MovieChat Forums > Smokey and the Bandit (1977) Discussion > So in the end it was all for nothing?

So in the end it was all for nothing?

posted 8 years ago by gutz1981
11 replies | jump to latest

To this day, I still don't get it. Bandit and the gang get away, sure enough. But the Beer will more than likely be impounded and the truck and the Trans-Am too, and since to claim it would mean to admit to being the criminals, they will all never be seen again. So what was the point outside of winning the bet? The beer is gone, Big Enos gets nothing. The truck and the car is gone, which would put a large dent in the 80 grand to Bandit and the Snowman. So apart from the challenge, its all going to waste. Can someone explain to me other wise? Could the beer have been kept? Could the truck and the car returned? I still feel it needs a bit more explaining, because the logical conclusion is Bandit got some extra money for a truck he forfeited and that is all anyone got.

[–] jnoble11 8 years ago

yeah now that you mention it, I always thought the ending was kind of anti-climatic.They went through all that trouble and didn't even take the money instead agreeing on a logistically impossible bet to drive from Georgia to Boston and back within 18 hours in a slow ass '70s Cadillac. Which the result of is never mentioned in the sequel.

[–] gutz1981 8 years ago

They went through all that trouble and didn't even take the money instead agreeing on a logistically impossible bet to drive from Georgia to Boston and back within 18 hours in a slow ass '70s Cadillac. Which the result of is never mentioned in the sequel

Not necessarily. Someone had mentioned how the last bet was open to destination and time and not about transport. Bandit or one of the others could have flown over by plane to get the chowder. So, if they put some thought to it, they could have won and probably did. I was more concerned about the beer and the rig being taken away, but you make a good point as well.

[–] medievil3791 8 years ago

Don't overthink it, it's just a movie.

[–] millsey72 (9625) 2 years ago

Exactly. Just say its a plot hole and move on

[–] thisnameinuse 7 years ago

For starters, remember that Big Enos and Little Enos really weren't interested in the beer. They were interested in making challenges to truckers and relished in "breaking them", betting each other whether they'd sink the guy this time.

The comment about his boy running the Southern Classic and "wanting to celebrate in style" was probably just an excuse to not say "I'm trying to get you busted like every other gearjammer that took this stupid bet."

As another poster said, the second bet for double-or-nothing could have easily been taken care of with a plane flight, presuming the Burdettes weren't going to check the odometer or anything, but none of that was stipulated.

The Trans Am was purchased just for the run, and presuming he'd have to do some serious antagonistic stuff with police officers across the South, I'm guessing they weren't planning on keeping it. And the purpose of getting the money to "buy a new rig" suggests that perhaps the truck they used for the run had some issues with it and needed to be replaced.

————
SKYBIRD, this is DROPKICK with a RED DASH ALPHA message in two parts. BREAK. BREAK.

[–] avortac4 (3529) 3 years ago

Yeh, the ending bet would require them to keep driving AT LEAST at 450 km/h the whole time just to make it in 18 hours. This doesn't leave any room for error, either. And no, I am not going to convert that to imperial units, it's americans that should convert to using logical system that the small portion of this planet called THE REST OF THE WORLD uses.

"..suggests that perhaps the truck they used for the run had some issues with it and needed to be replaced."

'Suggestions' are just opinions, they're not canon.

However, how bad can the issues be of a truck that can pull off a beer run like that?

This movie makes pretty much less than zero sense, no matter what portion of the movie you take under scrutiny. It's just a really bad, live-action cartoon that celebrates criminals, ugly nag-hags that treat men as slaves from the get-go, endanger traffic (and their own lives), smoke, swear, accept criminals as boyfriends (what else is new) and breaking the law, destroying other people's property without remorse (think of the mailboxes and walls, cars and motorbikes and other property that these 'protagonists' destroy without remorse)..

Horrible movie in all possible levels, the message is awful, the camerawork is bad, the soundtrack is vomit-inducing, Sally field is like 'ugly annoyance personified' no matter how much this movie glorifies her supposedly good buttockses..

Thinking about the 'double or nothing' .. doesn't that mean that if Bandit loses the bet, he has to pay double (what was he supposed to pay originally if he lost anyway?), but if he wins, he gets nothing?

"Double or nothing is a gamble to decide whether a loss or debt should be doubled. The result of a "double or nothing" bet is either the cancellation of a debt or the doubling of a debt. It refers to the potential outcome in a betting situation where the winner risks what has been won for a chance to double their winnings."

[–] avortac4 (3529) 3 years ago

Or is the meaning here that the 'Big Enoses' (?) lost the bet, so they don't either have to pay anything (if they win) (although they already paid for the beer and the car), or they would have to pay 160 000 if they lose (and the 'Bandits' can somehow drive 450 km/h for 18 hours)?

So either they would have to pay the 80 000 now, or take a chance they wouldn't have to pay anything, but risk having to pay 160 000?

Anyway, about the truck replacement; if they could have gotten the 80 000 cleanly and legitimately, I think the 'getting a new rig' plan would follow the usual pattern of actually selling the old one for as high a price as you can, and -then- investing in a new one. Isn't that how these things are normally done?

Losing the old rig altogether puts a big damp on the 'new rig' plans - this wasn't the plan that the truck owner was thinking about when the 'Bandit' told him about the 80 000.

By the way, why do they always do it this way in movies? They never make any deductions, they never adjust for anything. They talk about 80 000 every time, they never talk about 40 000, which is each one's share. It's like, the truck driver is thinking of the sum of "80 000 dollars", but he's never going to get that sum, the highest amount he's gonna get is half that (if they split fairly), so why isn't he thinking of "40 000" instead, because obviously, that's his share?

Why does Bandit ever even mention "80 000", when each of them's share is only 40 000?

The same mistake is made in the movie 'Spaceballs', but in a bigger scale. It's so frustrating. Barf and the captain celebrate the "million spacebucks" they're going to get - but they (somehow) OWE 'Pizza the Hutt' 'million spacebucks', so ALL they would get is 'paying a debt' - basically, they should be celebrating 'debt nullification' that still leaves then exactly as space-penniless as they originally were. So why even mention 'sh*tload of money' or 'million spacebucks', when they would never get that much?

[–] avortac4 (3529) 3 years ago

I mean, if Pizza the Hutt lived, they would have to pay every single spacebuck to him. They would be left with exactly zero. Nothing. Nanimo nai. Zilch. Etc.

If Puzza the Hutt dies, Lone Starr STILL doesn't take the money? (This is the part I don't get - why not take the money? Wouldn't Barf have something to say about it after all his hard work towards acquiring said sum? Would ANYONE really just 'not take a million spacebucks' in a Universe where that's a valid currency? The king can afford it, what kind of stupid romantic/semantic reason is there to not take it? It's not gonna be anything noble, it's not going to go to any good use, to feed poor people or whatnot.

In fact, by TAKING that million spacebucks, they could AT LEAST direct it to any good cause they darn well please. By NOT taking it, all they're doing is making sure some greedy royalty gets to keep a sum of money that can't possibly mean more than pocket change, chickenfeed, etc. to them.

So the decision itself is downright immoral, and definitely illogical. They could do so much good with that money.

Also, how can Lone Starr be a 'prince', if there's no Kingdom to be the prince OF?

Princedom and Princessdom require a Kingdom. If your planet has exploded, you're effectively no longer a prince or princess (Leia, I am looking at you!).

I could go on and question what 'prince' or 'princess' even means from a lawful or even legal standpoint, what obligations or privileges it entails, how are such obligations or privileges created, what kind of groups of people you have to oppress against their consent to create such, etc.. but this was originally just going to be about how little this movie makes sense on ANY level, and how stupid and anti-climactic the ending is (Cannonball Run also ends very stupidly and anti-climactically)

[–] moviechatterer (13503) 2 years ago

OWE 'Pizza the Hutt' 'million spacebucks', so ALL they would get is 'paying a debt' - basically, they should be celebrating 'debt nullification' that still leaves then exactly as space-penniless

Too many people look at loans , credit cards , and debt that way , like it doesent matter . That is real money , and even worse its money u dont have .

I'd be just as excited about paying that debt and being space penniless , way up from -1m !
Penninless and debt free ! yay! finally back to square one!

[–] avortac4 (3529) 3 years ago

The ending makes even LESS sense than I originally remembered..

So they just say "double or nothing, clam chowder from Boston, eighteen hours", and that's all?

No contract, no address, no information about the specific type clam chowder - and why it has to be acquired from Boston - also, how do the rich guys know WHERE they got the clam chowder, when there's no information exchange or address?

In a PROPER bet, the way it would work is the rich guys would be in contact with a very SPECIFIC LOCATION, that would then confirm (by phone, I presume) whether the Bandit(s) have been there to load the clam chowder, etc.

But even with the beer, they have no evidence where the beer came from, and so on.

It would be more logical if it was a location or shop, or some individual the Enos(es?) already know, so they can keep track of what's happening, etc. Even with the beer stuff, it makes no sense as they're not in contact with the 'Coors' seller.

But most notably, no one signs a contract. I know that verbal contract is just as biding, but they barely even made a verbal contract - and if there are problems, how easy would it be for the Enoses to just deny their involvement? No paper trail or anything.

Also, how come they didn't give them money this time? How come 'Bandit' didn't inform them they actually scribbled a note instead of paying for the beer, so they still have to pay for it (if they send a bill instead of a lawsuit for breaking and entering and stealing their beer)..

AAGH! This movie is SO full of nonsense and plot holes, it makes my brain hurt.

[–] PaladinNJ (20331) 2 years ago

Maybe Big Enos had the local cops in his pocket. Then he could just have them all walk away.