Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / TheGoodTheBadAndTheUgly

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Not just possible; we literally see
** It could be part of the vaguely [[MagicalRealism magical realist-mythic]] tone the movie is establishing. This is a movie where entire battlefields suddenly out of nowhere when it becomes appropriate for them to do so, after all. So yeah, against all odds, maybe Tuco did somehow end up with his old gun back.
** Blondie also might not be speaking entirely literally here. They're hiding out in a bombed-out town that all the inhabitants were seen fleeing from as the battle drew closer. Then, suddenly, in this deserted town, there's a distant gunshot, implying that at least two other people are there. In a deserted town that everyone was fleeing, there's only one other person than Blondie, Angel Eyes and his gang who has any reason to either enter or stay within the town, and that's Tuco. Blondie didn't necessarily recognise the specific gunshot, he was just being a bit poetic to the stray he was talking to, and didn't want to necessarily directly alert Angel Eyes or his men to his suspicion that Tuco had caught up with them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** This could also be a case of SeinfeldIsUnfunny. The Good The Bad and the Ugly may not look like a deconstruction compared to say, Unforgiven, but when you compare it to the average American western circa 1966, the conduct of the protagonists looks considerably more morally ambiguous.

to:

*** This could also be a case of SeinfeldIsUnfunny.OnceOriginalNowCommon. The Good The Bad and the Ugly may not look like a deconstruction compared to say, Unforgiven, but when you compare it to the average American western circa 1966, the conduct of the protagonists looks considerably more morally ambiguous.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** This. After all they've gone through, he doesn't just want to beat them, he wants them to ''know'' he's beaten them.
Tabs MOD

Changed: 15

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
dewicking disambiguation page


** They were conscripted for as long as that bridge was there- they were let go because the bridge was gone. Plus crossing up or downriver carries several dangers (eg. running into troops, running into Angel Eyes, stray mortar, etc.). But aside from all that, the battle for the bridge was "a senseless waste of human life", and Blondie at least has something of a conscience; Tuco less so, but he agrees that it would be better for everyone if the bridge vanished, and Blondie might just be a [[JustForPun good / bad / ugly]] influence on him in that respect.

to:

** They were conscripted for as long as that bridge was there- they were let go because the bridge was gone. Plus crossing up or downriver carries several dangers (eg. running into troops, running into Angel Eyes, stray mortar, etc.). But aside from all that, the battle for the bridge was "a senseless waste of human life", and Blondie at least has something of a conscience; Tuco less so, but he agrees that it would be better for everyone if the bridge vanished, and Blondie might just be a [[JustForPun good / bad / ugly]] ugly influence on him in that respect.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** This one's basically just RuleOfCool. It's all a set-up for Tuco to get the drop on a guy hunting him while he's butt-naked in the bath, drop a nice little subversion of WhyDontYouJustShootHim, and demonstrate to the audience that while he might not be Blondie or Angel Eyes, he's savvy and quick enough to hold his own.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either, and most of the people he does come into conflict with are themselves rather horrible (and usually worse than him).

to:

** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either, and most of the people he does come into conflict with are themselves rather horrible (and usually worse than him). He likely just hasn't really done anything that would make him a major target of the law or that would put a significant bounty on his head.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either, and most of the people he does come into conflict with are themselves rather horrible (and usually worse than him).

to:

** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either, and most of the people he does come into conflict with are themselves rather horrible (and usually worse than him).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.

to:

** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.either, and most of the people he does come into conflict with are themselves rather horrible (and usually worse than him).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It's perhaps a bit more simple than we're making out here. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Spaghetti Western, the heroes of westerns tended to be the Roy Rogers / John Wayne / Gary Cooper / etc. model; lawmen, sheriffs, marshalls, rangers, etc. There was a clear delineation between the good (the forces of law) and the bad (the outlaws). Even when the hero was more of a mysterious drifter type, they still tended to be clearly established as the good guys -- they were the ''Shane'' types who, though they might have been willing to get their hands dirty in a good cause, at least recognised and stood for the good cause. They'd wander from town to town protecting the innocent and bringing frontier justice to the guilty. Now look at Blondie, the "good". He's a mysterious drifter, but he's in it for himself. He doesn't stand for justice or the law, but lives outside of both. He's a bounty hunter, a man who pursues criminals purely for the gold (and he's a corrupt one at that). He's pretty close in nature and personality to the outlaws who, in classic westerns, would be unambiguously the bad guys. He does have a moral code of sorts, he's not completely void of compassion, mercy and decency, and those he tangles with tend to be worse than he, but overall he doesn't really seem to have many principles higher than what he can gain from any situation. And perhaps most importantly, he has little compunction about killing if it'll serve his interests. Despite the labels, the "good" is clearly shown to be closer to the "bad" and the "ugly" than classic westerns tended to admit. And yet, he's still our hero. The movie deconstructs the classic western hero by suggesting that a man who wandered the west shooting people who got in his way would probably not be the upstanding moral paragon that the classic western tended to depict him as.

to:

** It's perhaps a bit more simple than we're making out here. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Spaghetti Western, the heroes of westerns tended to be the Roy Rogers / John Wayne / Gary Cooper / etc. model; lawmen, sheriffs, marshalls, rangers, etc. There was a clear delineation between the good (the forces of law) and the bad (the outlaws). Even when the hero was more of a mysterious drifter type, they still tended to be clearly established as the good guys -- they were the ''Shane'' types who, though they might have been willing to get their hands dirty in a good cause, at least recognised and stood for the good cause. They'd wander from town to town protecting the innocent and bringing frontier justice to the guilty. Now look at Blondie, the "good". He's a mysterious drifter, but he's in it for himself. He doesn't stand for justice or the law, but lives outside of both. He's a bounty hunter, a man who pursues criminals purely for the gold (and he's a corrupt one at that). He's pretty close in nature and personality to the outlaws who, in classic westerns, would be unambiguously the bad guys. He does have still earns the title of "good"; he has a moral code of sorts, he's not completely void capable of compassion, mercy and decency, he doesn't target the innocent and is willing to leave you alone if you return the favour, and those he tangles with does go up against tend to be much worse than he, but he. But overall he doesn't really seem to have many principles higher than what he can gain from any situation. And perhaps most importantly, he has little compunction about killing if it'll serve his interests. Despite the labels, the "good" is clearly shown to be closer to the "bad" and the "ugly" than classic westerns tended to admit. And yet, he's still our hero. The movie deconstructs the classic western hero by suggesting that a man who wandered the west shooting people who got in his way would probably not be the upstanding moral paragon that the classic western tended to depict him as.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a decent man, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.

to:

** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a decent man, law-abiding paragon, true, but he doesn't really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a decent man, but he doesn't exactly go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.

to:

** Blondie doesn't really seem to do anything that would put a bounty on his head, other than helping Tuco escape (and, as noted, that's from a distance, where few can make him out). There's perhaps a reason he's identified as the "Good", after all; he's not exactly a decent man, true, but he doesn't exactly really go out of his way to commit crimes against other people either.



** [[spoiler: I don't think Tuco was blessed with the abundance of brains to figure the ploy, so it would make sense that it would never occur to him. As for Angel-Eyes, he was never directly involved when the information was being parsed out, and therefore didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle to figure it out. Maybe.]]
** [[spoiler: It wasn't just anyone else. Blondie told Tuco the gold was in Arch Stanton's grave. In actuality, the dying soldier had told him it was next to Arch Stanton's grave, in a grave marked unknown. This way, even if Tuco begins digging in the false grave, Blondie would at least know he's in the right graveyard.]]
** Related question: What's Blondie supposed to write ''with'', and why would Angel Eyes trust him to write anything at all? [[spoiler: As, indeed, he does not.]]

to:

** [[spoiler: I don't think Tuco was blessed with the abundance of brains to figure the ploy, so it would make sense that it would never occur to him. As for Angel-Eyes, he was never directly involved when the information was being parsed out, and therefore didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle to figure it out. Maybe.]]
Maybe.
** [[spoiler: It wasn't just anyone else. Blondie told Tuco the gold was in Arch Stanton's grave. In actuality, the dying soldier had told him it was next to Arch Stanton's grave, in a grave marked unknown. This way, even if Tuco begins digging in the false grave, Blondie would at least know he's in the right graveyard.]]
graveyard.
** Related question: What's Blondie supposed to write ''with'', and why would Angel Eyes trust him to write anything at all? [[spoiler: As, indeed, he does not.]] not.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Thing is, it is not really a matter of the gun being waterproof (a normal revolver can't really be waterproof, as by design there is a gap between the barrel and the cylinder), but the cartridge has. Any modern gun has no problem firing while wet or even underwater, because the cartridges are sealed. This could be a problem for old ball-and-cap revolvers, but if I recall correctly the Colt Navys used in the film are cartridge conversions.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** For all they know, the dying soldier told Blondie the name of the grave it was buried in, but added that it was next to Arch Stanton's grave to make it easier for him to find.

to:

** For all they know, the dying soldier told Blondie the name of the grave it was buried in, but added that it was next to or at least near Arch Stanton's grave to make it easier for him to find.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** It's perhaps a bit more simple than we're making out here. Prior to the rise in popularity of the Spaghetti Western, the heroes of westerns tended to be the Roy Rogers / John Wayne / Gary Cooper / etc. model; lawmen, sheriffs, marshalls, rangers, etc. There was a clear delineation between the good (the forces of law) and the bad (the outlaws). Even when the hero was more of a mysterious drifter type, they still tended to be clearly established as the good guys -- they were the ''Shane'' types who, though they might have been willing to get their hands dirty in a good cause, at least recognised and stood for the good cause. They'd wander from town to town protecting the innocent and bringing frontier justice to the guilty. Now look at Blondie, the "good". He's a mysterious drifter, but he's in it for himself. He doesn't stand for justice or the law, but lives outside of both. He's a bounty hunter, a man who pursues criminals purely for the gold (and he's a corrupt one at that). He's pretty close in nature and personality to the outlaws who, in classic westerns, would be unambiguously the bad guys. He does have a moral code of sorts, he's not completely void of compassion, mercy and decency, and those he tangles with tend to be worse than he, but overall he doesn't really seem to have many principles higher than what he can gain from any situation. And perhaps most importantly, he has little compunction about killing if it'll serve his interests. Despite the labels, the "good" is clearly shown to be closer to the "bad" and the "ugly" than classic westerns tended to admit. And yet, he's still our hero. The movie deconstructs the classic western hero by suggesting that a man who wandered the west shooting people who got in his way would probably not be the upstanding moral paragon that the classic western tended to depict him as.


Added DiffLines:

** The "Dollars" trilogy isn't really a clear and strict canon-based trilogy in the same way that, say, the [=MCU=] is clearly linked together. They're much hazier, more like myths or legends that would be passed down through the west in the oral tradition style, about vaguely-known people who eventually get all kinds of different adventures added to their stories whether they were anywhere near or not. The very fact that he's the Man With No Name -- literally a man with no way of being identified -- is an indication that the character Eastwood plays should be viewed as more of a mythic figure than an actual person with a clear narrative and chronology that can be charted on a spreadsheet. The fact that he puts on his iconic poncho at the end is just the filmmaker nodding to the legend he's been building; yep, it's this guy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
misuse


*** [[CompletelyMissingThePoint Wrong, wrong, wrong]], he deliberately aggravated a group of men who wouldn't hesitate to shoot him, basically outright stated he was going to kill them before even approaching them (''"Get three coffins ready"''), and then proceeds to kill them, and all for a offhand comment about his mule.

to:

*** [[CompletelyMissingThePoint Wrong, wrong, wrong]], he He deliberately aggravated a group of men who wouldn't hesitate to shoot him, basically outright stated he was going to kill them before even approaching them (''"Get three coffins ready"''), and then proceeds to kill them, and all for a offhand comment about his mule.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** I'm afraid this is an extraordinarily massive stretch. Minimalism does not necessarily equate to deconstruction, and there's nothing present to suggest it's a deconstruction of the medium; by that logic, every minimalistic plot in any medium is a deconstruction of that medium. It's a misunderstanding that cheapens what it means to be a deconstruction.

Top