Talk:For a Few Dollars More

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Era[edit]

Definitely not set in the 1890s, as stated in the plot description, given that Mortimer finds Monco's picture with the brothers he kills in the beginning in the El Paso Tribune dated July 1872. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammadeep (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

backwards photo?[edit]

Is that photo backward? The text states that Eastwood does everything but shooting with his left hand; yet there he sits, cigarette in the right. (Is that really a little tiny gun that looks like a cigarette? I don't remember that scene.)

The text, obviously, is incorrect. While some sources do say Eastwood's character is known as "Manco", others note it as being "Monco." Its kind of hard to tell from the film itself, since his name/nickname is only mentioned once, I believe. At any rate, he certainly doesn't only use his left hand in the film, as the still attests, and the character most definitely is not supposed to be "maimed".200.122.158.40 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles in the film refer to Eastwood as 'Monco'. Control 14:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do the subtitles date from the original version, or were they added later? In that case, are you sure they're not conjectures by the people doing the subtitles? That's fairly common, I gather.

Why, exactly, are people so compelled to keep changing the Eastwood character's name from "Monco" to "Manco"? If, as the last individual to make this change indicates, "Manco" means "one armed man", why/how does this relate to the character, since he not only has two arms but USES both arms within the course of the film? The film's dialog (and subtitles provided on the US and UK DVDs) indicate "Monco" is correct. And the credits provided in Christopher Frayling's 'Something To With Death' Leone biography list "Monco" as the character's name. Any future changes regarding the name should really have some kind of reliable source noted to indicate why the change was made.Hal Raglan 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old cliche that a gunslinger does everything else with his left hand, so that his right is always free to pull his gun. It's certainly not completely true here--there are a number of scenes where Eastwood uses both hands. But some people have seen a distinct tendency by him to use only one. (Consider the scene where he deals the cards.) It's been a while since I've seen it, so I won't make a claim one way or the other. But if he only uses one arm, he acts as if he's maimed. Calling him "One-hand" (for example), or "Maimed", would then be a rather fitting joke. But no one has cited a source indicating that that joke was intended in the original. The subtitles are less than decisive: they were almost certainly added much later.
I'm sure the subtitles were indeed added many years after the film was initially released, but I would imagine they use the original screenplay as a source (?), or simply copy what is stated in the film itself. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that "Manco" may very well have been intended as the character's nickname, but no source as of yet backs up that claim. ALL reliable sources to date indicate that the character's name is "Monco". I would be interested to learn definitively what "Monco" means in Italian; it appears to mean "Stupid" or "Unskilled", which could also be a "fitting joke", I suppose. Also, I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of the film last night and, outside of the poker/bar room scene, Eastwood's character uses both arms about equally; possibly later in the film he reverts to favoring only one arm but I really don't think that happens. The name should remain as "Monco" until someone can provide sources of information (such as interviews with the screenwriters) that indicate otherwise. Hal Raglan 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it turns out I was both right and wrong. I did some research and found a 1998 interview with screenwriter Luciano Vincenzoni (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/classic/articles/vince.html), in which he was asked (by interviewer Cenk Kiral) what the correct name for the Eastwood character was. He replied that the name was "Monco," and added "in Italian it means a man with only one hand." So, its definitely "Monco", not "Manco", BUT the filmmakers apparently DID intend the nickname as a subtle "fitting joke" reference The Man With No Name's favoring of his shooting arm. I'll add a reference to the interview in the text of the article.Hal Raglan 13:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, its definitely "Monco", not "Manco"? Only if it were Italian they're supposed to be speaking in the film. Let me see, Mexico and Texas, hmm... --CRConrad (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

We ought to say something about the use of music the Leone's films, and especially how it is tied into the story here. -- Beardo 04:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I added a section on "Production" based on what I read in the DVD booklet. I'm not sure how to reference it in the article. If anyone can help, please do. - Zone46 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monco Vs. Manco[edit]

It is fairly good that Sergio Leone himself says that his nickname is "Monco". But, what has to do an italian word in a western, located in a spanish language place? The man who speaks of him clearly says "Manco". So, I think there's a little mistake in the film itself, if they "officialy" gave the character the name of Monco. 200.55.126.124 22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel[reply]

The film was made by Italians and its original title is in Italian. Of course, it may be that the English dubbing changed Monco to Manco ? -- Beardo 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that the "official" nickname Monco is probably a goof of the italian producers. Nazroon 06:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. It's an italian movie, why shouldn't they use italian words? In fact they use thousands of them. They also call the sheriff "sceriffo". --188.101.12.169 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one-hand[edit]

An earlier claim on here can be made much more strongly. Eastwood does nearly everything with his left hand. If you watch it with an eye out for that fact, it's a really spectacular performance: for example, the whole initial scene in the bar, where he beats the guy up, he only uses one hand (until, of course, he pulls his gun). So there's absolutely no doubt as to whether the filmmakers intended the one-hand joke.

