*** Official "MINORITY REPORT" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[EricW]

here's one question that may seem dumb, but: does Agatha know that the flashback she keeps having is of her mother? if so, why doesn't she just tell Cruise that, instead of speaking to him in riddles ('can you see')?

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Okay. A couple of things that I'm still trying to sort out:
1. When they arrest Anderston they tell him it's for the pre-murders of Crowe and some woman. I'm confused. Who is the woman they're talking about?
2. Does the fact that Burgess shot himself at the end truly mean that the precogs can be wrong? Anderton made a comment to him that he (Burgess) could still choose not to kill him since he knew that the precogs had predicated murder. However, there was still no "minority report" for that particular killing, correct?
Link Removed

 

[Craig P]

2. Does the fact that Burgess shot himself at the end truly mean that the precogs can be wrong? Anderton made a comment to him that he (Burgess) could still choose not to kill him since he knew that the precogs had predicated murder. However, there was still no "minority report" for that particular killing, correct?

Anderton had already proven that pre-murderers could choose not to murder at the "moment of truth," when he elected not to murder Crow -- note that Crow was killed at least a minute later than the precogs had said, and his death was not murder, at worst a minor variant of manslaughter.

I'm skeptical that Burgess had planned out the entire sequence of Anderton tracking down Crow due to the precog report. I tend to think that his approach was much simpler. All he has to do is set the wheels in motion... once it becomes inevitable that Anderton will locate Crow (and I would think that Burgess would plan some sort of anonymous tip), it will trip the precogs. Burgess is just trying to get Anderton out of the way, so ideally, he will be recognized immediately and won't have the opportunity to go all the way to Crow.

As far as Anderton choosing to try to find Crow instead of lying low... he continues to make that decision in the hotel, despite emphatic prodding from Agatha to walk away. I tend to think it's hubris -- he's so convinced that he WILL NOT KILL LEO CROW that he doesn't think there's any danger in meeting with him.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

Possibly Paul, but if we are supposed to take the last few minutes (everything after John is haloed and told by the containment organ guy "Your dreams will come true [while haloed]") as in his mind, then the complete cliche, schmaltz of the end makes sense in context of his dream.

I don't see where you can draw that conclusion from what is presented in the film, and even if you can, having the "cliche, schmaltz of the end" as you seem to admit it was, was not the best approach to use for that dream sequence.

 

[Tim RH]

One thing that bothered me about the film was people threatening other people with guns (like the elevator scene with Anderton and Witwer and Anderton's wife in the "prison" near the end), which wouldn't really work, because if you were actually going to shoot the person, then the pre-cogs would have predicted it and so forth....

What do you think?

 

[Alex Spindler]

I was wrong on my previous assumption that they allowed his eyeball access. It was the pregnant black woman who did it. She fights to preserve Anderton's 'space' when Wittwer sits down, and she knowingly grins when Witwer announces that Anderton was going to kidnap Agatha.

On the final killing. I don't know if there was a minority report on Burgess' death. I would assume that there was, following along with the logic of the film. The details of that murder are totally glossed over, so there is no telling what it actually looked like.

A quick breakdown.
Ann Lively murder
-Twins saw the fake murder (waves prove they chose this one to see)
-Agatha only sees the later, and correct, murder (later that same day I assume)
-Precops respond to the timeline as presented by the Twins, and discard Agatha's minority report.
-Twins likely reacted to the real murder, but was dismissed as an echo

Marx murder
-Accurate to the second
-Successfully prevented

Crowe murder
-No minority report according to Agatha
-Agatha is the only one who reports the time (as per Jad)
-Agatha's time is wrong (by about a minute). Perhaps the others didn't report the time because there was some confusing time events with Anderton knowing the course of events?
-One of the twins sees the correct future, because he gets the phrase "You aren't going to kill me?" correct, which doesn't occur until after zero hour.
-Anderton's "choice" was a part of the murder from the first place.
-In short, the Crowe murder was accurate, but Agatha fudged the time.
-Agatha was instrumental to getting Anderton to the murder scene and setting the time element right. Perhaps she was wrong because of her close involvement.

Burgess Murder
-Murder comes through as John Anderton (totally wrong prevision from the majority)
-Twins and Agatha get the dialog correct
-Could be a minority report on this one, but there is no way to be sure
-Precops show up late for this one (no premeditation), so they couldn't have prevented the murder either way.

