Talk:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

message: The Production section contains a statement implying that some of the movie is set in "the extreme deep south of the United States". This is not correct, because in the US "deep south" is an idiom referring to the southeast part of the country, roughly from Louisiana to Tennessee to Virginia to Georgia. Other discussions I've read indicate that the end may be intended to be as far east as Missouri, but Missouri does not qualify as "deep south". The WP article on the Deep South gives a slightly different interpretation, which is natural as the term is not strictly defined, but no interpretation includes either Missouri or New Mexico, much less Arizona. However, I don't know enough about the shooting locations and plot locations to correct it. Paleolith (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's clearly wrong.  I've corrected it to "southwestern United States". — Satori Son 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Paleolith for pointing this out and to Satori Son for fixing it. For your info the events covered in the film are loosely (very loosely) based on the New Mexico Campaign portion of the Civil War. Due to the fact that huge liberties are taken with those events I wouldn't necessarily add this to the article. As to shooting locations this film like Fistful... and A Few... was filmed in Spain. I hope that this helps and thanks again to you both and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about shooting locations being in Spain. I should have stuck to referring to plot locations. Thanks to Satori Son for making the fix. Paleolith (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production: not the deep south 

message: Adventure films has recently been added as a category for this page. I feel this is inappropriate. Can we have some more opinions on this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, the only source that lists this as an adventure film is imdb (which is not reliable) and users in forums  (also not reliable). 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...cool? Weird since you added it to the article and reverted it twice from me in the first place.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adventure film

message: The article claims that Blondie is the Good, Angel Eyes the Bad, and Tuco the Ugly.  That certainly makes sense.  But this old trailer for the film indicates that Tuco was the Bad and Angel Eyes the Ugly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13EUXqIwDkQ&feature Poldy Bloom (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both adjectives translate as "bad" and sometimes can be used synonymic in Italian. But "brutto" has the connotation "unpleasant", used as in "tempo brutto" meaning "bad weather". In this line of thought somebody ugly would qualify as unpleasant to the eye. Whereas "cattivo" implies immorality and maliciousness based on intent. An even simpler approach would be the common Latin origin of the Italian "brutto" and the English "brute", resulting in a matching description of the Tuco character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.76.139 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If I might suggest, why not make it clear that the depictions in the Italian title are in a different order? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "The Good", who is "The Bad", and who is "The Ugly"? 

message: The name of the cemetary is Sand Hill, not Sad Hill.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.44.204 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. Both the close captions and the subtitles state "Sad Hill" and when I watched the film again just a few days ago I listened closely and they actually say "Sad Hill" no "n" is pronounced. Nice spelling of the word cemetery BTW. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't using speech recognition software and the subtitles were may have been created before such a thing existed. You may or may not have a script but changes between script and screen happen all the time and the subtitles and close captioning are what we go with here. You will also want to read WP:NPA if you wish to edit further. MarnetteD | Talk 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW regarding your totally inappropriate entry in the article you might want to reread your script and watch the film again. It is set in and around the New Mexico Campaign. The mention of Henry Hopkins Sibley at various points in the film confirms this. That is several thousand miles from Georgia. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

text:  If a script exists that says "BLAH" instead of "Blah", the first thing to question, surely, is the provenance of this "evidence". I'm not sure which field - "movie memorabilia" or "famous people's autographs" - is more rife with fakes (innocent and deliberate) than the other, but both fields are pretty infamous for fakes. <BR>That Google Earth shows that a place called "Sand Hill Cemetery" exists would be relevant if the scriptwriters were using Google Earth in the mid-1960s ... which would possibly have other, larger implications (time travel, etc). As a plot "McGuffin", the name of the cemetery really doesn't matter. I don't think "historical accuracy" was terribly high in the motives of preparing the shooting script. I was looking at the "Tuco in the gunsmiths shop" scene just now, from the point of view of the arms (continued below) and the weapons presented seem to be ones which required the cranking of a barrel-side lever for every (paper) cartridge that was loaded into the revolver ... which isn't "historical". (I am not a gun nut - I may be wrong, but ...) As far as I can tell, single piece rear-loaded cartridges became available after the US Civil War time period of the film.
In contrast to the comment about "historical accuracy" above, my interest in the gunshop scene is that I am pretty sure that Tuco deliberately (sense: "with deliberation"; contrast: "by accident") breaks down three weapons, mixes their parts, and reassembles one weapon. That is a test of the interchangeability of parts and the precision of machining which is essential to "mass production" - and which was a relatively new thing in the 1860s. The scene takes up enough time that I wonder what purpose - apart from the obvious "re-arm Tuco", for the plot - it served Leone. While the weapons as a whole suffer from the same inaccuracies as almost every other "Western", that gunshop scene seems to me to be making a different point.<BR>Meh! original research. But I'm not interested enough in movies to dig out a "Dollars Trilogy" fan site. (Oops, forgot to sign) AKarley (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetary 

message: The Tuco Ramirez article has been tagged with a proposed merge (to this one) since December 2009, yet I don't see any discussion in the talk archives here (or there). It might be a good idea. Is the character really notable on his own to warrant an entire article (that essentially just rehashes half the plot of the film)? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you post Fru1tbat. I come across these old merge tags from time to time. They might have brought action in the past but they don't seem to have any effect anymore. The Tuco article doesn't have much that is encyclopedic in it (I wish that we had a Wikifiction or Fictionpedia where editors could create things like that to their hearts content) and anything that could be salvaged from it could easily be added here - if it isn't here already. If you want any action to occur I think that the best bet would be to list it at WP:AFD with a recommendation of merge and then see what happens. Thanks again for bringing some attention to this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  old proposed merge 

