Question: What did Doc mean when he said "It's not revenge he's after. It's the reckoning"?
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: What does the Saxon who rallies the troops actually yell? He yells it twice: once, after Cerdic meets with Arthur in front of the wall and gives the order to "prepare the men for battle", and then a second time when Cerdic gives the signal after the only survivor of the first "wave" comes back through the wall. (And I don't mean his cry of "battle formation.").
Answer: I don't think it's supposed to be German. Probably Old Saxon. Could be something like "slahten fiand" - slaughter enemy.
Answer: He yells 'Schlachtet den feind!' (In very, very bad "German") - 'slaughter the enemy!'. And his army seems to yell: "Schlachtung! Schlachtung! Schlachtung..." - "Slaughter! Slaughter! Slaughter..."
Question: When Chozen, while bullying Daniel, takes the latter's handheld drum (which Chozen mockingly called a "baby rattle") and calls the latter a baby, Kumiko, sticking up for Daniel, fiercely says a phrase in Japanese (or Ryukyuan) to Chozen. What exactly does Kumiko say, and what does it mean? (00:57:50)
Answer: "You are crazy."
Question: In the scene where Lyle returns, he tells his missionaries to subdue George. I think one of them is a young Colin Farrell, but I didn't see his name in the credits. Did he have an uncredited role? Can someone help, as I don't have the DVD to check up on it?
Answer: There's certainly no listing for him on the IMDb, which is generally good with uncredited appearances. Farrell was still working in the UK and Ireland at the time of the film, which was entirely US shot, and didn't become involved in Hollywood productions until about the year 2000, three years after GOTJ came out, which would seem to make it extremely unlikely that he appeared in it.
Answer: So frustrating that only three of the mercenaries are credited when there are 5 of them! I agree that one looks exactly like Colin Farrell.
Answer: No Collin Farrell was not in the movie.
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: How did The Green Goblin get captured and sent to Ravencroft after he killed Gwen?
Answer: Peter could have webbed him up and called the police anonymously.
Very likely. However, there was a deleted scene in which Peter, out of anger over Gwen's death, almost beats Harry to death.
Yes. We also see Goblin getting knocked out when all hell breaks loose, and the gears all break apart. Chances are, Peter just webbed him up. (Although, as the other response says, he also got beaten up in a deleted scene.)
Question: What does the sequence with the fake Brill have to do with anything? I've watched this scene several times and can't find its significance in the film.
Chosen answer: The fake Brill is an undercover federal agent trying to find out what Will Smith knows about the video tape.
Poor writing though as that character is never spoke of again.
Question: Why is Frank Castle's hideout in the sewers?
Answer: With how many criminals Frank has killed, many of them would definitely want revenge. By hiding in the sewers, there's less chance of him or his hideout being discovered. If Frank lived anywhere above ground, his enemies would be able to find him more quickly and kill him.
Chosen answer: Because of the stink and water, it would be impossible for police dogs to track him. The sewers are also good for quick retreat and hiding.
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 Anakin and Padme get married, Anakin is wearing an outfit that is often seen on Jedi and is displaying a Jedi Padawan's hair braid. Do he and Padme not care that the man who performs the wedding is seeing him (as Jedi are not supposed to have relationships and marry)? Why not disguise him? It's a huge risk to let even one person see a Jedi getting married.
Answer: Agolerga, who officiated the wedding, would have known who both people were, especially Padme. Remember they were also keeping the marriage secret because of Padme's position as Senator. Assuming Agolerga was aware a Jedi can't marry, he may simply not care or agree with the rule. Also, as a holy man of Naboo, Anakin and Padme may have trusted him with their secret.
Question: If the Wolf, the Ape, and the Croc were all exposed to the chemical around the same time, then why is it that the Croc grew to almost triple the size of the other two by the time they hit the city? The ape is bigger than the croc at normal sizes and the wolf is more or less the same size. So why did the croc get that much bigger than the other two?
Answer: Perhaps the chemical has different effects on the animals that it is being exposed to, and the crocodile was mutated into a much bigger size than the gorilla and wolf. I don't think the movie is really expecting anyone to question this, but is really just done to give the protagonists an opponent to face.
Question: How did Stine find the kids and the Abominable Snowman at the ice rink?
Chosen answer: He found the book in his house, saw the title, and just naturally assumed that they were there because the snowman needs to be in a place where it is cold.
The book was with the kids not in the house.
Well my guess is that he followed the destruction that the abominable snowman left behind. He also must have checked his books over as well and saw which one was missing because there were some books on the floor.
Question: When Danny presses the button, the red spaceship moves onto a white space. Later in the movie, after accepting the astronauts' help, all three discover that the red spaceship is now on a blue space. How could it have gotten there? Neither Danny or Walter kicked the board and Danny never actually moved it from its original position since they had to deal with getting rid of the Zorgons.
Answer: If you are talking about the part where Walter says that Danny cheated and Danny says "someone must have kicked the board", you're right, no one did kick the board. After again being asked if he moved the piece, Danny says "maybe I moved the piece by accident." I think this implies that Danny cheated and moved the piece himself, which is why it was on a different coloured space.
Except, it never showed Danny moving the piece at all. When Walter moved Danny's piece back to the space it was originally on, the game shot out a card accusing Walter of cheating and tried ejecting him out of the house. If Danny had moved the piece by accident and therefore technically cheated, it kind of raises the question as to why he never received a card accusing him of cheating and ejecting him from the house as well.
