films and they cant take that away from me!
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #97 on: July 22, 2008, 08:14:48 AM »

Manco is "Monco" in the Italian version of the film. Both words mean, in this context, approximately the same as "Lefty" (the character uses his left hand for everything, except shooting).

So that's not a name either. :)
Logged
cigar joe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


easy come easy go


View Profile Email
« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2008, 05:33:47 AM »

Time to chime in here on latest timelines for the films based on clues within the films themselves:



The Good The Bad and The Ugly:


Basically GBU is pretty straight forward it takes place during the Civil War; that is, between 1861 and 1865. Actually, I would say between 1861and 1862 (Arch Stanton died February 3, 1862 and there is only a skeleton left of him). Sibley's New Mexico Campaign is the anchor.


For A Few Dollars more:

Newspaper date: Look at the thickness of that binder where Mortimer finds the image of Manco!

I always assumed the front page halftone image was from White Rocks now it looks like the the caption says Marton Brothers were killed in Red Hill Montana And it was back in 1872 or 3 what ever we decide that date is.

If he finds Manco at the center of that binder that means the last page of the archive would bring us to the present day.  At four to six pages per issue thats a lot of papers and assuming that in a place like El Paso they didn't published every day that binder can represent years. Which would make sense.

We know that on May 19, 1881: Southern Pacific tracks reach El Paso, Texas, and that " The Rock Island continued its trek westward and soon added "Pacific" to then end of its name as a final destination goal. A line to Colorado Springs was completed in 1888 and trackage rights to Denver was acquired in 1889. A line southwest across Kansas stretched to Tucumcari by the late-1890s and a connection was completed with the Southern Pacific, thus completing the Pacific goal."

If we go by these clues The archive binder and the historical record for the railroads (the key is railroads in both Tucumcari & El Paso) "For a Few Dollars More" could take place as late as the mid 1890's which would put it closer in time to "A Fistful of Dollars".


A FistfFul Of Dollars:

AFOD is probably (just guessing from the lack of budget available to Leone) the loosest in accuracy.

AFOD is bracketed by the latest the US Cavalry still wore the blue kersey tunics and medium blue wool trousers they did up to the Spanish American War 1898, they were just developing the Model 1898 Khaki uniform in June of 1898.. The earliest date a fully automatic machine gun (just prop in the film its not a Gatling Gun Ramon is not cranking it) would have been available , and the  first use of Khaki Uniforms by the Mexican Army (which I haven't found a concrete date for yet). So this last one is pretty close to the turn of the century.


All in all though I just think of them as campfire stories, legends about a stranger, a cigar smoking, poncho wearing, con artist stranger, who may or may not be the same guy, he probably is but when the stories are told around the fire in our minds eye he never ages and that's what we see on the screen.





Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2008, 05:43:20 AM »

Nice work, Cigar Joe, thanks!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T