Factual error: During the gunfight in the lot behind the OK Corral, Tom McLaury is firing a six shooter at Doc just before Doc fires his shotgun in the air to scare Tom's horse away. The mistake is that Tom McLaury wasn't armed during the actual gunfight. He was shot by Doc while he was reaching for the rifle he had stored in his saddle. (01:14:58)
Tombstone (1993)
Ending / spoiler
Directed by: George P. Cosmatos
Starring: Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Bill Paxton, Charlton Heston, Sam Elliott, Michael Biehn, Powers Boothe, Dana Delany, Jason Priestley
Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) kills Johnny Ringo. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) and friends continue to hunt down members of the Clanton gang and all those who are cowboys. Before dying, Doc tells Wyatt that there's no such thing as a "normal" life and that he should go hook up with that actress. Some time later, Mattie (Wyatt's wife) dies of an overdose. Virgil and his wife move to California where he becomes sheriff. Ike Clanton is killed some time later in a failed bank robbery attempt. Wyatt hooks up with the actress (Josephine) and they have "some adventures together, some good and some bad." Wyatt Earp dies in 1929.
Sam Elliott
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The events have been intentionally adjusted by the filmmakers to create a coherent and entertaining movie. It is not a documentary. This film is loosely based on true events; it's not a day-to-day account of the events of 1880 through 1882. Artistic license does not constitute a movie mistake.
Changing facts in historical material does constitute factual mistakes, whether anybody wants to call them that or not.
It really depends on the degree to which the film-maker alters the facts, and whether that alteration is glaring or changes the story line. For most, it doesn't. Tom got shot and Doc shot him. There is an implicit duty of the audience to "suspend disbelief" - an acknowledgment that it is impossible to get every small detail correct.
How does changing the facts make it a good movie? I guess it might entertain those who know nothing about the facts. But for those who have studied and read up on things, going way out of the story does little in making a good story. That is why I like "Wyatt Earp" MUCH more than "Tombstone." No, "Wyatt Earp" is not a documentary. It, too, has altered some facts. But, to me, it is much closer to the truth. Even some of the dialog is from the Tombstone Epitaphs reporting of the incident.
Doc Holliday: Oh. Johnny, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now.
Trivia: Val Kilmer has been quoted as saying that screenwriter Kevin Jarre insisted the actors wear real wool costumes, in accordance with the time period. During the scene in the Birdcage Theater, Val Kilmer says, a thermometer was placed on the set, and it read 134 degrees Fahrenheit. Kilmer suggested jokingly that this was the reason Doc Holliday killed so many people: "It's just, like, he wore wool in the summer, in the Arizona territory, and that made him mad."
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.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.