PDA

View Full Version : Flaws in Minority Report


rogermiller
07-05-2002, 04:42 AM
1.Why is it that the Pre cogs can only predict murders and not any crime such as burglary, fraud, rape or any other known crime. Why is the organisation called precrime and premurder? Some of you might dispute this but I do remember in one scene Max Von Sydow says that Precogs can only predict murders.

2.The story of this film is supposed to take place in the year 2054 at Washington D.C. Washington is at times portayed to be a hi tech city with the latest technology. This can be seen in the hitech sets built for the film. But there are many scenes where we can see houses which look like the ones made in present times.

3.Why do some [actually all of them] of the people in this film were present day clothes such as Suits with ties,blazers,T.Shirts,Jogging outfits? The world in Minority report is supposed to be advanced. Then why do the characters wear outdated clothes? Did the producers of this film run out of money to stitch futuristic looking clothes or was there a dearth of creative talent? Also, Why does Tom Cruise move around in a black jacket or black T-Shirt which strangely reminds you of the ones he wore in Mission Impossible [there I go again!]?

4.The scene where Colin Farell meets Max Von Sydow at Sydow's home and expresses doubt about the first predicted murder and after which all of a sudden Max Von Sydow shoots down Colin Farell was a straight lift from a scene in the film L.A.Confidential where James cromwell suddenly shoots down Kevin Spacey. Let me guess Steven Spielberg was paying homage to that film's scene or he has run out of ideas.

5.They still use umbrellas when it rains!

JBond
07-05-2002, 04:55 AM
1. Someone said something like "there is no worse thign then one persona killing abother" the pre-cogs see murder, thats the movie.

2. Well they can only do so much

3. If you want to call that a big flaw...

4. Dunno

Empusae
07-05-2002, 05:26 AM
Ello

First thing is accually covered in the movie as Jbond said Murder has a mutch greater impact on the psycics than anything else so they can catch on to murder.

Second. You have been in a city right? Im a part of the city where there are homes?? Allot of the homes you see (and buildings in the heart of the city) are older. Some people just like it that way and other build their homes or buildings to look like they are older.

Third. How long have suits been around? How about tee shirts? A while now. . . and the same really goes for jogging suits. In fashon you tend to see the fashion of the young and the extreme change a great deal over the years in the cycle (new and nostalga) but the fashion of the established or the buisness people tends to remain the same.

Fourt. Who cares it was a good shot. (not as good as spacy but who is).

Rizor
07-06-2002, 07:22 PM
Miller, you really love bashing the film, don't you? It's not perfect, but you bring up the stupidest points.

Like you say the film bombed at the box office with $73 million in 10 days. You could do much worse. Look at films like last year's Town & Country starring Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn. The movie cost $90 million to make, only made $6.7 million and everybody hated it! Hell, New Line, the guys who made it, got pummeled by those receipts and faced death (but didn't due to hits like Rush Hour 2 and LOTR).

Minority Report cost about $100 million and will make it back sure enough. Sure it's not Spider-Man numbers, but those are pretty good numbers anyway. And the film's reception is pretty damn good too. Some may hate it, but critics love it. The general audience likes it and I myself loved it. Sure I knew there was the L.A. Confidential parallel when that scene came up, but it was a very good movie in my opinion nonetheless.

The future is unpredictable. You can definitely over predict it. Look at something like Demolition Man. The film was made in 1993 and yet they were hopes for a 1996 were laughable! Cryogenic imprisonment, high tech lasers! Now I like Minority Reports future. It's only 52 years in the future. I love it when they play the future to be subtle. There are no robo-maids and self cleaning dishes. Just what there is today. If you look back about 50 years ago, besides maybe the clothes, hair, and furniture, a house looks pretty much the same as it is today. And even in Minority Report, John's apartment was pretty high tech. It was the cabin that wasn't. The cabin was secluded from the outside world. So of course it won't be high tech!

muzikul
07-07-2002, 12:57 AM
Do you really think these are legitimate flaws? Seriously, I await the day when you post a contribution that challenges my mind. Ridiculous.

