Tombstone

Trivia: Val Kilmer is widely believed to be the most historically accurate portrayal of Doc Holliday. He is the same height, same build, and uses phrases used by Doc Holliday (eg "I'm your huckleberry" and "You're a daisy if you do").

Vin15Nets

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: But Hucleberry Finn appeared in Tom Sawyer in 1876 and was a bad influence on, or "made trouble' for Tom.

Not sure what this correction is trying to state, but "I'm you're Huckleberry" was slang in the late 1800's for "I'm your man" and didn't derive from Twain or Huck Finn. Twain uses the earlier slang meaning of huckleberry for Finn, meaning an inconsequential person, to establish Finn is a boy of lower extraction or degree than Tom Sawyer.

Bishop73

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)

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's 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.

Brenda Elzin

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.

Factual error: Three of the Earp brothers arrived in Tombstone on December 1, 1879. They served as lawmen during 1880/81 and fought the Cowboys in the famous gunfight on October 26, 1881, They left the area in April 1882. In the movie the Earp's arrive in Tombstone in 1881 and ride past Boot Hill Cemetery. The tombstone displaying one of the most famous epitaph ever written is visible: "Her lies Lester Moore, Four slugs from a .44, No Les, No more." The problem is that Lester Moore wasn't killed until 1884. So it's impossible for his tombstone and famous epitaph to be in Boot Hill when the Earps arrived.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Fact is nobody knows who Lester Moore is. They believe he was a mail clerk who was shot and killed over a dispute over a package, but they cannot prove it. There is no date on the tombstone, plus the fact that there was never anyone by that name ever killed in the Arizona territory makes this tombstone even more mysterious.

lartaker1975

Revealing mistake: When Wyatt and the others leave two cowboys hanging in front of the Dragoon Saloon, you can see that neither man actually has a rope on his neck. As the one man swings around, on his vest you can see the outline of the rope going straight down into the harness that's holding him. (01:25:35)

MovieFan612 Premium member

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The two men are already dead when strung up. The shot is not of a hanging, it's of displaying two dead "cowboys". Therefore, the rope need not be around their necks.

The rope was made to outwardly appear as if it's a simple noose, whether or not it was the cur's death by actual hanging. The outline, however, that we can see under the clothes reveals that the noose part of the rope goes all the way down his back into a stunt safety harness, under the man's clothes. To think that Wyatt and his men would have removed the man's clothing to configure a custom harness to go around the man, then redressed him, and finally strung him up for display, is ridiculous. The correction is rubbish, and the mistake is valid IMHO.

Super Grover Premium member

So they go to the trouble of fashioning a harness instead of just hanging a rope around their necks?

MovieFan612 Premium member

Continuity mistake: During the fight at the OK corral, Doc Holiday has a double barrel shotgun but he shoots it three times, once in the air to spook the horse, once again to shoot the guy behind the horse, then the scene changes and he shoots another guy with the same gun without reloading.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This is already explained in corrections. The "third shot" is the same as the second shot from a different angle. The mistake is that he changes how he shoots. However, the same guy is shot - and falls dead from each angle.

Zwn Annwn

I don't buy the explanation. What would be the point of the filmmaker doing that when it's not done elsewhere in the movie, and why would the killing of the guy Doc shot be important enough to warrant a shot of it from two angles when none of the others were? No sale; still an error.

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)

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's 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.

Brenda Elzin

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.

More mistakes in Tombstone

Doc Holliday: Oh. Johnny, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now.

More quotes from Tombstone

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."

MovieFan612 Premium member

More trivia for Tombstone

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 Premium member

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.

Franklin Vaughn

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.

More questions & answers from Tombstone

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.