Advertise here with Carbon Ads

This site is made possible by member support. ❤️

Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.

When you buy through links on, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site! home of fine hypertext products since 1998.

🍔  💀  📸  😭  🕳️  🤠  🎬  🥔

Major Minority Report plot flaw?

(Warning: there are some plot spoilers in this post…you might want to skip it if you haven’t seen the movie yet.)

Reader Adam Z. from Dallas, TX wrote in with something interesting regarding a potential plot problem in Minority Report. Here’s the questionable plot point:

Lamar (played by Max von Sydow) sets up a situation for John (Tom Cruise) to find with the idea that when John enters into this situation (where he’s confronted with evidence of his son’s death), he’ll commit murder. The precogs predict the murder and John sees himself kill an unknown man on the Pre-Crime viewscreens. In the course of trying to clear his good name, John ends up exactly where the precogs predicted and Lamar intended, poised to kill his son’s supposed killer.

Here’s the problem: how did Lamar know that his setup would make the Precogs to predict murder and set the rest of events in motion? As Adam writes, “Cruise only finds the fake killer based on the precogs’ subsequent images of Cruise killing that fake killer, which Sydow could not possibly have known for sure would be shown to Cruise, ever.”

I need to see the movie again to make sure I haven’t missed anything, but I have to agree with Adam on this one…that seems to be a huge hole in the plot. Short of assuming that Lamar tinkered with the precogs to ensure their prediction (which I don’t think he did), there doesn’t seem to be a simple way of resolving this. Does anyone have thoughts about this?

Reader comments

ToddJul 02, 2002 at 2:35PM

Someone posted this on a bulletin board I read. It's supposedly a quote from Scott Frank, the screenwriter of MR, when posed this very question at

"Burgess knew that the only person Anderton would, without hesitation, want to kill would be the man Anderton believed had taken his son. Therefore, all Burgess had to do was 'hire' Leo Crow — a lowlife child molester already in prison — to pretend to be this man with the promise of paying his family a large sum of money in return. In the backstory, Burgess would then start to arrange how Anderton might come into contact with him. But he doesn't even have to go that far, because once Burgess starts his plan in motion, the precogs will immediately see the END result — the precogs will pick up that Anderton will confront the man who took his son and kill him. It plays out differently in the actual room because Anderton, unlike the people he's arrested the past six years, has actually seen his own future. So he can change it. And he does. Or tries to.

Works for me!

MichaelJul 02, 2002 at 2:44PM

I noticed that one, it puts a paradoxical spin on the precogs ability to see "premeditation," since the precogs' prediction is itself the vehicle of discovery. Lamar put the man in place, he "knew" his role in Anderton's life. But the motive is coupled with the "discovery" of who the man is. The precogs know only because of Anderton's later discovery, while Anderton was led to discovery by the precogs... the "discovery" folds in on itself.

There were other holes in the plot, like: if she were able to "see" future actions so easily in the shopping mall, why, when she and Anderton were in hiding at his country house, did she scream "run!" only after police were crawling all over the place?

DarrelJul 02, 2002 at 2:52PM

Of course, there's the BIG plot hole in that people CAN'T ACTUALLY PREDICT THE FUTURE.

jkottkeJul 02, 2002 at 3:08PM

Works for me!

Ah...that makes a lot of sense actually.

There were other holes in the plot...

Yeah, there are lots of those, but most of them are just annoying and not central to the main plot. Jane skewers the movie nicely in her Minority's Report.

Despite all that (the whole physical storage media bugged the crap out of me), I still really enjoyed the movie. Well, 90% of it anyway.

NataliaJul 02, 2002 at 3:09PM

I think the movie purposely was so fast-paced and complicated and tricky so that plot holes like that would (hopefully) be ignored by the viewer. Because, the average American is too lazy to actually think plots through?

A lot of things bothered me about the movie how they could project what the precogs were dreaming about on the screen. And how Anderton's drug problem never really seemed to develop. He had it, and the guy from the gov't was kind of after him because of it, but then it was kind of ignored.

Also: the whole point of the setup was to just "get" Anderton, right? Because he was close to figuring out what Lamar had done. I could be wrong, but that's what I, for Lamar's plan to work, Anderton would not necessarily have to even get to the situation in the first place. He would just have to get caught, somewhere along the way. So maybe Lamar didn't even think that Anderton would get so far -- but he would still get caught.

So, *because* Anderton saw the image, he took the particular path he did, ending up pretty much where the precogs predicted. But maybe they would have caught him before; what the precogs see obviously doesn't always come true because of all the murders that are prevented. Either way, it didn't matter to Lamar what exactly happened, so he probably didn't predict ahead of time the exact chain of events.

Augh...I'm not very good at explaining, so I hope the above makes sense.

shawnJul 02, 2002 at 3:16PM

i had a problem with the fact that earlier in the movie, the f.b.i. guy asks why they can't predict rape and what not... the answer is some mumbo-jumbo about how murder is some how more 'metaphysically traumatic or something... if that's right... how could morton's character do all the mall hoodoo and what not...

also if it's lamar's action's of hireing the crow guy that allowed for the pre-cogs to 'see' the murder... why isn't he implicated in the screening? my problem with the set up of the system is that there are 2 balls... victem and purp... how would the system react in the advent of conspiracy? or multiple homicide... what i'm saying is that lamar's name should of appeared next to crow's since both were responsible for the murder...

efJul 02, 2002 at 3:24PM

works for me!

AdamJul 02, 2002 at 3:36PM

Hmm...I saw this movie after a 12-hour shift, so I was only up for catching minor plot holes (an automated factory that doesn't shut down when humans enter the factory floor? Anderton's eyes don't set of a zillion alarms when he's a fugitive? Or, hell, Anderton still has access to all these sensitive areas when he's a wanted man?). Thinking on it now, I remember liking the fact that the crimes didn't come up as red balls; Anderton had been thinking for years of what he'd do to his son's murderer. It's unfocused premeditation: he doesn't know who he's gonna kill, just that when he finds whoever did it he will kill them.

But I'll have to go with the screenwriter on this one: he posits a Universe without free will, where our actions are predetermined. No one talks about changing the course of the future or finding ways to collapse the wave function. There is no wave function: time is a straight line, one path, and the precogs can see straight down that path. There is no opportunity for Anderton to be truly free of the precrime in the movie's Universe.

Which is why this movie scared the crap out of me. Can you imagine John Ashcroft running the Department of Precrime?

ElaineJul 02, 2002 at 4:32PM

Or, y'know, if they had all this eyeball-tracking technology, why did his kid get that far away (lost/killed/etc) in the first place?

When that one was brought to my attention, it really stopped me short, unfortunately. (And I really enjoyed the movie!)

KevinJul 02, 2002 at 4:41PM

Regarding the last twenty minutes, which were undeniably worse than the rest of the film, I'm of the school that everything which happens after Cruise is halo'ed and imprisoned is a fantasy, a la Terry Gilliam's Brazil. For one, O'Brother's Tim Blake Nelson basically says as much when he enters Anderton into the system, sonething along the lines of seeing your dreams come true. For two, there's a Cruise voiceover from then on, which wasn't any part of the earlier film. For three, I believe the wife shows Tim Blake Nelson a bag holding TWO eyes, even though one was obviously irretrievable. For four, the last line of the script - "The following year, there were 116 murders in the District of Columbia" - was cut, perhaps because it didn't jibe with Cruise's final fantasy. For five, the last shot of the film mirrors the last shot of Sam Lowry's dream in Brazil. And, finally, the film descends into really hoary cliches in these last few minutes (unmasking the villain at a party, for example), and I prefer the film if I can just write this denouement off.

Adam Z.Jul 02, 2002 at 4:47PM

I've posted my attempt at an explanation at for why I don't think Lamar's mere intent to set such a chain of events in motion suffices. Essentially, because (1) the "future" doesn't actually change until Anderton makes the conscious decision to change it, with the gun in his hand (in fact, I think that's supposed to be a critical message in the film), and (2) up to that point there was no external information to lead Anderton to the fake killer. That is, the "future" the precogs saw was the exact same future we saw unfolding--until the point at which Anderton exercises free will. But the future we saw unfold contained nothing (besides itself) to lead Anderton toward the fake killer. So Lamar could not have been confident in his scheme, as requidred by the plot. Okay, I promise to write no further on this.

peterJul 02, 2002 at 5:14PM

the thing that kept bugging me, was how they could possibly make this into a national program (or even sustain it in dc for any length of time.) there are only 3 precogs who ended up with their ability quite by accident. it's not as if they can go create precogs for every city in america. and if the precogs can already see murders nationally, how was the precrime unit filtering out the dc murders? and even if they manage that, can you say 'information overload'?

i usually find it best not to think too hard during these types of movies. unfortunately this one slipped into my brain unwelcomed.

msippeyJul 02, 2002 at 6:07PM

all of the arguments about free will, predetermination, the precogs, etc. leave my head tied up like a pretzel and spinning deliriously. but now that you mention it, kevin, your theory that everything post-halo is a dream is very attractive. it certainly would fit cruise's recent movie history -- vanilla sky, anyone?

but while jason's all wrapped up in plot, i've got serious issues with the eye candy.

KellyJul 02, 2002 at 7:14PM

Re: Kevin's Halo comments

....and can anyone tell me who the sixth Nexus-6 is? (kidding, but hey, they're both P.K. Dick...)

KellyJul 02, 2002 at 7:14PM

Re: Kevin's Halo comments

....and can anyone tell me who the sixth Nexus-6 is? (kidding, but hey, they're both P.K. Dick...)

M. HedlundJul 02, 2002 at 8:32PM

Kevin's halo comment was one of the 'alternate endings' that occured to me. The other was that everything after the eye surgery was constructed on the surgeon's laptop. There was that whole conversation about the surgeon burning his patients, he reaches for the laptop to pay Anderton back, and then... the movie just starts going again.

I don't think there's a right answer; see also "Total Recall" for PK Dick movies that have three or four possible endings.

mattpfeffJul 02, 2002 at 8:53PM

Holes? No way! (So can anyone explain why the ripples in the lake would be moving in two different directions, if the second murder took place at the exact same time as the thwarted first one?)

artJul 02, 2002 at 8:54PM

"They're still using sneakernet!" was what I muttered aloud when the cop moved his data from his workstation to the big screen.

LarryJul 02, 2002 at 10:07PM

Why do the pre-cogs only sense murders WITHIN the DC city limits?

Also, how would they ever expand the system nationwide, as they are arguing for in the film? They've only got three pre-cogs... who don't see outside DC.

Don't even get me started on the whole personal jetpack scene.

And the entire bit about the pre-cog's mother? WAYYYY too convoluted.

I know its just a film, and i did find it relatively enjoyable, but the plot was swiss cheese. And Tom Cruise really does need a better acting coach.

jsandersJul 02, 2002 at 10:15PM

perhaps lamar offered the same situation that he offered crow ("your family will get the insurance money," or something) to many others, sprinkling them about, and hoping for one of them to catch the fancy of the system.

Jacob ShwirtzJul 02, 2002 at 10:48PM

The whole topic of seeing what will happen, or causing what will happen by saying you think you know what will happen is a very interesting topic.

I blogged this myself and in my long entry on self-determination and free will I bring up some other movies. Most importantly, remember in The Matrix when the Oracle tells Neo, after he breaks the cup (or whatever it was): "Did I know you were going to break it or did you break it because I said you would?!"

Deep stuff!

JcJul 03, 2002 at 2:20AM

umm.. how about the wife still gaining access to the secured facilities with Anderton's eyes AFTER he's been incarcerated? Wouldnt his access rights be revoked by then, if not the moment they start chasing him? How he could still get into the Precrime labs and hijack Agatha was the biggest plot hole for me.

Maybe in the future we'd still have lazy sysadmins.

AKJul 03, 2002 at 4:58AM

I have a theory about how Agatha was able to foresee things other than murder. It was made clear that she was the most pre-cognizant of the pre-cogs. I think that she was even more powerful than was first thought. Her ability to make the predictions in the mall, for example, bear this out.

pkJul 03, 2002 at 5:34AM

The precogs picked up on the killing because Lamar premeditated it. Hence a brown ball and not a red.

But, the brown ball should have had Lamar's name as he was the instigator.

Or, if Anderton was indeed going to kill the man, as it was not premeditated, it should have been a red ball.

So there is your plot flaw right there, but if you read the book you would see that Hollywood took many liberties with this story - no such flaw in the original.

The precogs could not show the real murderer for two reasons:

1) Their premonitions only show the act of murder itself, and could only show the murderer if he was present
2) Anderton could make a choice, as Agatha changed his path of thinking at the crucial time.

Dick loves paradox, many of his stories include this theme throughout.

tbitJul 03, 2002 at 7:56AM

The thing i wonder is why it was not a red ball. If the plot had played out exactly as planned, Anderton would NOT have planned out the murder. Thus, it would have been a crime of passion. Thus it would have been a red ball. Lamar must have played with the pre-cogs in some manner... or Agatha was just powerful enough to see how this could assist her in her own revenge plot.

J. LawlessJul 03, 2002 at 9:43AM

I was going to do some research, but my 'net connection here in the basement of the science building is a bit shaky now.

In the book, isn't Lamar a 'cog himself, one suffering from the fatal flaw of hubris (hence the circular solution to the "well if/then why" question)?

Anybody actually read anymore? Paper?

AndreJul 03, 2002 at 9:49AM

I don't really have a problem with the time based paradoxes, like the Precogs predicting crime which would not happen unless predicted, or Agatha's ability to predict small details occuring in the near future and not concerning death.

What bothered me were the shallow illogical decisions of resolving situations in the real world (Cruise leaves the factory in a brand new Lexus and gets away without anybody even thinking of chasing him) and Spielberg/Cruise's horrible attempts at being funny (eyes rolling down the hallway, eating the rotten food, saying Hi to the couple in the car he jumped on).

I've always said that Cruise is not an actor, just a celebrity (well, in most of his movies).

Apart from my love of bitching, I must say that I enjoyed the linearly interpolated representation of the future -- increased (and very intrusive) advertising coverage, lack of prvacy, abusing power etc. Seems pretty real to me.

For an interesting view on power and privacy (but also on human nature, loveand Other Important Things) I recommend "The End of Violence" by Wim Wenders. The soundtrack is incredible, too.

-- Andre

kyleJul 03, 2002 at 10:50AM

tbit: I'd have to say it wasn't a redball because it was premeditated in the sense that he knew he was supposed to kill someone. It ended up being a crime of passion, but I'm sure all he was thinking the entire time was "why am I going to kill this person in 72 hours?".

Brian WJul 03, 2002 at 11:02AM

J. Lawless-- In the original story, there are no other pre-cogs mentioned aside from the three strapped up to machines...

The central paradox/resolution in the story seems completely different from what I'm reading here nevertheless. I don't mean to spoil the story for those who haven't read it, but the conceit of the story is that the "Majority Report" isn't ACTUALLY a majority report; there are three minority reports (two which result in a murder, hence the erronous police-assumption that they represent a Majority) due to the paradoxical position of being the Person Accused Of A Crime Who Also Happens To Be The Person Who Reads The Precog Streams.

But I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on the changes and whether the screwed-up-paradoxical-ness was caused by Spielberg or Dick...

mattpfeffJul 03, 2002 at 11:33AM

Not that solutions based on technicalities are ever all that satisfying, but I suppose Anderton's brown ball might not have been red because of his long-standing intention to kill whoever took his son from him. That is, while the specifics weren't premeditated, the act itself was something he'd thought about for quite some time.

FiRNJul 03, 2002 at 12:15PM

1. like mattpfeff just said, anderton knew that he would kill anyone whom took his son from him, and since he knew that he was gonna kill crow 72 hours before hand it was not a red ball.2.The precog's abilities in the mall were probably due to her close proximity to humans, where as in the "temple" she is in a controlled enviroment, and drugged up beyond belief.3.The precog's range to the dc area(about 200 miles in the movie) is probably due to limit's on their abilities, the same reasons that they can only see so far ahead into the future. and remember, it's all metaphysical stuff4. for the nationwide precrime system I'm sure they would have bred more precogs. It's not as if the precrime system would have been instigated immediately after the vote.5.they probably didn't remove anderton's eyes from the system because they didn't think that it someone would use them since he was large hole that I noticed though-the police(whether it be precrime, federal, or whatever) really sucked, it was obvious that the precrime people had very little training(with the exception of anderton), and the feds got easily taken down as well. also you'ld think they'd have some way to find him more easily, and get local cops involved, with all the eyescanners.nonetheless I personally enjoyed the movie, although I don't really like speilberg's directing in anything, and it seems like cruise can only play a cocky ass, thats just my opinion though.

brandonJul 03, 2002 at 12:33PM

regarding jason's orginal quandry:

Sure he would. There have been no murders in the DC area since pre-crime had been instituted, which means that the precogs see EVERY murder. And since Anderton is the head of pre-crime, and in charge of the data explorer, Sydow is guaranteed that Anderton would see the murder.

Matthew BaldwinJul 03, 2002 at 1:18PM

I was able to suspend my disbelief and ignore the plot holes in M.R. all the way until the epilogue. But then we're supposed to believe that, after this one case, the entire Department of Precrime is dismantled? This despite the fact that there have been no murders in DC for six years?! I'm about as gung-ho on civil liberties as they come, but even I would have voted for a nationwide Department of Precrime: one frame-up does not negate hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

Spielberg was trying to make a point about Big Brotherism and presumption of guilt. But the central problem with the ending is that the Department of Precrime, as shown in the film, works. Even the frame-up works because the precogs are so attuned to potential killing that they can even sense a staged murder (i.e., one in which the "victim" shoots himself while the perpetrator holds the gun.) To then turn around in the last three minutes and say "And so the Department of Precrime really doesn't work at all and was scrapped, the end" didn't make a whit of sense.

(I just wrote a bit comparing the original story to the movie, but it's rather lengthy and I don't want to cut 'n' paste it here. You can read it at defective yeti.)

npJul 03, 2002 at 1:32PM

Twelve Monkeys is similarly full of holes. He wants to prevent something and with his advance knowledge he actually causes it to happen.

mJul 03, 2002 at 2:13PM

I was able to suspend my disbelief and ignore the plot holes in M.R. all the way until the epilogue. But then we're supposed to believe that, after this one case, the entire Department of Precrime is dismantled? This despite the fact that there have been no murders in DC for six years?! I'm about as gung-ho on civil liberties as they come, but even I would have voted for a nationwide Department of Precrime: one frame-up does not negate hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

The fact is, they may catch every murder, but they didn't necessarily know how many innocent people were accused and charged because of the fact that there can be discrepencies from the precogs (the whole "minority report" thing).

On the other hand, I couldn't imagine it being that many people, either, so your point still somewhat stands.

Matthew BaldwinJul 03, 2002 at 2:20PM

Ah yes, you've now reminded me of the rest of my point ...

They state in the movie that, not only are there very few "minority reports," and that it's only those people with Minority Reports that could possibly be innocent. It seems a simple reform to detain and release those with minority reports. Heck, why not detain and release everyone after their alleged crime was to take place -- if they try and commit another murder later the Dept. just picks them up again. No harm, no foul.

I'm going to talk myself into not liking M.I. if I keep this up, so I'll stop. (when, in fact, I liked it quite a bit)

jkottkeJul 03, 2002 at 3:09PM

Twelve Monkeys is similarly full of holes. He wants to prevent something and with his advance knowledge he actually causes it to happen.

But that's the well-known paradox of time travel. You travel back in time, kill your grandfather before your father was born, therefore you aren't born so you can't travel back in time. The problem that Adam originally stated doesn't have anything to do with that paradox.

BKJul 03, 2002 at 3:20PM

Why is it necessary to incarcerate ("halo") people for a crime not yet committed? Wouldn't it just be sufficient to interfere with their actions at the time at which the murder was predicted to be committed, thereby preventing it? No harm, no foul, right? I suppose that's less a plot hole than just my own take on the scenario.

But yeah, like several of you, I couldn't figure out why the heck Anderton's disembodied eye still granted him access to the Temple.

And Tom Cruise looked creepy with his new, darker-colored eyes, too -- that was a cool effect.

yiJul 03, 2002 at 3:44PM

one of the major plot holes that bothered me was that earlier in the film they explain that crimes of passion have a shorter lead time than premeditated murder. ie: the man that stabs his aldultering wife and lover, they had less than an hour to determine their location. so then we learn that anderton decides to kill leroy only minutes before he actually does it upon finding out leroy is his son's killer... this is definitely a crime of passion. so how were the precogs able to visualize this murder 3 days before it happens?

kennyJul 03, 2002 at 9:48PM

can anyone tell me who the sixth Nexus-6 is?

i always wondered about that too :) bother!

ArielJul 03, 2002 at 10:50PM

It's funny: the big plot hole to me was where in the world was Lemar's brown ball when he killed Agatha's mother? Even if the technicians didn't recognize that it was a different murder, the brown ball would have indicated that it was.

r vacapintaJul 03, 2002 at 11:26PM

but let's not forget the whole picture

In his position, he could have easily pocketed it just like Cruise did his own.

Todds post answers Jasons original question quite nicely. All Lamar had to do was start setting up the situation where Cruise would meet the killer of his son. Perhaps he himself didnt know how far he would actually have to go in arranging the two to meet.

The nature of predicting the future is that it creates a feedback loop which can quickly tighten like a noose. Lamar just kept going, arranging more and more incidentals perhaps until BANG!, he heard that the noose had closed, the pre-cogs had predicted the murder and he could now relax and let things unfold.

There is no plot-hole if you realize that Lamar had no idea how far he had to go for this feedback loop (kicked off by Cruises viewing of his own future) to close.

r vacapintaJul 03, 2002 at 11:29PM

sorry. replace
but let's not forget the whole picture
ariel: It's funny: the big plot hole to me was where in the world was Lemar's brown ball when he killed Agatha's mother?

Greg StoreyJul 03, 2002 at 11:49PM

Its just a movie. Are you not entertained?

jkottkeJul 04, 2002 at 12:08AM

Its just a movie. Are you not entertained?

I was very much so that I want to go again. But nothing is ever just a thing. I agree that it's nice just to let a flower be a flower or a great painting be a great painting and not discuss it to death, but sometimes it's good to take things apart to see how they work. Minority Report portrays a certain vision of the future as imagined by Philip K. Dick and Steven Spielberg, both fairly important thinkers in that area of expertise (at least in some circles). Deconstructing that vision can be worthwhile and rewarding.

As for holes in the plot, I let most of the little stuff go, but the big hole that Adam opened (and Todd effectively closed) deserved some attention. If this were Men in Black II I wouldn't have cared at all, but Minority Report strove to be on a higher level than that and I therefore hold it to a higher standard.

npJul 04, 2002 at 2:12AM

The paradox of time travel stems from this same paradox: the incompatibility of traveling between present and future. So if you know the future, you are going to interfere with it. But did you know the future to start with?

There is a good book
Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner
by Paul M. Sammon

that sort of explains how the sixth Nexus-6 got lost :)
I don't remember all the details so you need to read it.

Also, in the original book, androids infiltrated the police force. The doubt still lingers, especially after the Unicorn scenes, whether Deckard is Nexus-6 also.

Greg StoreyJul 04, 2002 at 8:13AM

Jason, good point. It seems like Triumph the Insult Dog will appear in this thread any momment. :)

lon wayneJul 04, 2002 at 9:17AM

Plot holes aside, the whole notion of the "precogs" is absolutely absurd. What, they can only see the future murders in the District of Columbia, and then once the government approves the project they'll just kick it up a notch and cover the entire US? I would have enjoyed the movie much more if its premise were rooted in reality and not the impossible/supernatural.

KevinJul 04, 2002 at 11:16AM

Re: Nexus-6 No. 6 - Not to be a party pooper, but this is from the Blade Runner encyclopaedia (

"Sixth Replicant, The: A rich source of speculation among fans. During his briefing, Bryant tells Deckard that six replicants escaped from the colonies and that one of them was killed by a security system in the Tyrell Pyramid. The problem is that Roy Batty's group only consists of four replicants. Who is the sixth replicant? There are quite a few spectacular theories circulating, but the truth is not very dramatic. There was supposed to be one more replicant, named Mary and looking like an ideal American housewife of the '50s. An actress named Stacy Nelkin was chosen for the part. All scenes with Mary were cut prior to principal photography, but Bryant's line unfortunately never got changed."

EdJul 04, 2002 at 3:12PM

Forget the von Sydow problem. The biggest plot hole was the "no murder in Washington" idea. Is Spielberg and Scott Frank suggesting that the precogs can stop senators, generals and presidents from signing orders for death squads and similarly shady military movements? That seems to be a very inefficient way for a government to be set up. After all, what government could possibly function without blood on its hands?

I haven't read one review that's dwelled upon this willing surrender to an all-powerful military elite. It's frightening enough that retina scans and targeted advertising occur, whether the casual stroller likes it or not. But not only does the Department of Precrime represent a world in which the general populace is happy to give up everything, but it is one in which, quite possibly, the military is above questioning, more so than our present.

Aside from the underground, where are the dissenters? Where's the opposition? What has happened to them? Whether planned or not, this was the creepy element that stayed with me weeks after seeing the film. The only real hint we have of the future political climate comes from a von Sydow line when he says that no one listens to his generation.

The film is quite casual in exploring this relation between politics and privacy, yet it says more than any left-wing lunatic possibly could about certain sociological abdications.

JohnJul 04, 2002 at 7:15PM

I have a question: Toward the end of the movie we see a scene of Lamar finding Lively and donning his black coat and goggle helmet with the apparent intent of killing her. Before he kills her, the police come and take Lamar away. Yet Lively is clearly killed earlier in the movie, and there is no indication (except the above-mentioned scene) that she might be alive. I must have missed something? What was it? If I didn't, the scene I described above makes no sense. Can someone enlighten me? Thank you. John

colinJul 04, 2002 at 8:37PM

I just saw the film today, and the same flaw in the movie Adam came up with bothered me. I finally came to Todd's conclusion, and I'm not completely satisfied, but it will have to do. In regards to mattpfeff's question, Lamar committed the murder of Ann Lively slightly after the murder the procog's predicted (with the other man), so I suppose the wind could have changed by then. And the reason there were no new balls for this murder, is because the tech's wrote it off as an echo and cancelled it before the machine made them. Yes John, you missed something. The man the cops carried away wasn't Lamar, he was a man Lamar set up to do the murder. As soon as they left, Lamar dressed like the original killer and murdered Lively. I hope I made sense. But overall, I thought it was a good movie

TriumphJul 05, 2002 at 8:50AM

I poop on plot holes!
I poop on Tom Cruise.
I poop on you!

fismoJul 05, 2002 at 11:20AM

It still doesn't make sense, and I don't really think the movie's writers put that much effort into working out the holes.

According to Scott Frank's (via Todd's) explanation, Burgess just has to hire Crow, and then r vacapinta's "feedback loop" will tighten and link Anderton to Crow.

Except, um, Burgess supposedly started this whole plan because Anderton found out about Ann Lively. Anderton even says it at the end, sitting on the pier... "because I found out about Ann Lively!"

But, er, Anderton doesn't reveal to Burgess that he knows about Lively until he's already on the run from the precog vision. So it's impossible for the precog vision to be triggered by Burgess hatching his plan, because the vision has been seen before Burgess has any reason to hatch it in the first place.

I like "Burgess" as a reference to the author of A Clockwork Orange, however (along with the eyeclamps).

BrianJul 05, 2002 at 2:07PM

Sorry if this question has already been addressed. I only read about 3 quarters of the posts. What I don't get is what happened to the whole plot of the plastic surgeon getting back at John for incarcerating him years ago. The surgeon eluded to getting back at John, but never did anything to him. I kept expecting the plot to twist around the premise that the surgeon gave John the eyes of another criminal that had come to him for the very same reason John did.... to elude the eye scans. The only thing the surgeon did to him was get him to eat a rotten sandwich and drink spoiled milk... and he really didn't even cause that. Did I miss something?

rafterJul 05, 2002 at 3:20PM

I'll admit the plot did have some weak points (I wondered about the whole Anderton's eye thing myself, and her future prediction in the mall "He knows. Don't go home." was kind of ridiculous [though I must confess I really loved the "Stop. Stop. Stop." balloon vendor trick]). And that ending. I thought it was going to end as Cruise descended into the prison 'cell,' and had a horrible pit in my stomach, the whole deal with Cruise's wife rescuing him was ridiculous. The only thing that could have salvaged that ending for me was if they had not cut the final line (see Kevin's post above).

As James addressed just a post or two ago, though, most of what are being referred to as 'holes' here are actually paradoxes (involving predetermination et al) -- and I was thrilled thinking about them and talking about them the whole ride home and for much of the night.

Anyway, my entire post here has been a rehash of things already said, I think, so to get to my point: How did Cruise know that Ann Lively was Agatha's mother? I'm sure it was explained in the film, but I must have glossed over those lines because the question has been plaguing me since I saw the flick.

LauriJul 05, 2002 at 11:37PM

I think the eye surgeon didn't hurt Anderton because Anderton actually did him a "favor" throwing him in prison because, as he said, that is where the surgeon learned his lucrative "trade". I didn't understand what happened to the "you'll be blind if you open your eyes before 12 hrs" deal. Wouldn't this mean that once the spiders shone that light in his eye he would be blind in that eye? They didn't explore that disability at all. I supposed that would be the kind of thing that would be first on the cutting room floor.

The lack of networking between the computers bothered me too. But then we wouldn't see the cool see-through transfer discs.

tango88Jul 06, 2002 at 1:19AM

I don't usually notice plot holes in movies but this movie sets you thinking about certain things and once you do... the plot falls apart.

Lamar took steps to carry out an incredibly complicated murder of Ann Lively, a 'nobody' who would hrdly have been missed. Yet, the pre-cogs could only visualise murders within the DC area. Why would he go to such lengths when he could have simply lured her oustide of the DC area and then killed her with no chance of discovery. Otherwise, why kill her at all? Why not just pump her so full of drugs that you fry her brain- as she was a recovering junkie, no-one would be suspicious.

KevinJul 06, 2002 at 9:38AM

This is neither here nor there at this point, but did anyone notice the Cameron Diaz cameo? In the scene where Anderton's on the train, he's being eyed by a fellow reading an interactive version of USA Today...that's Cameron Crowe. Over his shoulder, watching HIM, is Cameron Diaz. This is all because Crowe's Vanilla Sky and Spielberg's Minority Report were basically sharing Tom Cruise during filming (same reason Spielberg's in the party scene in Vanilla Sky.)

JackieJul 06, 2002 at 6:58PM

Todd, I was arguing w/ some "computer nerd" about ur theory, and I thought I was right until he had me actually read it. U were right, but I just wanted to expand on it. I think the movie would have been correct IF there was no precog in the Pre-Crime viewscreens. Because the precogs only c what would happen if they were never involved, then the cops' job is to get involved and stop the crime. So the Pre-crime viewscreen should have just shown tom killing the guy, in the same setting (b/c it was still staged to kill him there), but since they got involved, the precog changed the future, so tom would have killed him at a different time w/o the precog in the scene.

GinJul 07, 2002 at 8:13AM

The biggest flaw in the movie is that lamar could not have seen the precog`s illusions of the potential murder of Leo Crow and if he can`t , how is it possible for him(lamar) to give the fabricated pictures to Crow, thereby misleading him to kill crow??? Bear in mind, John can only be made to kill Crow if he had seen the illusions of the Precog. Otherwise lamar cannot frame John.

No part in the show illustrates any communication between lamar and the female Precog and so she and lamar cannot be in cahoot.

Maybe someone may beg to differ? please email me on your comments.

DaveJul 07, 2002 at 6:58PM

Your over thinking it, just go along with the laughs, special effects, great art production, and enjoy the entertianment, worth the price of admission to see on the big screen, and I can't say that very often.

Mr. NosuchJul 07, 2002 at 7:15PM

I suppose somehow in the vertical blank interupt of the precog video stream the ASCII names of the perp and victim are encoded, properly spelled, of course. Perhaps it's sourced from some sort of psychic caller-ID database. Handy, otherwise, what would be etched on the wooden balls?

Odd that in the future no one wears a cellphone that can be located within a few meters. Guess that technology got worse instead of better.

And if murder had been practically eliminated in D.C., wouldn't pulling a gun on a someone be laughed off? The moment a gun was pointed at someone, the target would be eyeing the skies, waiting for precrime to come in. The logic would be "If you really are going to shoot me, pre-crime would be here already, thus, if they are not here, it's an empty threat. Give me that..."

And please, eyeballs do not roll like golf balls.

AdamJul 08, 2002 at 8:20AM

Pulling a gun on somebody IS laughed off. Geez I don't think some of you even watched the movie. Remember in the elevator? When Anderton pulls the gun, "What are you going to do? I don't hear any red balls.."

RobinJul 09, 2002 at 5:08AM

I know I must have missed something, but DID Leo Crow abduct/kill John's son or not? If not, why did John shoot Leo? I got the impression he was just being used by Lamar, hence the planted photos.

rafterJul 09, 2002 at 5:22AM

He didn't kidnap John's son. He was just being used by Lamar.

You're making me question my own memory of the film, but I am pretty sure that Crow got shot during a struggle. Interestingly, it sort of mirrored the precog's vision:

Crow: "You're not going to shoot me(?)"
John (about to leave): "Goodbye, Crow."
Crow grabs the gun, pulls it to his own chest. Small struggle, gun accidentally goes off, Crow flies through the window.

Mr. NosuchJul 09, 2002 at 9:29AM

The Justice guy laughed off the gun, until he heard the alarms, that is true. But, the guard in containment allowed Anderton's wife to release him, at the point of a gun. Perhaps it all depends on your faith in pre-crime I guess.

Another ignored issue is what precisely are the rights of the precogs? Do they get paid? Crappy job where you work 24/7... I think the precogs need to unionize.

Never mind the ethical issues of deliberately breeding/engineering precogs. Or are they going to run an ad on HotJobs: "Wanted: People with excellent precognition to float in tank on drugs all day and have an endless stream of horrible visions of people being murdered. Good dental plan."

EdJul 09, 2002 at 2:30PM

Don't see the topic plot hole. Lamar doesn’t need to be confident – if the first scheme failed, he could try another. They are police, after all, he might suggest a lead in Sean’s case, let our hero overhear... there are dozens of ways he could get Anderton after Crow. As it turns out, Anderton sees the images, and that starts him thinking about the murder well ahead of the actual crime. There's no rule that the precogs, even Agatha predict everything. They get a random jumble of images, and it’s up to others figure out what they might or might not mean.

Although I understand why someone would want Tom Cruise discredited and dead, it's not clear why Lamar considers him a threat. Plus, to go further off topic, having the pre-crime unit look like the Mousetrap game was annoying.

The real problem is that Tom Cruise is a stupid movie star, and half the scenes in the movie are about how much people worship Tom Cruise – like when he throws off his helmet before charging into the house. (You'll recall that the pre-crime unit had trouble figuring out which house, yet instantly realized the importance of dropping in through the master bedroom skylight.) "You've always been nice to me, so I’ll give you two minutes before I hit the alarm." "I need you to do me a favor." Failed to see where Anderton did anything that would inspire certain colleagues to commit felonies.

And in this nearly crime-free world, what on earth has the Leo character done that he's willing to give his life for cash? Is he so in debt that the obviously flourishing eyeball market doesn't offer enough dough?

I for one, can't wait until we get digital effects working well enough to customize movies. I'd use Sam Rockwell or Guy Pierce pixels in the lead role.

And I'm with Mr. Nosuch - the life of the precogs made me think of the life (or lack thereof) of the 74 or 72 vigins who await certain martyrs in the afterworld. What the hell kind of life is that? Lolling around the firmament until some zelot comes along to pop your cherry. At least with pre-crime, you get a hot tub.

James BachmanJul 10, 2002 at 9:19AM

A couple of possible solutions to minor problems:

1. Pulling a gun on someone would be laughed off, yet Tim Blake Nelson goes along with being stuck up by Anderton's wife. True, this could be an inconsistency. Until you remember that Pre-Crime only deal with murder, and not serious wounding. Holding a gun on someone is not always a threat of death.

2. The pre-cogs can't even see rape because it doesn't make enough of an impact on the metaphysical world, yet Agatha every little thing that will happen to her and Anderton in the mall. Another inconsistency. Unless you think about those things as all being intimately involved with the details of the murder Anderton is about to commit. The pre-cogs can see all the details of the build-up to these crimes, so that should include anything that affects the perpetrator.

DANJul 11, 2002 at 4:03AM

When I saw the film last night I was initially impressed with the story. However even if I ignore the numerous plot holes I was still completely irritated by the ending. Just as I had started to get involved enough in the story to accept the vision of the future - the inplausably complicated ending just ruined it. I came out of the cinema laughing!

AJJul 11, 2002 at 5:43AM

Has anyone ever pondered the possibility of movie writers and directors strategically placing glitches in their matrices, so to speak, so as to drag their movies *back* into the realms of [distant] possibility?

Would minority report be as engaging, or thought provoking, if it suggested the world it does without flaw or scope to question? Or to point and laugh, even? I mean, it hinges on telekenesis.

Isn't minority report, because of it's flaws (one or two of which are seemingly major), that much more realistic? (by which i mean, equate the realism of a fictional work with the nature and scale of the discussion it generates in the real world).

Would movies work if they were entirely watertight? Or would they become paintings? I think Spielberg knew what he was doing. As for Tom Cruise, however...

emilyJul 11, 2002 at 1:22PM

i see no need to nit-pick about suspension of disbelief -- to me movies need not spell out every single detail, in fact, when they do they are stultifying and lose that sense of inviting the audience to embellish the imaginative details. MR created a lush, fully realized landscape that the admittedly somewhat rickety plot inhabits; so what if you can't run it backwards and forwards and have it all line up? think about Memento -- it doesn't work out and that's what makes it great. on a more pedestrian scale, Back to the Future didn't make any freakin' sense at all, yet it would have ruined the tone to make it more complicated.

in fact, i think the MR "plot hole" highlights one of the themes of the film, the fallibility of systems. the pre-crime unit exemplifies technological hubris: a wired police state attempting to intuit the neural spasms of crackbabies (ok, neuroin-babies) into evidentiary truth. to me, the joke is that these deja-vu flashes should be seen as inherently misinterpretable and unstable, as mysterious as the sulphur vapors at a Greek oracle. but the techno-state manipulates them (either indirectly by adding the ball-and-chute bells and whistles to add "veracity," or directly, like Lamar removing memory files) to prop up their reliability and thus the pre-crime system. Lamar's actions throughout show that any human system can be twisted to human ends. what's attractive about the pre-cog images is that they are so tantalizing -- like lucid dreams that the dreamer struggles to control. note that the only pre-crime arrest we see is an unusual one, a red ball that is stopped at the last possible second. what about a premeditated murder --- do they arrest the would-be murderer years in advance for fantasizing about the killing, or do they wait until he takes what we lawyers call "actions in furtherance"? the former would be a thought crime, right? the point of the film is to show the slippery slope between thought crime and real crime...or is it that there ISN'T a slippery slope, only in the prosecutor's mind. it's a big pun on the cop being "judge, jury and executioner" in one, and the state succeeding in controlling people's actions by controlling their thoughts...truly Ashcroftian!

enough blather, here's some venting: thank you Kevin for offering an alternative ending idea to counteract the bromide wash that is the last ten minutes. spielberg should watch out or he'll turn into james "please cut the last act" cameron.

Amigo 1Jul 12, 2002 at 3:57PM

No he visto la pelicula. Espero que este muy buena

bullyJul 12, 2002 at 4:01PM

son mamadas

ChrisJul 12, 2002 at 11:01PM

I've read most of the posts here dealing with the plot holes in this movie (of which I believe there are likely many). But, something interesting is being overlooked (unless I missed the post). Everyone seems to view the precogs as just simple machines that only report the future as absolute truth. They forget that Agatha is a human being with an agenda... she seeks justice for the murder of her mother. It is her intervention with Anderton that puts everything into motion.
Also, something that I noticed the second time around is that one of the twins utters the question "You're not going to kill me?" when visualizing the murder. This is said by Leo Crow AFTER Anderton decides not to kill, but arrest him. So, the precogs (all of them) saw that it wasn't a murder... and Anderton's supposed exercise of free will was actually what the precogs foresaw. They just reported only so much of the event so that it seemed like a premeditated murder. What I can gather from all of this is that Agatha was manipulating the characters in the story to serve her own ends. Anderton is the unwitting hero who is being swayed by the prophecies of the oracle (references to Oedipus Rex are very relevant) and the machinations of those in power. Which puts a different slant on most of the movie. It's not a who-set-me-up, but more of a quest for unserved justice (in the case of Ann Lively). Perhaps I'm off base, but this possiblity was the most compelling aspect of the movie to me... that the SYSTEM ITSELF was human, not so much the operators.

DANJul 13, 2002 at 5:03AM

Without meaning to be pedantic - a few comments above, AJ says that minority report hinges on telekinesis.

I don't think telekinesis is covered in the film at all.

Did AJ mean telepathy?

AJJul 13, 2002 at 1:11PM

You know, Dan, it is telekinesis of a sort. But i did mean telepathy, yes, thank you.

LauriJul 13, 2002 at 10:15PM

Not to go way off topic but seeing the links to for the words above, I was wondering what ever happened to that function Microsoft (or someone else) was touting that would make every word link to definitions or further explanation. Did public outcry or lack of interest kill it?

Thomas KaufmanJul 14, 2002 at 11:02AM

Maybe one of you already caught this plot hole, but I didn't see it below.

The killing of Agatha's mother by Lamar was accomplished by a plot that was fatally flawed. The notion is that he paid someone to kill the woman, all along intending to actually do the murder himself after the other person got caught. But if that is true then when the red ball rolled out of the machine identifying the murderer, it would have had Lamar's name on it rather than the name of the hitman he hired. At a minimum, there would have been a ball for each of them, and there would not have been just an "echo" of the murder that the precogs saw.

Does this make any sense?

- - Tom

Roland Michel TremblayJul 14, 2002 at 11:07AM

Well, one thing really bothers me at the end of the movie. They stop the pre-crime program because the killers could, at the last minute, decide to change their fate and not kill the victim. But pre-crime is all about prevention and certainly the program proved to be able to prevent crimes. They could save thousands of lives every year, whether the criminal would have killed or not. The only thing is that the killers would not be charged with murders they would have committed, but they would be charged with attenuating circumstances that they might have killed. They would get away with much smaller charges, but at the very least a lot of people would not get killed.

adeJul 14, 2002 at 2:16PM

As well as all the usual metaphysical and temporal problems this film has another hole.

The halo system seems very unjust. You were about to murder someone so we'll put you to sleep for an indefinite period of time. That sounds like an execution to me. Note the reaction of Ary Gross's character (remember when we used to be in Ellen?) when they bring out the 'halo' device?

JoeJul 14, 2002 at 7:10PM

The thing I've forgotten about the movie, or never knew, was what was the motivation for Lamar killing John's son?

James BachmanJul 15, 2002 at 6:22AM

He didn't.

He just used the information that Anderton's son had been kidnapped to manipulate Anderton into killing someone.

StephaneJul 15, 2002 at 8:17AM

I thought about exactely the same flaw. For me it is such a huge hole in the story (and they are many others) that it makes the whole movie less than enjoyable. I reallt don't understand how writers can get away with this and how people can praise the movie. I discussed it with my wife as we left the theater and she disagreed with me, but I have sinced convinced her! (it took some effort though!)

kdschafeJul 15, 2002 at 4:28PM

This all seems rather interesting. Although I haven't seen the movie as I live in Berlin (and have little memory of the Dick story), what's being discussed would seem to imply the following:

1. Since the precogs' prediction is among the causes of the murder they foresee, if precognition is voluntary, they should not (in a morally relevant sense) so foresee. But I assume precognitive predictions are presented as unvoluntary in the film..

2. More interesting is the question of whether precognition is reflexive, i.e. of whether the precogs are capable of predicting their own predictions. What's being discussed here would seem to imply that this must be the case. But there is another interpretation open to us here, which might help to explain the nature of a minority report itself. I.e., suppose that precognitive prediction is not reflexive, then when two (of the three??) precogs predict X, they are implicitly also predicting the prediction of X (in the case we're discussing where this is a cause of X itself), but they (by our supposition) can not be predicting their own prediction. Thus they must each be predicting the other two precogs making the predicition in question (so as to create a sure majority in the future of the prediction). But, as such, the future they are predicting must always be a future in which a minority report is possible (for they cannot foresee their own predictions). And in fact, whenever a minority report is issued in the situation in question, it follows from the above that what is being predicted cannot be the real future (although the real future may be next to indistinguishable from it). For suppose P1 and P2 predict that X (i.e. predict the prediction of X) while P3 does not. Then P1 (for example) will be predicting that P2 and P3 will predict X, which is not the case. Thus, at least in the reflexive case, there is a clear link between a prediction being made by a mere majority (i.e. a minority repor situation) and this prediction's falsehood.

Somehow this seemed interesting to me, anyway.

Dan L.Jul 16, 2002 at 7:51AM

Did Lamar commit suicide at the end, or was he killed by the pre-crime team?

keviJul 17, 2002 at 5:50AM

I'm sure Lamar commit suicide by shooting himself.

My question is this: Why couldn't the pre-cogs have predicted all events that happened in the film BEFORE they got hired by the government? If I were a pre-cog, I would avoid such troubles and buy lottery.

You people think too muchJul 17, 2002 at 3:13PM

It's a movie based on a book. It'll never be as good as a book as you can't tell the same story - even in 142 mins - as you can in a few hundred pages so some liberties have to be taken.

Someone asked about the surgeon and why he didn't get Anderton back:

Didn't he get him back by giving him "Mr. Yakamura's" (or whatever the Japanese name was) eyes? Here you have WASPy Tom Cruise impersonating an Asian man...seems like good revenge to me.

The movie entertained me, the mouse trap game was funny, all the product shots were comical, albeit in your face (other than the Nokia spot), the what's going to happen next factor was up there, I only looked at my watch once (when he got haloed), I walked out with a smile on my face.

All in all good value for my $10.

SuicideJul 17, 2002 at 3:15PM

Why else would they have given him a gun for his retirement if he wasn't going to use it on someone?

Now, we just need to start a discussion on the piercing power of gold bullets and ya'll have covered everything.

shaun southernJul 17, 2002 at 3:58PM

What I want to know is that if it was always Agatha who had the minority report, and she was the clever (i.e. right) one then why did they always ignore her?
And 'halo' innocent people!

die by incinerationAug 01, 2002 at 12:53PM

well I liked the film, so there.

all you people are just well stoopid.

die by incinerationAug 01, 2002 at 12:53PM

well I liked the film, so there.

all you people are just well stoopid.

El KabongAug 04, 2002 at 12:10AM

Let me first pay tribute to the two hilarious observations further up the thread by repeating them for any who missed them:

1. Why didn't Lamar just kill Agatha's mother in Bethesda, or Fairfax, or anywhere else outside pre-cog jurisdiction (I'm sure there's some moral or metaphor in here about statehood for DC, not sure what, maybe Jesse Jackson knows)?


2. If murderous intent has been cleansed from Washington for six years, what has that done to the share price of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and the campaign funds of their supporters in Congress? Was world peace an unintended consequence of reducing DC crime?

Now, as to how they were going to take this program nationwide with only three pre-cogs, that's easy -- just employ some of the more talented airport screeners, most of whom would do just as well lying in a pool of luminsecent vaseline as they do trying to look competent in blue polyester blazers.

