I think Joe kidd is the man with no name and here's why.
In the movie he is An ex-bounty hunter right. wasn't the man with no name a bounty hunter and in a fistful of dollars his name is Joe. so after Good the bad and the ugly he settled down with the name Joe. That what i think
[deleted]
hold on, he had no name, in none of the trilogy :)
shareThat is not quite true. In A Fist Full OF Dollars, his name was Joe. Now, he could have been referred to as Joe because his name was unknown (like Mac or Buddy) but he Was called Joe.
Nice theory. Not sure I agree with it.
"Intercourse the penguin"
Eastwood's character is called "Manco" in For a Few Dollars More and "Blondie" in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Of course, "Joe," "Manco," and "Blondie" are monikers rather than proper names.
shareAnd have nothing to do with Joe Kidd. Completely different character who happens to bear a more than passing resemblance to a guy who in The Good the Bad and the Ugly was running around at least 30-35 years earlier (during the American Civil War) than Joe Kidd (not before 1896 and probably 1898). Now if you had said Joe Kidd is the Man with No Name's SON, I might have gone with that...
...Except of course that the three "man with no name" movies were not necessarily about the same person, using (for example) Lee Van Cleef in totally different roles. Only the image was the same, in terms of Clint's characters in those movies. Still, it makes for a diverting theory.
Yeah, and add to this argument that there are so many other Eastwood westerns where you could make a better case for the main character being the MWNN. Pale Rider, High Plains Drifter, and Unforgiven all come to mind.
share[deleted]
Ah, come on guys...aren't we pushing a little hard to tie in every Western Clint did under one heading? Anyone who has seen an interview with Eastwood would know that was the furthest from his mind.
William Munny...the well-known outlaw who kills women and children...I would say that he's quite the opposite of Joe Kidd or the Man With No Name, wouldn't you say?
If all of Clint's Westerns are a variation of the same character, then we might as well declare all of John Wayne's cowboy and army characters were the same guy, too. And Robert Mitchum's....and Henry Fonda's.
Now if you're looking for multiple movie tie-ins, look no further than Oliver Stone who has said publicly that in his mind, all of his movies are tied-into each other...just chapters of the saga of the Boomer generation and how they've been screwed and have screwed themselves. Now, there's a big debate topic....not belonging here on the Joe Kidd board, however.
Just my opinion.
CmdrCody
i seem to remember him mentioning or implying that he started his ranch with a lot of money he got from being a bounty hunter...and theres a few similarities to his man with no name persona later in the film - like when he uses his rifle to take out the guys at real long range. im sure someone mentions to him that hes used to killing people etc. and hes definately called Joe in A few full of dollars.. ive always thought that its a possibilty that hes the same character
shareThe previous poster is correct about the Leone trilogy. Manco, Joe, and Blondie are just names others gave him. That doesn't make that his proper name.
shareIT COULD BE POSSIBLE
shareWithout Sergio Leone how can it be possible to make a man with no name movie. And today I watched once upon a time in the west for the 6 th times Charles Branson aka harmonica still rocks man.
shareInteresting thoughts all around, though I've never compared Joe Kidd to the MWNN till reading these postings...
I guess it's safe to say that Eastwood has an affinity for shadowy characters with dark secrets in their past. It has worked so well in so many movies that a bunch of strangers will blog on all day about it and how the films characters are all related!
"A man's got to know his limitations."
the mere fact that about 30 years had passed since G,B&U, and the Joe Kidd story completely invalidates your theory.
If such was the case, the MWNN would have been much older than Joe Kidd was in the film.
Speaking as a spaghetti western afficionado, I disagree with the opinion that Joe Kidd couldn't possibly be the same character as the man with no name. I believe that the idea of Joe Kidd being a slightly-older man with no name is in fact a very plausible theory. Now of course we know that the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (last part of no name's trilogy) is set during the American Civil War of 1861-65 whereas Joe Kidd is set in the late 1890s, which obviously means the Joe Kidd character has to be at least 30 years older, which he clearly is not. That was logic, here is where it gets complex:
A) The man with no name trilogy is supposed to be watched in this order: A Fistful of Dollars, then For a Few Dollars More and finally the Good the Bad and the Ugly. However, it actually makes chronological sense to watch the Good, the Bad and the Ugly first of all, because it is set in the 1860s - there is evidence that the first 2 'dollars' films should be watched next as there is at least one scene in the films that states they are set during the 1870s or 1880s.
Just as a small but valid addition to this point, Eastwood's character in Fistful and For a Few Dollars More wears his iconic poncho from the outset, through to the end of each film, whereas in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly he doesnt seem to acquire the poncho until later on towards the end of the film. So if the Good, the Bad and the Ugly is watched last, this begs the question of where the poncho has been for the first 3 quarters of the movie, since Clint was still wearing it at the finale of the previous film.
B) Yes, the man with no name is called Joe in a Fistful of Dollars, Manco in For a Few Dollars More and Blondie in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly and yes, they are all monikers as he never reveals his real name. But they are not necessarily the same character, they just use the same laconic symbolism e.g the poncho. Therefore, Joe from a Fistful of Dollars could still be Joe Kidd if Joe from Fistful is not the same character as in the other 2 trilogy films.
the mere fact that about 30 years had passed since G,B&U
Wrong, wrong, all wrong. He never said his own name in the trilogy. He was merely referred to as Joe by someone that didn't know his name. The same as if you refer to someone you dont know as Mac, Buddy, Pal and so on. This character has absolutely nothing to do with the man with no name.
~I want to die in my sleep like grandpa, Not screaming like his passengers as the plane crashed~
If Joe Kidd was "The Man With No Name", he would have to be at least 65 years old- no getting around it. Kidd is demonstrably NOT TMWNN. Not remotely possible. Fanboys- all we can do is laugh at them.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae