Talk:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Production: not the deep south
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)
 * Yep, that's clearly wrong. I've corrected it to "southwestern United States". — Satori Son 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Adventure film
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)
 * 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)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chigurgh (talk • contribs)
 * 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)

Who is "The Good", who is "The Bad", and who is "The Ugly"?
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)

Poldy I am restoring your question because I think it is a legitimate one. I don't have a specific answer but I do know the following.
 * 1) The commercial that you have linked to is the original US release commercial for the film and it is included on the deluxe DVD set that came out several years ago.
 * 2) One of the making of documentaries on the DVD set also includes the sequence from the Italian film where the words are written in script form next to the characters and they have it in the following order - 1)Blondie as "Il buono", 2)Tuco as "Il brutto", e 3)Angel Eyes as "Il cattivo". As you see this is the same order as the commercial that you linked to.
 * 3) The next thing to consider is the translation of "Brutto" and "Cattivo". When I look them up at online translation sites both words are first described using the term "bad" - then brutto includes things like beastly, grotty and unpleasant - while cattivo includes evil and nasty. The extra words do fit the characters they way they are played out in the film.

All of this leads me to to suspect that the original United Artists commercial simply took the Italian one and slapped their rough tranlation over the top of it. Next is a far bigger guess on my part - I think that was a marketing department discussion that Tuco being "Bad" and Angel Eyes being "Ugly" didn't make sense and so by the time that the film was released they had changed it - in both the opening and the closing sequences of the film to the version that we have had ever since. Now all of this is the worst form of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION and I would not change the way we have the terms listed in the article. I post this in the hope that someone who a) has a better understanding of Italian and b) has referenced material explaining the situation might see our messages and be able to clear things up. You will not be the only person confused upon by seeing the original commercial, thus, some small sourced mention of the discrepancy could and should be put in the article to assist other readers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Cemetary
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)


 * 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)

IT IS SAND HILL. I am a collector and have a copy of the script autographed by Clint. Closed captions are computer generated asswipe. You can't depend on speech recognition software. SAND HILL CEMETERY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.202.89 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Your claim that speech recognition software was used brings up a couple questions: You might also want to investigate when your copy of the script was created. Since the original script was in Italian you must have a later iteration of it. If that is the case it could just as easily be a typing error by the person who transcribed the script. As yet I see know reason to change the article away from what is said onscreen and what is in the subtitles. MarnetteD | Talk 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The name is of the cemetery is stated by several actors at different points in the film. Why would the program get the name wrong every single time?
 * 2) It is a long film with dozens of characters and lots dialogue. If the program is unreliable why aren't there dozens (or hundreds for that matter) of mistakes in the subtitles?

A Google search for Sad Hill Cemetery gave numerous results, but this one satisfied me: http://sadhillnews.com/2010/08/01/sad-hill-cemetery --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes.... I will agree with the gentleman above, although disparaging his language, that one cannot always trust computers, and their various logs and records. Everything goes back to humans anyway. (...) I have watched the film, and I am not certain. People often pronounce words differently, and with an accent, yet if a script exists saying "Sand Hill" I would think this is fairly determinative. Btw. New Mexico is about 2000 miles from Georgia, not several. The latter figure would place one in the Pacific. The scenery at this point in the film is not unlike N.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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. 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.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)

old proposed merge
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)


 * 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)

Carazo vs. Santo Domingo de Silos
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)

Mexican standoff
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)


 * 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)
 * 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. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 05:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Restoring lost scenes
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)

It would be interesting to do two things here, with all the lost scenes. (1) Collect all, and make a film of full length, as much as this is feasible. This might possibly, and even probably, go beyond Sergio Leone's artistic vision. Nevertheless, it would at least prove intriguing. (2) Then compose a film consisting of what a panel thought to be *the finest cut* of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". When I saw some deleted scenes, I agreed personally with the elimination of some of them, but others I rather strongly disagreed with. I remember one of the latter occurred during the 'Bridge sequence', toward the end of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

Plot length
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 Jacobite The '45  00:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are exceptions to every good rule. This is a seminal, very important film, not only for Italian Westerns, nor merely for Westerns, but for the entirety of the film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Lewis (talk • contribs) 02:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Word count should probably reflect running time. You hardly can break down this film's plot to the length of that of a Three Stooges epsiode, with the only similarity being three guys starring as main characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.97.165 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles Bronson?
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)

Production
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)

Allegedly Techniscope Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot trimming
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

QMUL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
We are a group of students from Queen Mary University of London who are going to be editing/improving this page as part of a class assignment. Our usernames are as follows: User:RyanQMUL2, User:Bobbylala99, User:Lukewilliams2k, User:HenryBrotherton and User:CallumChung0803

