3 > 1 > 2

Few Dollars More is the best. It's not even a debate. The only people who think TGTBATU is the best are the ones too unintelligent to form an individual opinion.

Objectively correct

For A Few Dollars More >>>>> The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly > A Fistful of Dollars
If you disagree with this post, Colonel Mortimer will shoot your head clean off.

Attached: colonel mortimer.jpg (1280x720, 107K)

I have literally never heard a single good argument to why FAFDM is better than TGTBATU, probably because it just isn't. FAFDM is a fun western but TGTBATU is pure kino.

Few dollars more is the best western of all time. ALL TIME

>TGTBATU
3 dudes going after treasure stash
>FAFDM
Lee Van Cleef as the hero and claiming vengeance
The themes of For a Few Dollars More are much better. El Indio is an irredeemable and despicable villain, the likes of which we don't see often. The standoff at the end is the best standout of the trilogy.

2 3 1 for me

Clint's dynamic with Lee Van Cleef is a lot better in 2
I like Tuco but 2 is more solid overall I feel

Fistful of Dollars is pretty lame though and only tryhard contrarians would like that best

Attached: 813Nzkgy03L._SL1500_.jpg (1500x835, 246K)

It has the best main theme, too
youtube.com/watch?v=mLXQltR7vUQ

Yes, but the writing was never what made Leone's movies great. You seem to not get why people love him.
He was great due to his amazing editing, cinematography, casting, directing along with Ennio Morricone putting the cherries on top.

>Not posting the proper version
Fag
youtube.com/watch?v=UxMzbhMhI_I

never seen em. about to watch em.

Who cares?
All three are overrated

Pleb

>the writing was never what made Leone's movies great
Yes it was.
>casting
Lee Van Cleef as the hero was the best decision Sergio Leone made.
>amazing editing, cinematography, directing
Consistent between 2 and 3. 3 has more set pieces but that doesn't mean a lot.
>score
Best use of music of the trilogy. There's the locket theme, the title theme, the end standoff theme and all of those stand out far more than AAAAUUAAAUUAAA WAH WAH WAH.

I remember the original. Had no idea this turned into a meme

>Yes it was.
It really wasn't. I'm not saying his scripts were bad, but they're really nothing special. If you gave them to literally any other director the movies would have been forgotten.
>Lee Van Cleef as the hero was the best decision Sergio Leone made.
I don't really think so, Van Cleef's face is just classically villainous, his pointy features make him excellent to play a bad guy. He works as a hero, but it's really not what he was meant to play and you can tell. I feel that Leone did the same idea better in Once Upon A Time In The West, where Henry Fonda, a man who usually plays the hero, plays a villain and it actually worked really well there.
>Consistent between 2 and 3. 3 has more set pieces but that doesn't mean a lot.
Well, I'd say 3 is alot better. Leone was improving with every film he made. If he were still alive today he would have made the kino to rule all kinos.
>Best use of music of the trilogy. There's the locket theme, the title theme, the end standoff theme and all of those stand out far more than AAAAUUAAAUUAAA WAH WAH WAH.
Listen to the TGTBATU soundtrack again, it's way more than that.

Few Dollars More felt a bit too melodramatic in places. Do we really need to see the rape of Van Cleef's sister twice? Like, I get the reveal that she killed herself the second time we see it, but we have to sit through the entire scene again.
In addition, the score that they put ON TOP of the chimes from the locket is complete ass compared to how powerful the killing in the church would be if they had let the music remain diegetic.
I suppose I was tainted going in, because these were advertised as The Man with No Name Trilogy, and I'd already seen Yojimbo before I watched these and it portrays the feud between the two families better, because while Mexicans are bloodthirsty animals the point of Yojimbo was that neither group was in the right, thus making the slaughter of the Baxters feel more disjointed, especially after they ridicule Joe.
GBU, while it under utilizes Van Cleef's Angel Eyes severely, is the best of the three.
youtu.be/QYHhXaxgntk?t=3m20s (Start at 3:20 if you embed it).
You can't say that this isn't the most powerful scene out of the three movies. the entire plot has been driving us towards Sad Hill Cemetary, and the first glimpse we get of it is that incredible wide shot, which we then follow Tuco to the center. And as his eyes scan over the head stones, so too does the camera. And the more frantically he searches, the faster the camera moves. this combined with the incredible swelling pace of "The Lust for Gold" perfectly encaspulates everything he's feeling in this moment.
If Few Dollars More is about Van Cleef's quest for vengeance against El Indio, then GBU is about Tuco's desire to break out from playing the role in the deal Blondie has devised for the two of them, and in the end he does make it out but not without one last splitting of the profits. And the best part of it is how they share the screen, rather than in FDM where Van Cleef shows up Manco at every turn.

My mistake, I mean "Ecstasy of Gold".
Also
>tl;dr
3>=2

well i think the plot of GBU is better. Vengeance is a classic cinema theme but i find it a bit easy. And i find that the egoist motive of the characters of GBU is truer to mankind. Not being edgy here, because GBU is a movie full of humanity, but the humanity is in the journey, not in the goal. Blondie shares a cigar with Tuco after hearing his story, and then they get back at trying to kill each other to get the gold. that's what humanity is. The rest, vengeance, love, etc. seems always slightly fake to me.

Vengeance is the core of westerns. It works better with the genre than any other theme, and if you want to get a "the journey was what mattered all along", there are plenty of other genres which are much better at showing that.
>tl;dr
You want to watch Clint Eastwood being a badass instead of seeing his character not be the focus of the movie. The narrative device of having the protagonist not be the hero works very well.
Most people I talk to have found GBU to be too long and too indulgent. But they never say that about FDM because it's grounded and focused.

Like I said, I was tainted by it being advertised as "The Man with No Name Trilogy". If it had been presented otherwise, I probably wouldn't have minded Van Cleef overshadowing Eastwood as much in FDM. But as it is, it'd be like Rush Hour but Jackie Chan keeps getting shown up by Chris Tucker.
I did put FDM on equal footing with GBU, it's just personal preference that I like the latter more than the former, especially with how little they use Angel Eyes between him getting that tip from the amputee and his sudden appearance in the POW camp. It feels like there should have been another scene showing how he was a member of the Union, but then again it echoes his "one step ahead" nature from his character in FDM.
And maybe I like a bit of indulgence. Just a little, like how that scene in the Prophet's shack by the train track felt. That was the only scene in FDM to feel like that, everything else seemed so bland or stilted. Or unintentionally comedic, like Maco's hat zooming in and out from the camera 6 times.
But I'm just nitpicking here, comparing FDM to GBU feels like comparing an A to an A Minus. They're both passing grades in the end, which is better than Fistful's "you can copy me, but change it enough so they don't notice."

all 3 were very enjoyable, I don't see much point in arguing the order

1 and 2 have literally the same plot. Lone mysterious guy, gets beaten up in the middle of the film hijinks and revenge kill to end the film.

Josey Wales shits on all of them so who cares

Who /HighPlainsDrifter/ here?