Separate article for El Indio[edit]

There is a separate article El Indio (For a Few Dollars More) - I don't see that he warrants a separate article and suggest that it be mefged back here. -- Beardo 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opium or Cannabis (or Tobacco)?[edit]

What is it that Indio smokes in this film when/during his flashbacks? This article contradicts itself saying both opium and cannabis. The film itself doesn't seem to say what it is. Can it really be guessed based on how he acts? Or would it be enough to say he simply smokes something?

I agree. It cannot be said what drug he is addicted to, but marijuana seems the least likely (marijuana is one of the least addictive drugs). I will change it to "smoking an addictive drug" Dudeman1st (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been switched back, apparently. Now "Plot" says peyote and "El Indio" under "Characters" says cannabis. I haven't seen the movie myself, so I don't know if there are any clues either way. "Plot" describes "drug-induced craziness" (violent, I'm guessing? - he sounds like a violent guy) which doesn't sound like cannabis. Which is it? intooblv (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik, cannabis could induce hallucinations, though. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. Cannabis can only produce mild-to-moderate auditory hallucinations and very mild visual hallucinations and only at high doses. It definitely cannot produce full blown hallucinations -- i.e. "living dreams" where the hallucination is so intense that the difference between it and reality cannot be distinguished by the user. »»   Stereoisomer   03:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabis seems unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, it is not only one of the least addictive drugs (as mentioned by Dudeman1st above), but its addictive potential is only psychological which conflicts with Indio's behavior of desperate craving which strongly suggests a physical addiction. Secondly, cannabis actually kickstarts the introspective and imaginative thought processes and therefore is the last thing someone would take to escape from or "kill the pain" of a guilty conscience or horrible memories. »»   Stereoisomer   03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the choice between opium and cannabis, I'd say opium is far more likely. The numb, euphoric high that opiates produce are a perfect "solution" for disturbed individuals looking to temporarily escape or forget the awful things rattling around in their heads. What's more, Indio's behavior would suggest a significant (and likely physical) addiction to his drug of choice and that fits well with opiates and their high potential for (physical) addiction. However, the main issue I see with this opium theory is that opiate highs generally don't cause hallucinations. Opiate *withdrawal* can include hallucinations, but that doesn't fit with Indio's experience in the film. On a final note, it's worth mentioning that opium is a hard, sticky, tar-like substance that can't be rolled into a cigarette paper on it's own... however, it can be broken into small pieces and sprinkled on tobacco as a smoking preparation. This method has been fairly common in the last several decades (including during the production of this film) and it's feasible that it was not unheard of in Indio's time as well. »»   Stereoisomer   04:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Volonté Fistful-2.jpg[edit]

Image:Volonté Fistful-2.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 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Killer, Not Hunter[edit]

During the movie the Eastwood and Van Cleef are referenced as bounty hunters, not bounty killers, so why not reflect this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.248.112 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are also referenced as bounty killers in the film. I'm the one who made that change a while back and i apologize because i realize "bounty hunters" is the better term.Dr. Lucifer (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White village?[edit]

"The town of Agua Caliente, where Indio and his gang flee after the bank robbery, is Albaricoces, a small "pueblo blanco" on the Nijar plain." What's a pueblo blanco? Looks like something that should be a link, but I can't find anything about it. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kinski duel[edit]

The text says Klaus Kinski's character challenges Manco to a duel, but it is actually van Cleef who is challenged (due to a previous altercation in a bar) and who shoots Kinski.--Death Bredon (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester rifle[edit]

In the text, it says Eastwood's character is "holding a Winchester rifle at Indio". It's actually a Henry rifle. Looking at this picture, you can see, that the rifle doesn't have the characteristic forend of a Winchester: Reference picture -- 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.129.254 (talk)