Empusae
07-07-2002, 06:30 AM
Perhaps what should really happen is Mr. Miller should STOP posting new topics about how he doestn like the movie. How many ways must someone let EVERYONE know how much he doesnt like it.

Rather childish really.


__________________

thebtskink
07-07-2002, 08:49 PM
Your "it's the future, so it's supposed to be advanced" flaws are hardly flaws at all.

Spielberg and Cruise have both said in interviews that the world, which is in the NOT SO DISTANT FUTURE, is supposed to be somewhat advanced, but not so much that we can't recognize it. In fact, that makes the world much more realistic. You don't seriously think that every building in DC would be torn down and rebuilt in fifty years, do you?

You're stretching tiny nuances into what you consider flaws, and it isn't convincing anyone.

Randy
07-07-2002, 09:45 PM
Thank you. You guys took the words right out of my mouth. Miller, as far as I have seen, you have 5 posts on here discussing about how you hate Minority Report. Here, I'll give you 5 bucks right now, if you go see Mr. Deeds, complain about that, and shut up about Minority Report, Ok? I am all for saying your opinion, but there is a thing called overopinionated, and I think you might have it.
"I do believe in aliens." Steven Spielberg

Empusae
07-08-2002, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Randy
Thank you. You guys took the words right out of my mouth. Miller, as far as I have seen, you have 5 posts on here discussing about how you hate Minority Report. Here, I'll give you 5 bucks right now, if you go see Mr. Deeds, complain about that, and shut up about Minority Report, Ok? I am all for saying your opinion, but there is a thing called overopinionated, and I think you might have it.


Exactly.

TxFilmMkr
07-08-2002, 09:16 AM
I'm a pretty open and accepting kind of guy. However, I think the "King of the Road" should hit the road.

Alexander JL
07-08-2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by TxFilmMkr
I'm a pretty open and accepting kind of guy. However, I think the "King of the Road" should hit the road.

LOL!

Empusae
07-09-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by TxFilmMkr
I'm a pretty open and accepting kind of guy. However, I think the "King of the Road" should hit the road.

Bows to your wisdom.

tommycool
07-12-2002, 12:36 AM
You have to much time on your hands, just enjoy the movie.

DrxLecter
07-12-2002, 03:06 PM
Ok, I have to say that I liked the movie first of all, but I did see a couple of flaws that I thought you guys might like to chime in about.

1. When anderton was supposed to kill crowe, it was a crime of passion, hence a red ball, why did it originally come up as a brown ball (premeditated) if during his entire "journey" he had no intention of killing this man.

2. When Ann Landers (the precogs mom) is killed the second time it is dismissed as an "echo", but it is a separate murder, why are there no brown balls? (this was premeditated since the precrime boss guy did plan it out..)

what say you?

Remy
07-12-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by DrxLecter
1. When anderton was supposed to kill crowe, it was a crime of passion, hence a red ball, why did it originally come up as a brown ball (premeditated) if during his entire "journey" he had no intention of killing this man.

2. When Ann Landers (the precogs mom) is killed the second time it is dismissed as an "echo", but it is a separate murder, why are there no brown balls? (this was premeditated since the precrime boss guy did plan it out..)

1. Because he had been planning on kill Crow before he knew who Crow was. He talked about how he had been thinking about what he was going to do to the man who kidnapped his son, so Burgess used to set up Anderton. I think.

2. First, I don't think her name was Ann Landers. I think it was Lively. Anyway, there was no brown ball for when Burgess killed her because the premeditation was seen as being the drifter's. When Agatha saw Burgess kill her mother, the people running the place dismissed it as an echo, so there was no ball for the murder.

Brownguy20
07-15-2002, 10:30 PM
5.They still use umbrellas when it rains!


Well you should ask why do we still use toilet paper to wipe our butts. The simpilest ways work. I mean there not going to whip out a holo shield when it rains. Also it not that far in the future

Spyder Man
07-16-2002, 12:10 AM
I only had one problem, the lights were too damn bright! It was a pain to the eyes. Everything in this movie either appeared blue or white, no in between, expect when Anderton is at the eye guy's house.

The Mighty
07-16-2002, 10:18 AM
How exactly was 'Pre-Crime' going to become National? What was the ristriction that only allowed the pre-cogs to see murders in washington d.c? What would have allowed them to see the murders all over the u.s?

Rizor
07-16-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by DrxLecter
Ok, I have to say that I liked the movie first of all, but I did see a couple of flaws that I thought you guys might like to chime in about.....what say you?

Well, it was noted that the system itself was flawed. So in other words, it ain't perfect.

Originally posted by The Mighty
How exactly was 'Pre-Crime' going to become National? What was the ristriction that only allowed the pre-cogs to see murders in washington d.c? What would have allowed them to see the murders all over the u.s?

Maybe they have a certain radius to work in or something.;)

Coenite
07-17-2002, 08:32 AM
Perhaps I missed something, but here is what I believe to be a major flaw in MR:

When Anderson goes on the run, the police track his movement via the retinal scanners which alert them to his current location. Presumably every scanner in the city is linked in this way. Why is the alarm not automatically raised when Anderson gains access to the temple using his eyeball?

Empusae
07-17-2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Coenite
Perhaps I missed something, but here is what I believe to be a major flaw in MR:

When Anderson goes on the run, the police track his movement via the retinal scanners which alert them to his current location. Presumably every scanner in the city is linked in this way. Why is the alarm not automatically raised when Anderson gains access to the temple using his eyeball?

Because Its a in house security system. Whos going to set it up to alarm if someone comes to the cop shop. Who in their right mind, when they are on the run, is going to go to where all the people who want him stay? If that system was connected to the net it would invite hacking. Make Sence?

mdbms
07-17-2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Brownguy20
5.They still use umbrellas when it rains!


Well you should ask why do we still use toilet paper to wipe our butts. The simpilest ways work. I mean there not going to whip out a holo shield when it rains. Also it not that far in the future

Although the technology advancements in general in MR are believeble (they even added in a non-perfect 3D projector), I had a very hard time believing the infrastructural changes. There is a complete new transportation method, that includes cars running up and down buildings. Just look at the plans your city, state or country has for roads. My city has plans for the next 10 to 15 years, and they are all based on standard asphalt roads. And remember that some of these will be new in something like 2012, and will be designed to be used for at least some 10-20 years. That brings us pretty close to 2054 (am I remebering the MR time setting correctly?). On the other hand we did see proof of ordinary driving (the end of the factory scene), so maybe it isn't that far fetched after all?

If you believe the predictions of SF movies and books we should all be wearing pyjamases and have our own flying car by now. When the first aircraft were designed early last centry people though that the car would soon be out dated and that everyone would have their own flying tansport. Almost a hundred years later we still haven't reach that far. On the other hand, most of these people could never envisage us travelling to the moon, and never dream of hand-held size computers or cell phones. Even in the good old movies, where they put us in flying cars, there is no one using blue-tooth technology to download the latest information. Even in movies and shows such as Star Trek (where they do have wireless communcation) they always have to walk over to a computer to find stuff out, or ask someone to look it up and tell them. The equivalent of Internet, if it at all exists, is reduced to a gigantic search database with a character based interface. Still they have starships that can travel faster than light. I find the lack of creativity in the smaller areas of technology in SF interesting.

So what I am saying is that transportation is the thing that changes most slowly. Nowadays we travel less and less, but communicate more and more. Maybe there will never be a need for flying cars, or transportation of the kind depicted in MR.

Empusae
07-17-2002, 10:01 AM
I think this is done for a few reasons.

First and formost a movie or a tv show could spend its entire budget on little tech issues.

Second i think that if they did too much they would have to spend the entire movie telling you what, where, why and when about everything.

Third i think that the little ways that they are like modern life makes it, in no small way, more beleaveable. It brings it home that, although they have neat cars or can fly through space really fast, they are people just like you and i.

