How is this considered a trilogy?


When all the actors play different characters, the storylines don't connect, and they jump around in time?

I think I would have enjoyed it all a lot more if they had given "The Man With No Name" a connective story, where he plays the same character. And even if you argue that he did, Lee Van Cleef didn't, which is too bad, because I really liked his character from For A Few Dollars More. I think it would have been more enjoyable if he and Clint teamed up again for this movie against another bad guy and Tuco. Feels like a missed opportunity, but then again, maybe they didn't care about consistency as much in the 60s?

reply

Movie trilogies usually don't consist of a single three part story. The name is more generic and usually refers to a series of films, normally by a single director, in the same genre and using essentially the same cast or acting troupe. John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy comes to mind, a series of westerns made by Ford and Wayne and set in monument valley.

reply

Just because it doesn't follow a single narrative arc doesn't make it not a trilogy, it is a trilogy of movies following the man with no name on different adventures. It's also told in reverse order with Fistful of dollars being last chronologically and TGTBTU last, but it's still a trilogy.

reply

It's a trio of films rather than a trilogy.

reply

That's what a TRIlogy is...

reply

well said
For more inane arguing about the term trilogy see "the hobbit" board

reply

I guess it's because they're directed by the same director, (Sergio Leone), and the word "dollar" is in 2 of the titles. And I agree, a little bit of connective opportunity was missed with these films.

reply

Thank you for giving me the one validated response I was looking for! Sometimes imdb was valuable for that. These message boards will be missed!

reply

These message boards will be missed!
IKR? I can't believe they're doing this!

reply