But my final point is one that I haven't seen mentioned -- I'm not sure it's quite a plot hole, more a contextual clue. When Tom Cruise drags Agatha into the arcade/peep show, the proprietor is shooing away a client who wants to indulge in a fantasy of killing his boss. He turns to Cruise with a sort of Casablancaesque "shocked, shocked " look. What I got from that is that there is a discrepancy between the way things look from pre-crime HQ and the reality on the street. If that shmo's sick fantasy, fortified by a trip to the holodeck, wouldn't set off the pre-cogs' alarms, I don't know what would. Or else, if the pre-cogs would know that it's just a fantasy that would never become a reality, then why attempt to conceal that sort of activity from law enforcement? It just made me think that perhaps although murder has been eliminated, things are not necessarily as depicted in the official department of pre-crime propaganda.

DaleAug 12, 2002 at 6:18AM

These question are probably easily answered... Maybe I should watch it again...

how do the precogs know the names of the murders/victims if all they see are visions? who types it onto the balls and how do they know they've got the right spelling?

AlannaAug 22, 2002 at 9:04AM

I enjoyed the film - nice to see an intelligent film come out of Hollywood :P - and when I was told there was a plot hole I couldn't spot it, even though I love finding plot holes :P

I think most of the potential holes have been answered. Just to give my spin on a few...

Anderton has started to look into Agatha's Mum's murder, however innocently. Lamar begins to set up Anderton. That sets in motion a stream of events that will eventually lead to Anderton shooting a guy. The precogs see it and report it. The fact that it then doesn't happen because Anderton makes a choice not to shoot is the point of the film - the precogs are fallible.

The future that the precogs see is just a *possible* future, albeit a likely one. Hence minority reports, hence Anderton not killing the guy, hence Lamar committing suicide at the end. Hence the precog programme being shut down. If some people haloed might still have decided (however unlikely) not to go ahead, then innocent people have been haloed.

I do like the idea that they shut down the system and then you get 100+ murders the next year. That line *so* should have been left in. Interesting moral dilemna.

Also like the idea that once murderers are stopped they should just be released, although then lots would probably try over and over again and overload the precogs.

As for Agatha in the mall - she saw Anderton shooting a guy not long after. She probably saw alsorts of information surrounding that including at the mall. She might even have seen herself telling the woman not to go home tonight etc! Now *that* would be a paradox :P At the end when she said 'run' she'd had no such visions.

Why didn't Lamar leave town to commit murder? Maybe he enjoyed conning the system. He was just smug enough that he might have... He got away with it when no-one else could?

Ripples on the pond changed because the wind changed. No problem there.

I am puzzled by the brown ball for Anderton - if it was preconceived murder from the time his boy went missing, shouldn't it have been picked up long ago? But then wouldn't the precogs pick up everyone who ever wished someone dead? If it only picked up when he decided to kill a *specific* person, it should have been red - You're the one who killed my boy, *bang*. Interestingly in that case there should never have been a ball at all because it would have been a very unlikely future that saw Anderton meet up with the guy if there was never a ball. But I guess we've got to give them some artistic license :P

I also wondered whether Agatha had orchastrated the whole thing. Would have been kinda cool, but I didn't think the film seemed to imply it.

As for the whole eye thing... a bit too gratuitous for me - yuck! And of course they'd have taken Anderton off the Centre's access... unless they were hoping he'd try and come back for some reason, and then they could catch him?

I'd better stop before I get too confused :P


AlannaAug 22, 2002 at 9:07AM

Sorry, just to clarify, the above should read:

'it wuold have been a very unlikely future that saw Anderton meeting up with the guy if there was never a *brown* ball at all' - he just wouldn't have had time with a red ball.

justinAug 22, 2002 at 7:13PM

just back from the theater

really liked the movie

really like the discussion

BUT: how come Lamar got away with killing Anderton's opponent in his own living room ? I remember Lamar saying that they were somehow insulated from the reach of the pre-cogsl.... But I don't get it.

AlannaAug 23, 2002 at 6:26AM

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I think that killing happened when Agatha was AWOL. Maybe the precogs need all three to function properly? Can't quite remember...


IKE777Aug 26, 2002 at 4:29PM

The thing is, Lamar needed to get rid of Anderton in a hurry, didn't want to have a "Ann Lively" loose cannon on his hands before being put in charge of the national program. Which means that the plan with Leo had to work, no time for extra possibilities, but the only way that plan could work was if Lamar was psychic enough himself to predict precogs visions, which he wasn't, hence the hole is wide open.

AlannaSep 01, 2002 at 3:54AM're right. It looked like he just kinda panicked and shot him to get rid of the problem, but he wouldn't have known that Agatha was AWOL (although as head of the project, he might have been informed - thus closing the plot hole... can't remember if this was suggested as being the case at all).

It wouldn't make sense that the head of the precog programme killed someone without thinking about the precogs.


Nick TaylorSep 02, 2002 at 11:05PM

Just saw the movie for the first time. Very interesting comments here. I remember mentally bookmarking this discussion for perusal at a later date (namely, after seeing the film).

A couple of things:

1) re: "how did they know what names to put on the balls?", If I recall correctly, the opening scene shows John Anderton taking a close-up view of the scissor-killer's face and comparing it against several driver's license photos supplied by his assistant (Kyle? Let's call him Kyle). Kyle reads back the name to John, and hence the suspect is identified. Does the ball drop before or after this lookup? If before, there's a plot hole or at least a potential one, but if it drops after, it's because the killer's face was matched.

2) re: why no ball for the supposed "echo" set up by Lamar? Here, we might have to make an assumption: the ball doesn't drop until the technician "clears" the prediction. Since the tech deleted the vision (thinking it was an echo), no ball was generated. However, we can't presume to know how this process works, as it wasn't explained.

3) Earth to cops: when your suspect pulls the lever and goes plummeting down the drain in the pre-Cog tank with your top pre-Cog in his arms, where do you think he's going to wind up at the conclusion of that watery ride? That's right, the other end of that pipe. Next time, go there to catch your suspect. That's all.

Nick TaylorSep 02, 2002 at 11:23PM

Oh yes, there is one more unanswered question I have: when the eye surgeon guy is putting Cruise to bed, he hands him a Neuronin hit and says "this is from a mutual friend." Snuh? I was thinking it was Cruise's old bearded eyeless dealer guy...but was this a possible plot opportunity left unexplored? Or what?

cruiserOct 07, 2002 at 9:27AM

Saw the movie yesterday and was VERY uneasy about most of the hilarious plot holes mentioned above - after delightfully reading through the threat above I´m still not satisfied, though the given possible explanations at least scratch the itch.

One BIG flaw hides IMHO in the epilogue (ok, it´s more political than logical):

ALL haloed delinquents were freed at once the precog program was shut down ??

C´mon, that simply is not the way governmental actions are carried out normally - at least they would have had to go through a second three minute trial with a televison judge ...

But sure there isn´t enough time left to tell as the movie is over at this point ...

AlljazzOct 07, 2002 at 9:38AM

Why should the project be abandoned?

Assuming the project was flawed in that people could still exercise choice why should the project be abandoned, in other words why not continue preventing crime and the possible ofenders not condemned since choice not exercised.

VICNov 13, 2002 at 3:28PM

Well, I actually made it to read almost every single comment. I do agree with some, with others I don't. What I missed to be mentioned though is this:
John ends up shooting Leo accidentally while they struggle with a gun, but he had already made the conscious decision to not kill the guy. So, actually no one would have ever known about it and he would have never been forced to run like a fugitive because the shooting that took place would have never registered at the PreCrime headquarters. It was not a murder.
The technology which allows for the prevention of murder only works with the crime of murder.

There are flaws in the movie indeed ... but I liked the 2 actors tom and "what's the girl's name?" *g*

LorenzoNov 26, 2002 at 1:42PM

I just watched this movie (awful french version) and I didn't find any major plot flaw. James Bachman gave coherent explanation in all of his clever/pedagogic posts.
A great idea in this book/movie, maybe already discussed, is :
knowing that it's future will be predicted gives you the power of building it. That's exactly what Lamar does when he hires Leo. He made a very unlikely event (Anderton killing somebody) become possible just by the fact it could be predicted. This loop is just amazing.

KirkDec 14, 2002 at 7:07AM

I havent taked the time to read all the threads above so it is probably explained, but I thought the movie made reference near the beginning that precogs cant see suicides...
if that's true (and I could be wrong) then how did they see Lamar killing himself at the end of the movie?

XSCargoDec 23, 2002 at 2:27AM

Was Cruise really trying for another mission impossible?

Of course there were many flaws, but two stuck out in particular that would call for a re-write:

1) If precogs could predict a murder 3 days in advance (considering the fact that precogs were never wrong), they should have detected the murder of Colin Farell by the old guy before Aggy was taken from the pool by Cruise. In that case Colin Farell would have known that the old guy was out to kill him.

2) The other flaw I just couldn't get past was the eyeball security shit. If an insider or an employee is in breech of security, their security access is terminated on the same day they are fired. This should of happened immediately since the precogs were never wrong. Would you really keep Cruise's security pass open to Precrime when Precrime knew he was going to commit a crime? HAAAAAAA
Like did someone forget to terminate security access for Cruise while he was dodging Precrime? The fact that he was able to use his eyes to break into Precrime to retrieve Aggy was nonsense. This happened several times -- even his wife took in his eye and got access. I think Precrime got their security guards for their looks only.