Manco's rifle is more likely a Henry rimfire repeater, a predecessor to Winchester rifles. Winchesters with their wooden forearms removed were often used as stand-ins for Henry rifles in movies made before repro Henry rifles were available, circa 1980 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

As the cast section seemed inordinately long, I have removed all of the "uncredited" actors, many of whom had black links, indicating they did not have articles of their own. The roles, for the most part, were very minor. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending: The Two Watches[edit]

As I remember the film as I saw it on TV, the portraits in the two watches are not identical: One is of the young woman, which she had given to her lover, whereas the other is of the lover, which he had given to her. After Indio is killed, Mortimer sees the portrait in one watch and exclaims, "My son!" and Manco, seeing the portrait in the other watch, exclaims "My sister!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.151.147 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a crap! Indio raped Mortimer's sister, and Monco had nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E2:33D8:EC51:6CA2:8337:5BE1:C772 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory betrays you. In the final duel scene, one can clearly see the watch in Indio's hand has the photo of a young lady with long black hair. When Manco shows up with the opposite watch, one can see the photo is of the same lady.

Secondly, during the final scene, Manco comments that he could see a family resemblance, to which Mortimer replies, "Obviously there would be between brother and sister". So it's very plain that the lady in both watches was Mortimer's sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.254.85 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT[edit]

According to the guidelines, narrating the plot has to be limited to 700 words at most. It is not the place for personal interpretations, which are WP:OR. Adding greatly to the retelling by disguising it as (unreferenced) character analysis is a violation of the guidelines and it has been deleted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlackJack has again taken the wordcount above the maximum stipulated by WP:FILMPLOT. Disguising this by making the first para a separate section changes nothing. And calling the opening scenes "acts" is wrong terminology borrowed from drama. A film is not the same as a play. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mzilikazi1939. I suggest you read the warning I've left on your talk page. The word "act" is more normally associated with a stage play but it is also used, loosely, re films. It is certainly a more accurate word than "episode". I have not finished with this article yet and intend to copyedit the plot which has been poorly written. I will do that today. As regards, the "opening" section, that material is from a verified secondary source and so, according to the guideline, does not really belong in the plot section because that is, strictly speaking, a primary source verification: i.e., a reasonable interpretation of the plot by people who have watched the film.
Finally, I suggest that you employ a more accurate method of counting words because, according to my text editor, the "Plot" section contains 680 words. As Joefromrandb rightly points out, "the "700 word limit" is a guideline to be treated with WP:COMMONSENSE, not a hard-and-fast rule". Jack | talk page 07:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

West Germany was removed from the last stable version by a blocked IP address. Country: Italy, West Germany, Spain; please see The Spaghetti Western Database & IMDb. Please note that West Germany is listed in the categories section and also named as one of the production countries in the Dollars Trilogy article. Further references: Dolorez Martinez, Remaking Kurosawa: Translations and Permutations in Global Cinema, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009; John White, Routledge Film Guidebooks: Westerns, Routledge, Oxford, 2010. Hull16 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had actually meant to revert to an intermediate version. Thanks for fixing this. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on For a Few Dollars More. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manco convinces gang to ride to Agua Caliente?[edit]

I just re-watched the film last night, and I take issue with this statement from the current Plot section: "Manco manages to convince the gang to ride to the small border town of Agua Caliente rather than travel through Rio Bravo. Mortimer, who anticipated Manco would deviate from their planned ambush, is already there." Do others interpret the scene as Manco convincing them to ride to Agua Caliente? Mortimer wanted Manco to convince them to ride north through Rio Bravo, Manco deviated and suggested they ride south across the border, and an untrusting Indio decided instead to ride east to Agua Caliente. So Manco didn't convince them to ride to Agua Caliente, unless the claim is that it was a reverse psychology tactic, which seems like a reach to me. And although Mortimer did anticipate that Manco would deviate from their planned ambush, he also anticipated that Indio would reject Manco's suggestion and ride to Agua Caliente.

Because a correction to this point in the plot summary would require a longer explanation, and because I think the details of how they ended up going to Agua Caliente aren't terribly relevant to the plot, I propose changing this to "The gang rides to the small border town of Agua Caliente. Mortimer anticipated their destination and is already there." Thoughts? Rjmorris (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added part about animal cruelty[edit]

Unfortunate toward the end of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4000:62E0:415C:E582:A79E:5F19 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_a_Few_Dollars_More&oldid=1207262644"