Question: What did Doc mean when he said "It's not revenge he's after. It's the reckoning"?
Chosen answer: A reckoning is like a judgment day, exacting retribution for one's actions. Doc was very well educated and had a very large vocabulary. He was correctly pointing out the subtle difference between revenge (to make Wyatt feel better about losing Morgan and about Virgil's crippling injury) and the fact that Wyatt was bringing about a judgment day (or reckoning) for each of the men who hurt his family.
Answer: I've spent a lot of time thinking about this very question, and here's what I've come up with. I think there are at least two differences between revenge and a reckoning. First, I think it has to do with the scale of the response to an offending action. Revenge, in my mind, is an eye for an eye, i.e, "You killed my brother and wounded another, so I will inflict the same action on your family (or group, gang, whatever). " A reckoning is less a measured response to an offending action and more of a full-scale punishment, i.e, "You killed my brother and wounded another, so I will now slaughter your entire family-including those who were not directly responsible for the offending action." Second, I think there is also a difference in motivation. Revenge tends to be a very personal response to something, whereas a reckoning tends to be more of a response fueled by a need for justice. In Wyatt's case, it was both. He was enraged by what happened to his family, but was also a lawman.
Thank you for this response! I've only seen Tombstone a million times and asked the same question every time. It's hard to separate the difference between the two but I believe you nailed it. Well done.
I'm thinking the opposite in terms. Revenge is "Reflexive" and is generally any means necessary (out of an abundance of pain or rage) to hurt the other party. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." If one is exacting justice there's no need to be cold hearted. Therefore, Reckoning is (to me) a fair balancing of the "scales" hence "an eye for an eye." Not only consequences of actions as it were but a corrective action to an incorrect circumstance. Just my understanding.
The problem with that theory is there is no difference in the end because the end result was the same...the killing. True reckoning could have only been achieved though the apprehension and punishment by trial and jury, anything other than that is simply revenge.
Question: Is there a reason why when they're in the past they can't catch up with the present, but when they land a little into the future, the present can catch up with them? Are they not moving along on their own timeline? And if not, why are they not left in that moment and stand there to see the present come and go without taking them?
Answer: Think of time as a gear with only one tooth, and think of them as a gear with only one notch. In the past, the one tooth has forever passed their notch and they'll never be carried along in the flow of time again. In the future, the tooth comes along, snags their notch, and they're back in the flow of time.
Question: What was in the hat box in the garden?
Question: Julia Roberts refers to the term "snow blowing" and states that she heard it described in a movie. Is this really a reference to a movie?
Answer: You can see the reference in Kevin Smith's first movie Clerks. Whether or not she's referencing that particular movie or not is debatable.
Question: What exactly did Darrin and Chris steal and how did they get caught? Also, why was their sentence seven years and how did Chris end up in a wheelchair?
Answer: It was never said what they stole, just that they were going to go to the store (probably a corner store or convenience store) and they probably stole food. They got caught because they were just kids and not good at stealing or being sneaky. However, they didn't get a 7-year sentence for the theft. It's just that the film jumps to 7 years later and Darrin is now a gang member who has been in and out of jail the whole time. He's just celebrating his release from prison for a different, unknown crime. Chris is in a wheelchair due to a gun shot wound, though it's not stated how or who shot him.
Question: In the scene right before the big bank heist, a detective comes into the situation room informing the team that a CI Hugh Benny had a tip about Neil McCauley looking at Far East National Bank. How the heck did Waingro (working for Benny and VanZandt) even know about this score? McCauley hadn't even discussed it with Kelso when Waingro took down the armored car.
Answer: Waingro helped Van Zandt track down Trejo. Waingro then tortured Trejo and threatened his family if he didn't give up McCauley. With his back to the wall, Trejo gave Waingro and Hugh Benny the details of the bank heist, but Waingro killed Trejo's family anyway and beat Trejo almost to death. Benny then gives the tip to the police on Van Zandt's order.
I wonder how Trejo was tracked, I don't remember his name being revealed during Waingro's time with the crew, or any other information.
Well, we never see the crew prior to their first heist. Trejo could have given Waingro his name during the planning of that heist.
Waingro met this crew only once. How would he know who Trejo is or where he lives? Right before the heist, Trejo is asked to mislead police away from the heist.
Question: Sam and Nicky both refer to "back home" but they do not explain where it is . I thought it was Kansas City because that is where the bosses are, but it's revealed that they are only there because "its as close as they could get to Vegas without being arrested". Does anyone know where in America Sam and Nicky are originally from?
Answer: Frank Rosenthal (the basis for Sam Rothstein) and Tony Spilotro (the basis for Nicky Santoro) were both from Chicago, so that is likely "back home".
Question: Just before Sherlock attacks somebody, he determines what areas to strike to incapacitate someone and determine how long it would take someone to recover from both physical and psychological trauma. Granted that he could figure out a person's physical recovery but, could he actually figure out a person's pyshological recovery? He noted that it would take six months if I remember for a guy to recover psychologically but, to me, Sherlock is just taking a wild guess. Especially, if the guy recovered in half the time.
Question: When Denzel and Ethan go to visit the Spanish gangsters towards the end and Denzel gives the presents, Is the money inside the blender for them to kill Ethan's character or simply he owed some money? If then the money wasn't for them to kill him what reason did they have to kill him?