RfC: Mexican standoff or truel
There exists a disagreement (see Talk § Mexican standoff) as to whether the film's climax is a Mexican standoff or a truel, with the film being mentioned in both articles pop culture sections. The question is, which term belongs in § Plot? If both terms are technically correct, then I would advise picking one based on a reliable quoted source directly associated with the film, and not a later interpretation. &mdash;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 05:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (summoned by the bot) What term do secondary sources about the film use? I don't see any sources cited in the prior discussion above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through all of the references easily available to me from the existing reference list. Of those, I found only one example of either of the terms being used; in this article from the BBC, the term "Mexican standoff" is used, not in reference to the confrontation at issue in this film, but to the homage to this moment in Reservoir Dogs. I may have missed an instance given my research was not thorough, but if it cannot be demonstrated that any sources use the terms to specifically refer to this moment in the film, it may be best to just describe it without using either. Rman41 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Duels were regulated contests and, when pistols were involved, they proceeded by signal or turns. The question might be avoided by calling it a "armed showdown". 98.248.84.55 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. When in doubt, leave them out. Describe the scene succinctly so that you don't need to rely on a catch-all term. Pillowcrow (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (summoned by bot) I've not watched the film in a few years, but I feel the crux of the issue here is semantic: the term Mexican standoff has several closely related senses¹ with vagueries within those. Is it semantically narrower than any physical standoff? Must the conflict be armed? Does it require at least three or three or neither? Must there be a stalemate (ongoing or just brief?
 * We're unclear which one we're using both here, and, worse, at Mexican standoff—despite that article ostensibly covering the concept IRL (without any actual incidents mentioned), rather the word itself nor the trope in film (whilst also conflating the multiple senses of the title in the article text).
 * Ideally, here, we'd mention the term somewhere (as it is closely related to this film), but then add an explication in different terms in the plot section with more detail
 * ¹FWIW, at least one older sense seems to fit the film's final scene, as well as one recent sense, which, according to Wiktionary, was actually popularised by this very scene. It should be noted that the O.E.D. also lists "a massacre in cold blood" (also arguable here) in addition to those senses given by Wiktionary, making the term potentially in part wider than a standoff.
 * Llew Mawr (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it would be ideal to mention the term anywhere. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence in the available sources that the term can be directly tied to the event that occurs here, even if it is an accurate description of what occurs. If there are alternative sources that can substantiate that tie, then that would change the conversation. Rman41 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rman41 I, of course, meant if we find sources, and I'd be happy to leave it out if we dont find good sources or the link doesn't seem significant*. Film reviews such as https://www.slashfilm.com/770872/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-ending-explained-seems-like-old-times/ do mention the term's link to the film. I'd rather we only mentioned it in passing and didn't use the term in Wikipedia's voice due to its ill definition.
 * * I feel it it is somewhat significant given my brief OR finds multiple corpora suggesting the phrase didn't garner much usage till 1966 (when this film came out).
 * Llew Mawr (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I Agree with 98.248.84.55's suggestion: I would like to see the term, it's Wikipedia links, and the current photo caption remain. However, I think we've raised a valid point, which is that at this time, not enough reliable sources link the term Mexican standoff to this film, and I've not heard one mention of a truel either. Suggestion: Move the Wikipedia link down to § In popular culture, and replace its' usage in § Plot and the file caption with a generic (unlinked) term. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mexican standoff per reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Blondie knows the name of the grave where a cache of Confederate gold is buried; he pretends to write it on a rock that he places at the centre of the circular cemetery, thus forcing Angel Eyes and Tuco into a Mexican stand-off. A long shot from a slightly elevated angle shows the three protagonists' Mexican standoff, echoed by the tunes of Morricone's The Trio. The film ends in a triangular Mexican standoff in the cemetery, each man eyeing the others and wondering whom to shoot first. Where better to begin than with the definitive Mexican standoff; the iconic sequence that made the device so popular. In the concluding part of Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy the three titular characters square off in a graveyard with Ennio Morricone’s operatic score providing the perfect backdrop to this breathtaking finale.


 * Newbie Lee Van Cleef had only just nabbed his first significant role in the Western High Noon before landing his small part in The Conqueor as Chepei. Most would remember him in the iconic Mexican standoff with Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Take for example, the Mexican standoff gun fight. While it appears as a triangle, in reality Tuco's gun has no bullets, a fact Blondie knows and Angel Eyes and Tuco do not. The standoff is never really a three-way fight because the hero is a trickster who takes unfair advantage.


 * Director Sergio Leone's fascinating cinematography and Mexican standoffs. The swirling Mexican stand-off at the end of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. That final Mexican stand-off in the spaghetti western, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The three eponymous characters edge around each other and take positions; the end of the quest in the centre of the graveyard. This situation, known as a Mexican standoff (from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"). The references to Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," a climactic three-way Mexican standoff.


 * Leone's section hosts his original screenplays, as well as his passport. It also is home to a large, circular room that will show projections of the iconic Mexican standoff scene "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Mexican Standoff (Il Buono, Il Brutto E Il Cattivo -The Good, The Bad The Ugly). The ending of the film, which centers on the iconic Mexican standoff. More eye-darting ensues as the trio observes each other's guns and realizes that they are, in fact, officially in a Mexican standoff. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," I found that climactic, three-way Mexican standoff at the base of that immense, Civil War cemetery absolutely electrifying.


 * Clint Eastwood's "man with no name" had a thin cigar in his mouth during the Mexican standoff with Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. The cigar signified calmness and imperturbability. In the face of violence and death, Clint kept puffing away. Die Evolution des Revolverkampfs spiegelt das wider: Sergio Leones Spaghettiwestern-Klassiker "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" stockte (wie der Titel schon verrät) das Duell mit seinem legendären "Mexican Standoff' zum Triell auf.


 * The Good, the Bad and the Ugly -- The Western was a genre in decline when Sergio Leone came along and gave it a shot of adrenaline in the mid-60s. In a few short years, the director single handedly established the Spaghetti Western, made several of the most highly regarded Western films in the history of cinema, and launched the film career of Hollywood superstar Clint Eastwood. The film's final Mexican standoff is truly unforgettable, as much for its drawn-out, meticulously constructed take on the classic Western scene as for its soaring trumpet solo.


 * The reconstructed full-length English language version of Leone's three-way Mexican standoff, the ultimate rush in Spaghetti Westerns. The Mexican standoff, with multiple characters pointing guns at one another, was a staple of Spaghetti-Western auteur Leone, the Fistful films maker who made The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The paper aims to critically examine the character development showcased in the movie, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly with special emphasis on the Mexican Standoff sequence. The style of direction in The Mexican Standoff with the three lead characters is very unique.


 * The finale of this film is what defines a perfect Western. Tuco searches through the graveyard for the correct burial site as “The Ecstasy of Gold” plays, leading to the inevitable Mexican standoff as all three of the characters fight for who shall claim the gold, Leone’s camerawork provides many tight close ups as well as vista shots, violence, and moral ambiguity as to right and wrong. There is also another good sequence related to Game Theory in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” (directed by Sergio Leone, 1966). This one has been recently pointed out by (Real Sociedad Matemática Española). The final sequence starts with a famous five-minute Mexican standoff while the three bandits calculate alliances and strategies to know who to kill.


 * A perfect example of this is the Mexican standoff scene from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone, 1966): the shots come closer and closer to the characters as the tension builds up; when it reaches the big closeup shot size, a little bit of time is given to the spectator to read the characters faces. Bezeichnet und die als Mexican standoff in die Filmgeschichte eingegangen ist. Im Filmtitel von The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ist diese den einfachen Moralismus.


 * Mexican stand-off because of the longstanding history of sources using this term. The best we can do for the word "truel" is to quote someone calling it that. But the standard term is Mexican standoff. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mexican standoff: longstanding common name used by multiple RS. If "truel" is to be mentioned at all (I lean toward yes), we need a source; this should do: Truels, the three player extension of a duel, are well known from the 1966 Italian western ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In Italy, everyone knows that the final scene of the film is the triello' - the "truel" or "triple duel". The track composed by Ennio Morricone is called "Il triello" and Sergio Leone himself described the scene as "triello" in . Also this interview: "Besides, the film contains a sequence, that of the 'triello', which gave me great satisfaction" (transaltion). I don't know which one is the best transaltion of the Italian neologism triello, whether "truel" or "triel" or simply "Triple duel", but I know that in Italy "triello" is the most common description of the finale of the film, and I'm sure there's plenty of Italian sources using "triello". However, there are also sources in English, e.g. "The Cambridge Companion to Film Music" (CUP 2016) here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In the Italian Wikipedia article, Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo,  they use both terms in the lead, — triello (uno Stallo alla messicana) -  (in inglese Mexican standoff). In the plot section, they only use triello. I found two articles in Corriere della Sera (via The Wikipedia Library), one used triello in relation to this movie, and the other one used stallo messicana in relation to this movie. But the weight of the English reliable sources clearly show Mexican standoff as the preferred term. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)