message: As far as I am concerned the place where the cemetery was build is not part of the municipality of Carazo but Santo Domingo de Silos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.0.125 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carazo vs. Santo Domingo de Silos 

message: I don't know what others think, but personally, i couldn't disagree more with the current plot summary's characterization of the end as a "Mexican standoff", with the men "calculating allegiances".  No way.  It was entirely clear that what Blondie was proposing was a three-way shoot out.  No "allegiances".  It was to be man for himself.  The only thing they were "calculating" was when was the right moment to make the initiating move and which of the two opponents to shoot first.
Of course, in his own mind Blondie knew he that he *really* only intended to kill Angel Eyes and that he didn't have to worry about Tuco.  But that was his secret.  He intentionally framed his proposal as a three-way shoot out, where each man would try to kill *both* of the other two, and that's clearly how both Tuco and Angel Eyes saw it.  When Tuco's gun does not fire after Angel Eyes has been shot, Tuco clearly flinches fully expecting Blondie to shoot him next.  
In a Mexican standoff, everyone is using the threat of shooting to keep anyone from shooting because no one will survive.  In this, there was no thought or attempt to prevent the shooting.  Here, the idea was form them to just have a straight old-fashioned, quick-draw shoot-out, just with three guys instead of two, with every expectation that one of the three *would* survive.  76.170.160.245 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue a defining characteristic of a Mexican Standoff is skill has no bearing on the outcome. Everyone is at exactly the same advantage/disadvantage. If shooting starts, everyone has the same chance of winding up dead and if someone does come out on top, it's not because the odds actually favored them. But that's not the case here. Not only has Blondie rigged the contest by removing Tuco's ammo, the showdown between him and Angel Eyes comes down to skill, not just luck -- both because he is the better shot, and because of the aforementioned rigging, which means Angel Eyes believes he needs to make two shots, not just one. So while Angel Eyes *thinks* he's in a Mexican Standoff, he's actually at a distinct disadvantage, and therefore not. 2600:1702:E30:D070:967:241E:576:4777 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced of the change, and question the lack of mention in edit summaries. As the viewer, we're not aware that the truel was rigged. We don't find out until Angel Eyes is killed, and Tuco's gun won't fire. As I haven't found where in the page history the text was changed, I am restoring the text until a more thorough discussion is concluded. See the RfC discussion below. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican standoff 

message: I was watching one of the documentaries on the Blu-ray release and it was mentioned that Eastwood and Wallach were brought in sometime in the mid-2000s to re-record dialogue for the deleted scenes when the film was restored (Tuco meeting the thugs in the cave being one of the scenes). I don't see any reference to that here. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The restored version from some years ago is actually Leone's artistic vision, it is an edit based on the Rome premiere and only missing a few seconds of the torture scene in the POW camp due to lack of a decent print. Still lost is the sequence taking place at Socorro – parts of it were used in a trailer, but the material itself was never included in the final cut.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.97.165 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring lost scenes 

message: The plot summary is currently 1,348 words long, which is nearly double the maximum length of 700 words called for by WP:FILMPLOT.  This needs to be addressed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot length 

message: I've just watched the DVD extras, in which Clint Eastwood states that Sergio Leone wanted Henry Fonda to play "The Bad". Mr Larrington (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Bronson? 

message: In my opinion every article on a film should include the type of film and the release's aspect ratio.
Also, the expression "anamorphically enhanced" does not make sense. Is the original aspect ratio 2.35:1, as can be found on various websites, (see http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/18724/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly/theatrical-aspect-ratio.html)and has it been altered (cropped and panned) on the latest DVD versions?
Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: Plot could do with some obvious edits to cut down the word count, eliminate redundancy and highlight some important points of the story. I am presuming seven nearly single sentence points are not too long to avoid perusal.
	
1. I think it is important to mention that Tuco had Blondie try and hang himself as it plays well into their history as well as into the final scene
 	
2. It has been mentioned that Blondie collapses from dehydration. So mentioning again at the end that he has to recover from dehydration is redundant
 
3. Mentioning right away that Blondie lies about the grave takes away an important twist as one goes on reading the passage. Furthermore, it is mentioned later on that "Blondie states he lied about the grave". So again, redundancy. For these two reasons, just mentioning that he reveals the grave as Arch Stanton would suffice in my opinion.
 
4. It is well known that that area of the cemetery is the courtyard, but this may not be important.
 
5. It is obvious that Tuco would be angry. Mentioning so does not serve any purpose. However, it is important to mention that he is tied up, because he has the gold in front of him, but is unable to access it or take it with him. That was Blondie's "revenge" after all despite being a fair man.
6. "Shouts abuses" does not sound right. The correct syntax would be "abuses loudly".
 
7. The error in the "Eli Wallach" passage is quite blatant. It is imperative that both Clint and Lee be mentioned by their first names, instead of "Clint" and "Angel Eyes". That just does not make sense.  Jamf21 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot trimming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012154144/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100524 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100524
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423212952/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=Quentin&surname=Tarantino to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=Quentin&surname=Tarantino
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202024236/http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=600114 to http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=600114
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified