Brad

19th Jun 2010

Minority Report (2002)

Corrected entry: John Anderton is a wanted man. The precogs have implicated him in the future murder of Leo Crow and put out an all-points bulletin on him. They are able to track his movements through retinal scanners placed all over the city and two chase sequences show that they will send disruptive squads of nearly a dozen members and risk extensive property damage just to arrest him. That premise is made clear. What isn't made clear, however, is why the facility hosting the precogs, the central hub of this operation, allows John to use his old eyeballs to just waltz right in through the back without so much as even a warning going off? For that matter, why is there only one single, effectively unmonitored (one loopy caretaker with a manual alarm on a far wall does not a security system make) door to what is probably the single most valuable government asset? Why hasn't the system been updated to remove his access to key areas? And most importantly, why does the system have a flush mechanism that dumps the precog out to an unsecured location? The audience is expected to accept that these are very competent policemen that have enough planning and expertise to stop every single murder within the region for several years, but also that they would leave such a glaring security hole in their system.

Alex Montenegro

Correction: Precrime didn't know Anderton was going after the precogs until it was too late. Not everyone knows about the Minority Report system, as evidenced by Anderton's reaction. As for not updating the database to deny Anderton access, maybe they simply didn't have time in the rush to capture him. Regarding the flush mechanism, again, they had no idea it would be used to transport the precogs out of the building. It's simply there to drain the water and nothing more.

Brad

21st Jun 2010

Minority Report (2002)

Plot hole: In the scene where Anderton is talking with Hineman, she says to him that "You will bring down the [Precrime] system yourself if you manage to kill your victim. That would be the most spectacular public display of how Precrime didn't work." Shouldn't she be saying "If you manage to not kill your victim"? (01:01:30)

Floyd1977

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

Suggested correction: Well, if Crow did die, then Precrime wouldn't have worked because the whole point is to stop murder from occurring at all.

Brad

Ether way it is a hit against precrime. If he does not kill Crow then it shows that the vision may not come true so you do not know if someone would really have killed someone else, outside situation like with the cheating wife at the start where they interrupted the murder. If Crow is murdered then it shows the system is flawed, which would not be as bad as the first as you would still be stopping a lot of the murders.

I can't tell if this reply is suggesting the correction is wrong or stating the line should be "not kill", making the mistake valid. By not killing the victim, that shows how Precrime is actually working and that knowing the future means you can alter it. If the murder occurs, it would weaken Precrime's stance and support that it can prevent crime.

Bishop73

No if he chooses not to kill Crowe then that means that the visions are just a version of the future, and thus not the actual future. So all the people with the halo on them are locked up wrongfully, as they may have decided not to do it like Anderton did, so the system collapses. That was the point, and it did. Hineman's remark is about the idea that precrime stops all murders, unless Andrton does manage to kill Crowe. The system then is flawed but like the previous commentor says, they still prevent most murders instead of all of them, which would count for something.

lionhead

22nd Jun 2010

Minority Report (2002)

Corrected entry: After Anderton flushes himself alongside Agatha down the tank, Gordon is directing security to seal the area. Witwer interrupts him with the statement "Doesn't matter, he wins" and responds to the more detailed plans to stop them in the reservoir with "Gordon, she's in the room with him when he kills Crow. She's already a part of his future." This seems awfully defeatist for a character that was established as being so gung-ho about landing a job at a division specifically based around preventing undesirable futures from happening. The only plausible reason for this total 180 that flies in the face of the film's premise? The writers needed a quick way to move past an escape sequence in the sewers without leaving the audience wondering what was missed.

Alex Montenegro

Correction: Character decission to act like this. Not a plot hole.

Brad

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.