I think the answer to this is in the card's text - "Caught cheating" I believe this implies that since Walter was observed physically moving a piece by the other player, that is what triggered the cheating detection. Nobody saw Danny move his piece, so he was technically not caught cheating in the moment. So, ostensibly, one may be able to cheat as long as they are not caught by the other player.
Question: Maybe I missed some dialogue, but why exactly did Voller think the fissure they were flying towards would take him to his desired date in 1939? I get that the dial detects fissures in time, but why would he think that particular fissure was the one he needed to travel through?
Answer: There is a bit of dialogue en route to the airport when Voller sets the instrument that says, "the first hand sets the destination," as in the time you want to travel back to. This would make the device completely absurd in principle if true (that's why I wanted to mark it as a plot hole/stupidity). Since it's supposed not to open portals but just detect them, it can't be that there are infinite portals for every moment in time you can choose to go back to (and they even close). The sky, while vast, is not infinite. We then find out that it is a trick since it is set to actually bring you to just one destination, but they don't know it yet.
Answer: We're supposed to accept that the dials are pointing to the rift in the sky, which is what makes this plot decision so ridiculous. There's no common reference point (magnetism wouldn't be discovered until and used in compasses for another 2,000 years), and the dial is 2-dimensional. Thus, you could turn your body 90 degrees and aim it down, and there's no indication from the movie that the dial would in any way turn to face the previous rift.
I think, technically, the fact that there's no common reference point is addressed when Voller mentions that the coordinates given are 'Alexandrine coordinates'... which I think might be another anachronism since all I can think it means is the ones used by Ptolemy in his Geography, which was hundreds of years after Archimedes' time. The dial is 2-dimensional, but there are 3 hands. It can be argued that when all 3 align, it does show that the direction you are headed is definitely correct, including the height you are pointing at. I definitely think it's entirely implausible, but the way the unknown mechanism works, attuned to something that does not exist such as time rifts, is kind of a lesser problem. Even if it is supposed to work by some mathematical principle, and then acts as some dowser rod.
Not true. The Chinese were using compasses around 200 BC, and Vikings are believed to have had them as well.
Answer: As they approach the rift, all three of the dial's hands are suddenly pointing towards it. If that is no clear indicator, then what is?
The dial pointing towards it only indicates that they are heading towards the fissure. How does that give Voller any certainty that this is the exact fissure he needs to travel through in order to reach his desired destination, especially considering it ended up not being the one he needed? Were there coordinates in Basil's diary that indicated where the exact fissure would open? I only recall the date of August 20 (?), 1939 being written down.
Only the time is written in the diary (the date you mention is next to August 20, 1969, which would be then supposedly when the finale of the movie takes place). For the coordinates, you need to have the device, which, apparently, allows you also to input with firsthand your desired destination. Voller couldn't know that to concoct his plan, though, since he did not have the diaries at the beginning of the movie.
Question: Did Ethan actually know it was a mole hunt to trap Jim, or was he oblivious until he worked it out at the train station?
Answer: Ethan never thought it was a mole hunt to trap Jim. He found out from Kittridge at the restaurant that it was a mole hunt, but Kittridge believes that Ethan is the mole (the money his parents mysteriously receive). At the station Ethan realises that Jim must be the mole since it is too convenient both he and his wife survived. However, the hunt to catch the mole was never directed at Jim - Kittridge never suspected him until at the end when he sees Jim alive.
Actually had suspicions before Jim showed up. Ethan found the Bible that was stamped from the Drake Hotel. Where Jim had literally just come back from before the mission. It made no sense otherwise why that would be in Jim's possession.
Question: What was Tobey Maguire's full process to get Spider-man's body? What was his body and fighting training and food diets? Is there any website where they have it in full writing?
Answer: The following is taken directly from People Magazine May 27, 2002: WORKOUT: Maguire exercised for at least 3.5 hours, six days a week, with his regimen varying "depending on how sore he felt," says Joujon-Roche. Mornings were spent improving his flexibility with yoga and splits, along with building strength through abdominal and lower-body exercises on an oversize ball. "We would just work on each body part until we killed it," Joujon-Roche says. "Then the next day we'd go to another and kill that one." Afternoons were devoted to cardiovascular activities like martial arts and cycling, to burn fat, plus gymnastics. "Tobey did his own flips with that Spider-Man hood on," says Joujon-Roche. "We gave him self-assuredness." DIET: For breakfast Joujon-Roche made the actor, a vegetarian, a "high-protein shake that included nuts, essential oils and vitamins." Lunch, he says, was often "marinated tofu with broccoli and walnuts and dinner a big veggie burger with brown rice." The menu varied with Maguire's output. "If his workout was pure weights," says Joujon-Roche, "he needed protein. If he did cardio, he'd have a shake of all carbs."
Question: What film is the footage of the young Michael Caine from? And is the footage of him playing with a small boy in the 'Musical Number' deleted scene from his home videos or a film?
Answer: The footage of Michael Caine is from the 1967 film Hurry Sundown.
Question: When Joker goes to Vicky's apartment, how did he know where she lived?
Answer: He could have looked up her address in the phone book. Just before Bruce arrives at Vikki's apartment, Joker asks Bob the Goon for - a phone book. Also he could have been tailing Bruce and found her apartment that way, after all he does show up not long after Bruce does.
Chosen answer: She's a semi-famous reporter/photographer. It would be fairly easy (especially for a criminal) to find her home.
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.
MovieFan612