re: Is there a reasonable defense of not considering the Dollars Trilogy a “true trilogy”?

quote:

---

Right, the man with no name is the same character in all three but they were only marketed as a trilogy after the fact by United Artist.

---

I don’t really find the “original intent” argument all that convincing.

As far as counter arguments to it not being a true trilogy, I’m intrigued by the comment made by the poster above that Clint Eastwood is not playing the same character in each movie.

Would like some elaboration on that point from the original commenter. I hope it’s a legit analysis of how it is a different “character”, because I have some thoughts on that, and not just just another retread of the the Joe/Manco/Blondie point.