And finally No matter how things change people have grown used to doing some things a certain way. I dont know if some things will ever change.

If you want really full tech changes its prob better to look in books.

slinger
07-17-2002, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Spyder Man
I only had one problem, the lights were too damn bright! It was a pain to the eyes. Everything in this movie either appeared blue or white, no in between, expect when Anderton is at the eye guy's house.

Maybe you just have sensitive eyes.

Empusae
07-17-2002, 12:36 PM
It wasnt too bad for me either. . . just the normal movie blend of light and dark.

rogermiller
07-17-2002, 01:34 PM
"I had already posted this in the beginning of this topic. I am reposting it as i have included some new points and also edited some lines. Please read it if you are interested."

1.Why is it that the Pre cogs can only predict murders and not any crime such as burglary, fraud, rape or any other known crime. Why is the organisation called precrime and not premurder? Some of you might dispute this but I do remember in one scene Max Von Sydow [or was it someone else?] says that Precogs can only predict murders.

2.The story of this film is supposed to take place in the year 2054 at Washington D.C. Washington is at times portayed to be a hi tech city with the latest technology. This can be seen in the hitech sets built for the film. But there are many scenes where we can see houses which look like the ones made in present times.

3.Why do some [actually all of them] of the people in this film were present day clothes such as Suits with ties,blazers,T.Shirts,Jogging outfits? The world in Minority report is supposed to be advanced. Then why do the characters wear outdated clothes? Did the producers of this film run out of money to stitch futuristic looking clothes or was there a dearth of creative talent? Also, Why does Tom Cruise move around in a black jacket or black T-Shirt which strangely reminds you of the ones he wore in Mission Impossible [there I go again!]?

4.The scene where Colin Farell meets Max Von Sydow at Sydow's home and expresses doubt about the first predicted murder and after which all of a sudden Max Von Sydow shoots down Colin Farell was a straight lift from a scene in the film L.A.Confidential where James cromwell suddenly shoots down Kevin Spacey. Let me guess Steven Spielberg was paying homage to that film's scene or he has run out of ideas.

5.They still use umbrellas when it rains!

6.Why is it that retinal scanners are the only way to trace someone in this film and also the only way to identify someone? Also it is shown to be flawed as we see that Tom Cruise has his eyes removed and replaced with new ones and making it virtually impossible to trace him. Why arent there any cctvs in many places in the film? Nowadays at many places we have cctv systems which are linked to computers which have face recognition software which can immediately scan multiple human faces or even objects and compare it with it's database. Why isnt this system used in this film?

7.This is really not a flaw but a doubt - why is it that whenever Tom Cruise uses the computer to see a pre-murder [I prefer to call it pre-murder and not pre-crime] a melodious music is played in the back ground. What i wish to know is whether this movie was played in the background for the audience to hear or was it supposed to be heard by the people working at the pre-murder? If it was supposed to be heard by the premurder people what was the purpose for it been played? Also why does Tom Cruise listen to 40s jazz music or classical music in his apartment?

8.They still use mauser pistols! Tom Cruise accidently shoots down the guy he is supposed to shoot down and later max von sydow shoots down colin farrel with it. Why do they use mausers in the future. Couldnt they have invented something more high tech like a laser gun?

Brownguy20
07-21-2002, 03:02 AM
5) the beuty of it is in simplicity. That why umbrellas still around. I mean why do we still use toilet paper. It just a good design

Empusae
07-21-2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Brownguy20
5) the beuty of it is in simplicity. That why umbrellas still around. I mean why do we still use toilet paper. It just a good design

Disregurad Mr. Millers posts. He is not with us right now.

Frizzo the Clown
07-21-2002, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Empusae


Disregurad Mr. Millers posts. He is not with us right now. Well, the topic is still open, so if he wants to discuss it, let him.:p

Rizor
07-21-2002, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Frizzo the Clown
Well, the topic is still open, so if he wants to discuss it, let him.:p

Isn't he banned though?

Alexander JL
07-21-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Rizor


Isn't he banned though?