I gave the concept of Precrime some serious thought. The system was obviously an outstanding deterrent to murder. I mean, they managed to get the number of intended murders in Washington DC down to 1100 in six years! The problem with the system really revolves around the minority reports, and the concept of alternate futures. Even if all three agree, there is the definite possibility that all three are wrong. I wonder if there were 12 precogs. Would they be able to remove reasonable doubt?

One thing is certain, the precogs could still be used as a prevention tool. Just imagine if they foresaw murder and the precops jump in. At the absolute least, they could prevent the murder from taking place, and arrest the intended murderer for later investigation (or at least a weapons charge). I can easily imagine that they would have the perfect effect of prevention without the danger of false incarceration.

In the ending - the movie wraps itself up way too neatly. I would be inclined to believe in the Halo theory, but there are no clues to this other than our displeasure at how tidily the end is dealt with. Perhaps if there was some indication that we were involved with his dream, I could go for it. But as is, it is nothing more than wishful thinking. It would be the better ending (as would the blue fairy ending for AI), but we appear to have been given another (although not so bad) ending from what was otherwise an outstanding film.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

1. When they arrest Anderston they tell him it's for the pre-murders of Crowe and some woman. I'm confused. Who is the woman they're talking about?

Crow and Witwer (Colin Farrell). Not some woman.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Tim, guns can still be used to disable (shoot in the leg, arm). Of course, they should be loaded with non-lethal rounds in the future, but it was important for them to be lethal in the story. That or they should all have bubble cannons.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

trying to find "clues" to the "dream" ending that people think is the reason for the crappy ending
- Perhaps the bald Anderton at the end?
- Was the film grain different by chance? I didn't notice any different "look" at the end.
- Was Anderton's narration a clue? Everything to that point was non-narrative, correct?
- The reaction of the pre-crime unit to the names on the red balls at the end? [perhaps they knew?]

 

[Larry Seno Jr.]

A)RE:Tom not going blind.

Sure the plastic surgeon told him he would go blind, that doesn't mean it would happen. The Doctors told me that my wrists would heal in 2 weeks but they never did (After I broke them). It was just a precautionary measure, not to be taken literally. Just like telling you not to take more than 12 aspirin in a certain amount of time, if you take 13 will you drop dead? No, they are precautions. I was satisfied.

B)I don't think it was a dream post halo, there is no way to prove it was, and no way to prove that it wasn't. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Halo stops your brain from working though. Am I the only one that doesn't see being Haloed as punitive as actually being in prison? The body farm was very matrixey.

I guess the reason I don't think it was a dream is that everything was so closely related to the earlier plot. Often in a dream we think of things as they should be, not as they are. I think JA would have thought of having 2 eyes removed and not remembered dropping one down the drain (Re: the scene where his HOT wife drops one eye on the organ). Another thing that leads me to believe it's not a dream (And this is fairly strong evidence) the prologue. In Film making a prologue usually assumes that the narrator has a firm grasp on reality.

C)Did anyone else notice that both Agatha (While recieving the future) and JA (While creating the present) both say THIS:

'You will not use my"Death's son against me"' instead of "Son's Death" I thought that was VERY VERY strange and must have SOME meaning. Look for it when you see the movie, it occurs JUST after JA removes his hood in the kitchen towards the end of the movie.


Overall I STILL love the movie. The Total Recall place was an OBVIOUS homage to Total Recall (Dept. of Redundancy Dept. there).

I for one didn't think Burgess was the bad guy until he obviously shot Witwer. I thought Witwer was trying to screw JA over.

The only thing that seemed strange to me is that their computers were not networked. They were using "sneaker net" to transfer files.

There must have been some reason since obviously the computers were networked, as the black guy sent Agathas vision to the pre-crime party.


Some issues I have:

The names of the victims and killers were written on WOOD. I can't believe they couldn't come up with some kind of digital hologram in 50 years. Also, they are never recorded intially. What would stop someone from just throwing the ball away? Or from paying everyone in pre-crime off to lose the vision?

I still don't get how Burgess setup the Crow incident. He could not possibly have forseen that John would know that the Anne lively killing had been done by him.

Anyone care to even try and put your mind around how he could set it up?