Serious plot failure here. The concept was very entertaining, but I think the writers got a bit lazy or didn't really think about how it all needed to work out properly. I think Spielberg was too busy with special effects that significant plot details were overlooked. That's unfortunate, as given enough thought and time, it could have been more intelligent.

melDec 24, 2002 at 4:13AM

I hope that someone can explain this to me. Why did thay release all of the people in the end? Was it because of the minority report, or because everyone should have been given the chance to see their future and change it. I have a huge argument with my friend on whether or not it is possible to change the future if you don't see it. From my understanding, the only time that it can be changed was when you (Ior someone else, like the precogs) knew the future. Help, I am desperate.

fresh313Dec 24, 2002 at 3:13PM

did anyone else notice the commercial for pre-crime where the lady says " pre-crime stopped me from getting raped " then they say later that the pre-cogs can only stop murder becuase it is so intense.. thats a big flaw.. or am i wrong?

Crom ToozDec 29, 2002 at 7:56AM

The fact that you can be "setup" for a crime in the pre-cog world is the biggest hole in this movie. The screenwriter's explanation that there exists a "backstory" in which Burgess made all these elaborate plans to lead Cruise to Leo Crowe's room is nonsense..... how can that be done? Way too many variables for that to happen.

Bob RogersDec 31, 2002 at 4:43PM

I love the plot hole discussion since many bothered me as well. My main disagreement with the movie was the typical Spielberg overly simplistic characters and motivations. I was not surprised by any supposed plot twists. It is laughable that Anderton would think that Witwer set him up. Witwer knows nothing about the system! The whole Leo Crow thing was obvious. The characters are so simple and basic and the ending so trite. I am happily intruiged by the posting that suggests everything past the haloing of Anderton is a dream.

beaniumJan 05, 2003 at 9:08PM

Here's a hole I noticed:

The precogs only produce images, so Anderton has to piece together clues in order to find out where and by whom the murder is being committed. Then he and his crew have to get there in time. How can this system be infallible, as is suggested? (They said in the commercials for pre-crime that there hadn't had been a single murder since pre-crime started.) What if the video yields no clues as to where it takes place? What if the killer is wearing a mask? In the beginning of the movie the cops stop the "scissor murder" just seconds before it happens. There's no way they'd be able to stop every murder using this method.

siriusleaJan 05, 2003 at 9:52PM

Hey somepeople missed the point of the movie, which was the pre-cogs only saw a probable future, what Burgess wanted to hide with the minority reports was exactly how probable is that future. What Anderton proves and the Burgess suicide show is that even if there is no minority report. The future is not predicted for sure by the precogs.
The balls with names on them don't really bother me, because peoples names are an intrinsic part of them and it seems possible that the pre-cogs could know their names and it could be retrieved in a different manner than the images.
My main problem with the movie was the haloing of "murderers" right at the crime scene. It seemed obvious that more info could be had from these people like if they were working with someone. The only explanation for that could be that Burgess implemented this policy to protect himself and it carried into the future (that is pretty weak).

I noted the other holes like that there were only 3 precogs for the whole country, and the eyeball situation and the lack of networking. I don't think it was implied that Agatha was manipulating Anderton any more than just asking him for help.

CalvinJan 07, 2003 at 8:38PM

Precogs ability to see the future clearly depends on proximity to other humans; that's why at the end they are put out to pasture at some abandoned farm house -- no humans around to torment them. And it explains why Agatha can see the immediate future in the balloon scene. Manually transferring the data on the cool transparent disks can make sense if you look at it from a security perspective; they might have reason to not have the big computers all hooked up to the internet ;-) Suspects being haloed at the scene of the crime just seemed a logical extrapolation from handcuffing, and presumably would not just be part of precrime. No way they can escape once they are haloed. The closed causation loop is a major plothole though, but I am willing to buy the paradoxical noose explaination...

DrewJan 09, 2003 at 8:01AM

This is really bothering me and maybe I just missed something, so please help me out. Why didn't the precogs detect that old man Lamar was going the Fed guy Witwer when they met at Anderton's house. Were they out of the city limits, or were the precogs offline because they the cops didn't prevent the death of Crow, or was it something else?

JARJan 13, 2003 at 12:31PM

Lemar Knew that the Precogs would predict Andeton commiting murder because Lemar knows, as Anderton says in flat 1006, that he would kill the man that took his son. With that in mind, Lemar sets the whole thing up and waits. The Precogs make the obvious prediction and the prediction that wouls have actually occured with any normal person. BUT, Anderton already knows his future so he can change it. If you pay attention you will hearAgatha say several times something along the lines of 'you can change it' or somethig like that about Andertons future. He can change it because he knows what it is! Thats the only reason! Simple!
And in answer to Drew's question...the Precogs didnt detect Lemar was going to kill Witwer beacause the 3 Precogs weren't together. When Anderton takes Agatha you will hear one of the workers say that the system doesnt work without Agatha. So thats why. You need all three Precogs for the predictions to work, especially Agatha!

André PintoJan 22, 2003 at 9:21PM

well, i just watched Minority Report on DVD, and i think:

"I noted the other holes like that there were only 3 precogs for the whole country"

- I did not see any Minority report character saying that only three pre-cogs survived. That old lady said that "a few pre-cogs survived". It could be 3, 300 or even 3000. Think: more than 1 million of drug addicted in the country had pre-cog babies...but few survived

"If precogs could predict a murder 3 days in advance (considering the fact that precogs were never wrong), they should have detected the murder of Colin Farell by the old guy before Aggy was taken from the pool by Cruise. In that case Colin Farell would have known that the old guy was out to kill him."

No, because Lamar did not intended to kill Danny Witwer until that minute, when Witwer tells him what he knows about the case

"Why go through the utterly redundant procedure of carving a wooden ball when you could just flash the purp's name on a display?"

c´mon, it will be very difficult to erase a name from a very solid carved wood!!! adulteration is easier if you have names on a display

"It's a movie based on a book. It'll never be as good as a book as you can't tell the same story - even in 142 mins - as you can in a few hundred pages so some liberties have to be taken."

it will never be as good as a book, or worse. that Will be always different. A book is a book, and a movie is a movie, no matter how are the commitments between them...

"if the Precogs were limited to just seeing murders in the Washington area and not nationally, why wouldn't Burgess drive out of the area, invite Agatha's mother to meet with him and murder her there?"

Everyone forgets that if Lammar kills Ane LIvely outside state, a murder will be investigated. Remember, Pre-Crime works in Washington, but in all the other states, traditional investigation still exists. Sooner or later a "CSI team" would discover. In Washington, the assassination of Ann Lively would be considered only an eco, and nobody would investigate...Ane Lively had to be alive, or else the pre-crime would fail...

And for everybody: no movie plot in this world would survive with so much questions. I never saw so much questioning about a single movie. i think is a good sign: Minority Report makes us think!!!

Every movie has big flaws, or does anyone here never questioned about that strange scene where Indiana Jones takes a hike in a submarine (this was a huge plot hole, but nobody never complained, and the movie is still a classic)

Christopher BattyJan 25, 2003 at 8:58PM

Can I please just add one more flaw that I don't think has been mentioned?

Pre-meditated crimes are supposedly "seen" by the pre-cogs days in advance. Crimes of passion are "seen" on short notice (recall: red balls vs. brown balls) --- and Anderton's crime is one of passion yet the pre-cogs "show" him shooting Leo days in advance.

I'm not as bummed about the physical storage (disks) or gimmicky Hollywood shit as I am about something pretty central like this... that you would think would occur to them and they would bother to iron out, no?

JeffJan 25, 2003 at 11:18PM

Big flaw to me - they cease the program when they realize that people might not have committed the murders after all, and therefore might be falsely imprisoned...but the program could still PREVENT the murders (as they did for several years in DC) - so why not continue: still intervene, even if they could not arrest/imprison anyone. Esp crimes of passion, which once thwarted once, probably would not be re-attempted, even if the murderer were still free. Also, if a murder DID occur, at least they would know who did it, then they could arrest him. Certainty of being caught will therefore also prevent premeditated murders, ie: same result and before, even if they cant arrest until after the murder occurs.

JeffJan 25, 2003 at 11:43PM

One more thing. Don't they have the name of the victim on the ball? Why not just look up the name in the phonebook? Or check where their eyes were last scanned? Easier than figuring out that there are only six merry-go-rounds in Washington? How many Leo Crows live in Washington anyway?

André PintoJan 26, 2003 at 8:04PM

Jeff, i think that many questions here are irrelevant to the movie. Its very easy to see the same movie many times and say, "if i were him, if i were her, i should...". Scott Frank made the screenplay, not us. The story has its limits, its own universe, is complex, but people here are trying to find flaws too much. NO movie plot could resist to this "plot holes chase". Is there a prize or an award to that?

i think we should enjoy the ride more and be less scientific about that...

André PintoJan 26, 2003 at 8:08PM

Pre-meditated crimes are supposedly "seen" by the pre-cogs days in advance. Crimes of passion are "seen" on short notice (recall: red balls vs. brown balls) --- and Anderton's crime is one of passion yet the pre-cogs "show" him shooting Leo days in advance.

The Brown ball was a mix:

Lammar premeditated the murder of Leo Crow (brown ball)

Anderton did it (the name of the man that will kill)

Lamarr did not pull the trigger, thats why the ball hasn't his name...

JotJan 30, 2003 at 3:04AM

Here is my question.

If Cruise sees himself killing with his gun, and doesn't want to live out this killing, just THROW AWAY the fricking gun. There you go, end of living out this vision of your fate.


Christopher BattyJan 30, 2003 at 9:25PM

The Brown ball was a mix:

Lammar premeditated the murder of Leo Crow (brown ball)

Anderton did it (the name of the man that will kill)

Lamarr did not pull the trigger, thats why the ball hasn't his name...

ok, i can accept that -- but maybe there ought to have been a third ball (for pre-meditator).
Also, I understand the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy most any work of fiction -- but come on Andre -- this story has some real weaknesses.

André PintoJan 31, 2003 at 9:37PM

I saw only one serious flaw: the eye balls + the security measures. there are many masterpieces in filmmaking that has far more plot holes than this movie...

bluevioletFeb 02, 2003 at 11:27AM

I musta *really * missed something because nobody's brought it up yet. So explain to me how they set it up so Agatha would pre-remember the murder of her mother in greater detail than ever before just at the right time? I'm sure there's an explanation, but that's what bugs me about this movie, there's no explanation of the process itself, just the end result. Sure, sure, it makes you think, but as a typical lazy entertainment consumer, I want things spelled out for me.

Anyway, that's where the movie totally lost me. I could handle the paradoxes and the minor holes and still believe in the movie. But right at the end there I'm going, oh c'mon. That was not very satisfying.

DeanFeb 03, 2003 at 4:56AM

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't have time to read ALL the fantastically contrived responses in this forum, but can anyone remind/tell me (I saw the movie 6 months back) WHO KILLED/KIDNAPPED HIS SON?


Chris LambertFeb 03, 2003 at 3:58PM

Dean, watch the film again, we don't find out who killed John's son, or even if he's dead. Lamar takes advantage of this uncertainty in order to fabricate the whole Leo Crow story. Anderton has no idea who took his son, and so he's open to any suggestion. Leo Crow appears to have photos of the boy, and that's enough reason for a confused and enraged father.

David DebowFeb 09, 2003 at 5:04PM

I totally agree and just did a google search to find confirmation out there of my thinking. In essence, all Lamar did was set up another person like the actual killer of Cruises' kid. Several years have past and Cruise has not bumped into the actual killer and been predicted to kill him so way should he be predicted to kill some put-up job? To create the chain of events needed for the pre-cogs to envision the murder, Lamar must both create the put-up man and for Cruise and him to meet. The meeting happening as a result of the premonition puts the horse before the cart. By the way, did you notice the symbolism of the billiard balls in the looping tracks as suggesting those great Rubin machines (did I get the name correct) that have a whole series of linked events like in Penn Station?

meFeb 21, 2003 at 5:16PM

well basically this is a film and you should try and enjoy it rather than point out every flaw in it. the fact is its a great movie to watch and ENJOY with an amazing plot that is very complicated and would have a few flaws. Think of a film with a better idea than this? the only one maybe the matrix but that idea was simply copied off a philosophist.

BiffFeb 24, 2003 at 1:26PM

To answer the original question:
My guess would be that Lamar had a plan in the works to tip off Alderton to Crow's location. Once that plan was set in motion, Alderton would find Crow and deliberately murder him. That potential murder was exactly what the precogs saw.

However, since Alderton saw his own future, he pursued Crow to clear his own name...and he was able to change his actions. Whatever Lamar had planned to tip Alderton off became irrelevant once he saw the vision.

Keep in mind that the precog visions did differ in the tank. One of the twins said "You're not going to kill me?" while Agatha's vision showed her presence in the room. I think elements of both possible outcomes were present in one vision. Just my two cents.

FigeleFeb 24, 2003 at 1:32PM any of you movie buffs out there know of scrapped endings where we find out who killed Sean? Or if he is supposedly alive? Agatha's vision of him at 23 suggested he might still be alive somewhere, though we're led to believe he got abducted at the pool, porked, and killed.

Any ideas?

NicMar 08, 2003 at 5:30PM

I have a question about Anderton's son...can anyone point me out to a specific place in the film where they explain how his son died. He lost him at the public pool, yes...but I can't seem to remember anything about anyone saying his son was killed, missing or whatever. Did Lamar maybe have something to do with his son's disappearance?

LeoMar 16, 2003 at 4:31AM

Even if Lamar planned to Kill Anne Lively in the exact same way as the person he paid to do it was going to, and the techies saw it, and thought it was just an echo, that doesn't dismiss the fact that Lamar premeditated the killing of Anne Lively. THis should have been seen by the pre-cogs and he should have been brown balled. Just because he commited it in the exact same fashion as the other guy was going to doesnt mean that it didnt happen. Agatha definetely saw it happen too. So the simple question is, why wasnt there a brown ball with Lamar's name on it for the premeditated murder of Anne Lively like there was a brown ball for every other premeditated murder? The only explanation that I can think of is that Lamar screwed with the system somehow, but thats a weak explanation for one of the main points of the movie.

Am I just missing something completely obvious? I really dont think so because i just saw the movie again like 30 mins ago. I really think the Anderton, Crow stuff just shouldnt be seen as a plot hole since it deals with stuff that nobody can even realistically conveice. We have no idea what would happen if this situation was real and there were pre-cogs so why even bother lamenting those holes? BUt the Murder of Anne Lively just makes no sense.

MarquisApr 24, 2003 at 8:16PM

The premise is based on pre-cognitive events. The entire validity is that cause and effect play a major role. Without tinkering with the 'Precog' files, there would still be a murder. The rationale for the tinkering was to mask the files so only a 'false' muder vision is on file, ... and remember, the 'technician' would think that the visions, duplicating the 'first' visual would be seen as an 'echo', and would be erased. And 'erasing' the incoming would delete the 'real' vision stream ... this was aleady explained in the movie!

After the event, the cause for the Precog disclosing the 'Cruise' event was the true murder, or the INTENTION thereof. A crime of passion, not meditation!. So, Cruise WAS supposed to be where he was at the time. The missing info to the Precog was not the actual murder, but the files kept for Pre-Crime archives. As for Lamar presuming a set-up, his agenda was to protect Precrime. Anderton became a target after Cruise revealed to Lamar his finding out about ... 'Anne Lively?'

Remember, Lamar asked Anderton '... you say the third pre-vision was what, ... kind of fuzzy or something?', Anderton replied that the pre-vision, Agatha's pre-vision, wasn't there!

Anderton became a target by revealing his knowledge of missing pre-visions, and of course, Anne Lively's. To further protect Pre-Crime, Lamar' s motivation was to make Pre-Crime 'national', and to forestall the Justice Dept from taking Pre-Crime. Also, Lamar's initial scheme was to keep Agatha as a Precog by getting rid of Anne Lively! The initial cause of events, aside from birth.

Remember, Anderton told Lamar about Anne Lively after the Precog told him. That started Lamar to set up Cruise. Lamar need only know that Anderton's motivation would be his missing son. Thus, setting a tone for a crime of passion.

The relevance to the Precogs NOT knowing that Lamar was the actual Perp was becaise the Precogs only SEE what you will do, not what you intend to do! Lamar did plan to kill Anne Lively, but he also planned that HE would not be the 'effect' of it happening!

Precogs see a murder, we see a tampered Archive. Agatha reveals the murder, but still sees a foretelling event. The 'Minority Report' was not about what will happen, but about 'what we will do when asked at that time?' Not what we plan or meditate to do, but what we will do! I suffice to say I answered the 'hole-in-plot' Report.

Note: Pre-cognition is not prophecy!

AllSeeingIMay 15, 2003 at 7:23PM

OK, peeps, you're all going round in circles. This happens a lot when time gets messed with in movie plots.

Firstly, the pre-cogs predict future murders because of their 'gravity' (whatever you wanna call it) in the time stream. Plotting to commit murder isn't an event the pre-cogs can see, we can all think about killing someone but do we actually do it?

Second, this is pre-crime so, all future murders are stopped before they occur - you can change the predicted future - that's the whole point!

Thrid, as the author points out, once the events to frame Anderton are set in motion, he will eventually be face to face with the supposed murderer of his son.

The real plot hole then is this, if the person the pre-cogs see committing the murders aren't the real perps, pre-crime doesn't work - full stop! But, OK, this is the central issue in the movie and of course, the real perp is spotted in the 'minority report' but, written-off as an 'echo' by the techies. The point is, the murder ALL the pre-cogs see doesn't actually take place when they report it but, is in fact carried out afterwards by someone else so, none of them should really see the first murder event as a murder at all. That's a pretty big hole!

(I think Leo nearly explained this)

Actually, I thought is was a great movie. I can forgive such silly errors, after all, how good would anyone be at seeing the future if they're all drugged up in a sens-dep tank 24/7/365...

WRFanJul 12, 2003 at 2:10AM

Nobody seems to have asked the following questions:

1) how can precrime go national, if there is just one really working precog? plus how could this system work even in the district of columbia?! It's ridiculuous! there murders occur every couple of minutes, the policemen wouldn't even have time to determine the locations. Nationwide murders occur every couple of seconds! Ok, of course this system reduces the amount of murders, because people will be afraid of the precrime swat, but there are too many left for one precog to determine. Actually the balls should be rolling every couple of seconds, instead we see one ball per day for the whole district of columbia, or whatever it's called

2) What would happen to the system if Agatha died a natural death (simply because she would become too old)? I mean, Agatha was the result of a genetic experiment, or something, they can't create new precogs on a conveyer belt! Would they put some women on drugs to try to create new retarded children, out of which they would make precogs? That's just too American - sacrifice the lower class drug addicts so that the middle class wasps can ensure the safety of their children (someone above said Tom is a wasp, and I agree).

Another question: Is it really Cameron Diaz on the train? I can't clearly see her face. Looks like her, though

lukeJul 24, 2003 at 1:58AM

OK. in the end with anderton's murder- what do the twins see of the murder? since anderton's watch that counts down to the murder hit 00:00, the twins shouldn't have seen it because it would mean that the whole murder is a minority report. so- what do the twins see of the murder, and is it really a minority report, even though there never was one according to agatha. (because the "kidnapper" really did pull the trigger on himself)

bradAug 03, 2003 at 7:05PM

the question is, how do you set someone up without leading them to the place that the set up is happening?
Cruise's character stumbled upon the hotel. What if he didn't?

This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.