We can only hope...

Citizen Kane
07-27-2004, 02:34 PM
Can't let this go.

zamphir66
07-27-2004, 03:07 PM
The guy never responded, did he? what the hell was the point?

Drizzt240
07-27-2004, 04:32 PM
Everything you griped about was explained in the movie.

droidguy1119
07-27-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by rogermiller
1.Why is it that the Pre cogs can only predict murders and not any crime such as burglary, fraud, rape or any other known crime.

That's the only remotely viable question out of all of yours (the rest are just being realistic about future technology and one of them was a stupidly large spoiler, thanks for waving that around).

But the answer is in the film. Nothing's more disruptive to people's lives than the murder of another human being.

Try watching movies instead of staring at them.

Tony Montana
07-27-2004, 04:51 PM
But he is right about N4 and the copy of LA Conf.

Don Taylor
07-27-2004, 11:19 PM
miller is dumb and stupid, making flaws that aren't even flaws but just nip picks, make your own damn movie if you think everythings not perfect.

blueshirt005
07-27-2004, 11:49 PM
this argument is 2 years old...

Malitos_Sahkir
07-28-2004, 04:53 AM
1.Why is it that the Pre cogs can only predict murders and not any crime such as burglary, fraud, rape or any other known crime. Why is the organisation called precrime and premurder? Some of you might dispute this but I do remember in one scene Max Von Sydow says that Precogs can only predict murders.
This was disputed by Colin Farrell's character in the film, and the response was that the pre-cogs can only predict one person killing another ( or something like that ).
2.The story of this film is supposed to take place in the year 2054 at Washington D.C. Washington is at times portayed to be a hi tech city with the latest technology. This can be seen in the hitech sets built for the film. But there are many scenes where we can see houses which look like the ones made in present times.
Think realisticly, in the year 2054 city's will be hi-tech ( think Tokyo of today ), but there will still be country-sides and normal houses ( think the country-side of Japan Today ).
3.Why do some [actually all of them] of the people in this film were present day clothes such as Suits with ties,blazers,T.Shirts,Jogging outfits? The world in Minority report is supposed to be advanced. Then why do the characters wear outdated clothes? Did the producers of this film run out of money to stitch futuristic looking clothes or was there a dearth of creative talent? Also, Why does Tom Cruise move around in a black jacket or black T-Shirt which strangely reminds you of the ones he wore in Mission Impossible [there I go again!]?
Business men and woman have worn suits for decades, I don't see them changeing just because 'it's the future' - what were you expecting, spandex? Saying the clothes are outdated is just silly, it isn't a flaw, you are just nit-picking.
4.The scene where Colin Farell meets Max Von Sydow at Sydow's home and expresses doubt about the first predicted murder and after which all of a sudden Max Von Sydow shoots down Colin Farell was a straight lift from a scene in the film L.A.Confidential where James cromwell suddenly shoots down Kevin Spacey. Let me guess Steven Spielberg was paying homage to that film's scene or he has run out of ideas.
Directors mimic scenes for other films all the time, 'Spielberg is no different. Quentin Tarantino would not be where he is today without this little technique.
5.They still use umbrellas when it rains!
Another nit-pick for the sake of nit-picking, Umbrella's have been used for a very long time, people will still use them in years to come.

Malitos_Sahkir
07-28-2004, 04:56 AM
Hah, I only just noticed it was two years old...

zamphir66
07-28-2004, 06:04 AM
yeah we're not really arguing with anyone anymore.

straightupridah
07-31-2004, 06:05 PM
how are those flaws!? lol! thats how spielberg wanted the film to be! maybe if u watched any of the special features on the dvd u would know that. what a stupid thread.

1. this was explained in the film already that there is supposedly nothing more damaging to the fabric of life than a human being killing another human. this doesnt really need to be explained anyways cus THAT IS THE STORY! it is about the 2 brothers and sister who DREAMED these murders and they came true. its not reality buddy. so i dont see why u need an explanation for a made up story in the first place. and also who cares that they call it precrime. lets just say that it sounds better than calling it premurder which sounds ****in retarded.