Chosen answer: The money to kill Hawke was in the kitchen appliance box.
Question: When Phoebe is on the phone with Ray, he mentions that the Ghostbusters fire house is now a Starbucks. In the post-credits scene, we see that Winston has purchased the fire house so the Ghostbusters can get back to business, but the fire house looks like it has been abandoned for several years and no other company ever took it over. Did I miss something here?
Answer: Ray was probably being sarcastic, and was simply making a general comment about gentrification in the area.
Answer: Perhaps nobody wanted to take over the place for a few reasons. Historical purpose, high cost... hauntings.?
Answer: It's been 40 years since the Ghostbusters disbanded, Ray mostly likely passed by the old place and saw a Starbucks there. It has since shut down.
But they left the ghost trap active? Not likely.
Question: In the scene where Cheyenne visits Jill at the McBain's residence for the first time, he asks her whether she knows something about a man with a harmonica, although the three of them (Cheyenne, Harmonica and Jill) met earlier in the movie when Cheyenne tells Harmonica to "watch those false notes." Why doesn't Cheyenne just ask her for the man whom she probably still remembers from this event?
Answer: The movie was filmed at multiple locations in Spain and Italy, and also in Utah. Chances are they filmed out of sequence and made minor changes to the script later in the movie. There are many things left unclear in the movie, for example the same scene at the cantina/store, just after Cheyenne's crew shows up, he refers to Harmonica by his name when no-one said his name up until that point.
Answer: He meant what does she know about him personally. What's his real name, where does he come from and why is he so interested in everything.
Then he should have asked "do you know something about THE man with THE harmonica?" instead of "do you know something about A man going around playing A harmonica?" (time stamp 01:05:25 for the restored version) or am I missing something? He already knows that she has seen him because he was there so he could just ask "do you know something about the guy with the harmonica we met at the bar earlier?" I just don't understand why Cheyenne is using an indefinite article because he and Jill both know who he is referring to.
Question: What motivated Bob Taylor (an earlier abductee of the same perpetrators) to implicate himself in the current abductions by stealing the girls' clothing items and taking them to his home?
Question: How old is Edward?
Answer: It is never stated.
Answer: As the other response says, the number of years is never stated. Physically, I think he is supposed to look about twenty years old. Bill wants him to start a proper business. None of the adults seem to think that he should be in school.
Question: Could someone please explain the goat in Xerxes' 'sex room' (for lack of a better word). The scene before Xerxes offers the hunchback Ephialtes everything, this scene begins with a shot of a goat with human hands playing an instrument and (I believe) smoking something. Does Xerxes have a goat fetish or something? Could someone kindly explain this for me.
Answer: The scene is meant to show that Xerxes has exotic creatures/slaves from every corner of the world. In the reality of the film, a goat-headed musician would certainly qualify.
Question: When Uncle Buck is going to the party to get Bug, he is stopped at a red light and there are two parents in the car next to him. The father says, "don't go in there with that hat on, they'll kill you". Why would someone be killed for wearing a hat?
Chosen answer: He's being sarcastic, as Buck says in the beginning some of his hats anger a lot of people, which probably connects to when his hat gets taken by one of the teenagers at the party.
Buck is actually referring to his aviator style hat in the earlier scene about people being angered by it. He's wearing the fedora style hat in the scene en route to the party. But I agree the guy was being sarcastic about teenagers.
The black purse bedside to the possible 'pile of bunched-up blankets' looks like Chanice's from later scenes; suggesting the writers or Hughes changed the script after the bedroom scene was shot to Buck's simpler but delightfully funny half-conversation with her on the phone.
Answer: The Uncle Buck movie was made in the late 80s, near the end of the Cold War. And Because the hat resembles the Russian ushanka worn by Russian soldiers in that time, it can be said that wearing it might anger some, especially young Americans opposed to world events at the time.
Question: Why didn't Peter retaliate against Bob for punching him and letting the town know what a jerk he is?
Answer: Two possible reasons. 1. Hitting him back and telling everybody about Bob being a complete jerk would make him no better then Bob. 2. Bob actually knew the real Luke and if Peter had hit him, Bob could retaliate by telling everybody the truth.
Question: Who did the demonic voice that told the priest blessing the house to get out?
Answer: George Lutz.
How was it accomplished?
Question: Why does Vivica Fox start crying when she sees fried chicken on the table?
Answer: In a storyline that was not shown but discussed vaguely, Vivica's character lost her first child one day while her husband (LL Cool J) was at work. The only thing she had to put the child in was an empty bucket of chicken. So the bucket of chicken on the table brought back horrible memories for her.
Chosen answer: In the original novella it is revealed that Andy smuggled $500 into the prison inside of his rectum. During an interview in 2004 Robbins incorrectly quoted the amount as being $100. The narration up until Red's release is provided as Red writes his account of the events while still in prison, and employs the same method to smuggle the story out. But since the issue of Andy smuggling in $500 into the prison isn't addressed in the movie, we should assume that he smuggled it in. In addition to this, the wardens scams are described as "near slave labor." From this we can assume that it is possible the inmates are getting paid (an incredibly small) wage. Perhaps Andy, with his financial knowledge, knows how to haggle, barter and stretch a dollar. One last (but not as likely) scenario is that Red allows some sort of lay by system to inmates.