 

[Andrew Santos]

One thing that bothered me about the film was people threatening other people with guns (like the elevator scene with Anderton and Witwer and Anderton's wife in the "prison" near the end), which wouldn't really work, because if you were actually going to shoot the person, then the pre-cogs would have predicted it and so forth....

i disagree. i highly doubt johns wife had intention of killing the security guard, and i highly doubt john had intention of killing witwer right there. although some alarms did go off at that point...

 

[Patrick Sun]

How does one "go national" with the pre-cogs? Do they try and genetically engineer more of the pre-cogs? Seems like Agatha was the only pre-cog that kept the whole thing going.

If the pre-cogs see a future that doesn't happen (due to precrime's actions), why do they see it happen? Doesn't every precrime that's prevented change the future (good or bad)?

 

[Eric Sevigny]

"How does one "go national" with the pre-cogs?"
They did say the white liquid the Precogs were floating in was magnifing their power/visions. So I assumed the 200 miles radius is not the full extent of their capabilities, but merely a purposefully limited field of work. Going national would mean building more Precrime stations and increasing the range of the Precogs vision through the system. Perhaps every new Precrime station would act as a relay amplifier (?)
"If the pre-cogs see a future that doesn't happen (due to precrime's actions), why do they see it happen? Doesn't every precrime that's prevented change the future (good or bad)?"
You are entering paradox world
To paraphrase John in the beginning of the film, "The fact that you prevented it doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen" (when Witmer caught the rolling ball). I believe they were exactly discussing that point.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The ball's drop would be due to gravity, it's fated to drop due to its surroundings, not due to inaction otherwise.

Even if John said it, it doesn't make it so. John was just spouting the company line.

Are the precrimers arrested for attempted murder only? I forget the exact charge when they get arrested.

 

[Eric Sevigny]

"Even if John said it, it doesn't make it so. John was just spouting the company line."

Well, do you have a better explanation? It's the explanation found in the movie, which is based on fictitious events with fictitious technology in a fictitious world - I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. Arguing whether that is or is not so seems relatively futile.

"Are the precrimers arrested for attempted murder only? I forget the exact charge when they get arrested."

As I recall, no. They are arrested for the murder, not the attempt, as John says when he arrest the man who was going to kill his wife. i.e. "I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of [...]", that bit can be found in the trailer for the film.

 

[Derek Bang]

The end scene WAS mildly cheese, I mean did his wife suddenly STOP smelling her little boy?

I agree with this. However, there's a few reasons why I can buy them getting back together:

1. The whole experience forced them to deal with each other and their grief. John gets smacked in the face with it through the Crow incident.

2. Agatha's visions at her house about what their son's life would have been like was pretty moving and they could grieve together - share the pain, etc.

3. At end of the movie, Pre-crime is dissolved and John is freed up to focus on other things...

I don't think it unreasonable that they get back together. In fact, it makes sense to me - sometimes incredible circumstances can bring people together. Also, regarding Cruise's hair at the end, why can't it be longer? If she's "showing" that much in her pregrancy, it had to have been many months later after his head was shaved.

 

[Michael*K]

i highly doubt john had intention of killing witwer right there. although some alarms did go off at that point...

The alarm was being sounded at that point because Wally had seen the pre-cog vision implicating Anderton in the Crow murder. Because Anderton had always been fair with him, Wally gave him two minutes to get out before he tripped the alarm.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Can anyone really foresee a future where we really could be arrested for the "future murder" of someone and not the "attempted murder" of someone if the murder was not committed (stopped in time)? This didn't really sit well with me, but I guess a lot can happen in 52 years...

 

[Andrew Santos]

The alarm was being sounded at that point because Wally had seen the pre-cog vision implicating Anderton in the Crow murder. Because Anderton had always been fair with him, Wally gave him two minutes to get out before he tripped the alarm.

oh yeah. forgot about that part. thanks.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

Can anyone really foresee a future where we really could be arrested for the "future murder" of someone and not the "attempted murder" of someone if the murder was not committed (stopped in time)? This didn't really sit well with me, but I guess a lot can happen in 52 years...

no, the concept that there can be a 'pre-cog' is seriously flawed
but if you believe the people that are anti-government/Bush/Ashcroft today, they will tell you that what the government is trying to get to w.r.t. arresting you and charging you with a crime, is pretty close...