2 +3. Yes it takes place in 2054. If u watched the documentary u would know that Spielberg intended the future to be like this. They had people who study the advancement and developement of the future who predicted that it will be advanced to a degree. houses and neighborhoods, clothes and things like this will most likely be the same and cars and other things will be more advanced. i do, however, think they may have overexaggerated on how the roads will work but who knows. could happen.

4. thats just a stupid and pointless thing to answer.

5. im POSITIVE we will still have umbrellas fifty years from now. what the **** else will we use dumbass?!

Citizen Kane
07-31-2004, 06:12 PM
this argument is 2 years old...

I know, I saved it for posterity. :wink:

Inferno
08-05-2004, 06:18 PM
I was disappointed by this film. Thought it was great up until Cruise finds they guy he's meant to murder. I thought it would have made a great flick if it had ended right there with Cruise killing the man. Thus the pre-cogs were right he was going to kill him all along. Sought of a 12 monkeys circular logic to it all - though admittedly there would be some unanswered questions, but they could have tweaked the script a bit for that. But then the movie goes on for another 30 minutes falling into cliches about conspiracy theories that just felt stale and overdone.

--The--Stone--
08-11-2004, 01:07 PM
Wow, you need to see a movie you like and shut up about Minority Report. I agree with all of you.

All in all, i liked this movie.

FVD
08-16-2004, 09:07 AM
Miller get over it. It's just a freaking movie for crying out loud. This ain't Back To The Future Part II or 2001 alright. Take Star Trek: Voyager for example. Lt. Tom Paris was an afficionado of the 20th Century and when is Voyager set around? The 24th Century right. Tom Cruise (Anderton) has every right to listen to 40's Jazz if he wants to. I mean some of us out there still listen to Handel, Mozart, Paganini or Bach for example. How many years have their epic classical pieces been around eh? Try to beat that FOOL!!!

FVD.

cg124
08-16-2004, 09:11 AM
why are you making fun of a guy who hasn't even been here in two years

FVD
08-16-2004, 09:23 AM
Hey I didn't know that until I saw the date that fool posted his complaints. Thanks anyway.

FVD.

spiderman_2k
08-16-2004, 09:24 AM
And hes banned anyway.

true fan11212
08-16-2004, 09:28 AM
Most of those question are nit-picking. However, there is one big question about Minority Report(which I think is a great film) that I have:

When the Pre-Cog see John Anderton murder Leo Crowe this puts in motion the whole story of Minority Report. By John being on the run, he eventually meets up with Leo Crowe. My question is, How could the Pre-Cogs see Anderton mudering Crowe, if their vision is what eventually leads Anderton to Crowe in the first place?

Boiiinng
08-16-2004, 11:58 AM
Most of those question are nit-picking. However, there is one big question about Minority Report(which I think is a great film) that I have:

When the Pre-Cog see John Anderton murder Leo Crowe this puts in motion the whole story of Minority Report. By John being on the run, he eventually meets up with Leo Crowe. My question is, How could the Pre-Cogs see Anderton mudering Crowe, if their vision is what eventually leads Anderton to Crowe in the first place?

That was my big question with the film. In the short story, the murder is planted in the system, not predicted. Anderton has to kill the guy to prove that the system still works because if he doesn't then the system will crash and society will go back to normal. I think they tried to do this in the film, but still keep it a real prediction. It doesn't make sense because how could there be a murder prediction if through the course of normal events, Anderton would have never met up with Crowe. Instead, the only way he found him was through the precog's prediction, which shouldn't have been thought.

PsYkOoOoO
08-16-2004, 12:00 PM
I dont quite understand the question...-_-

zamphir66
08-17-2004, 09:26 PM
The precogs saw A. murder Crowe>>> It was their prediction of that murder that caused it to happen in the first place>>> That makes no sense: Its illogical.

Ok, so I didn't explain that very well, but truefan has a very good point, and it has always bothered me about the film, but I've never been able to put it into words very well.