Minority Report

Plot hole: Anderton's wife gains entry into the jailhouse using her husband's eyeball - but he's already locked up inside, so his eye would not still have access to enter as it pleased. Any place anywhere that would have any sort of security system requiring anything from a simple passcode to a card key to a retinal scan, would immediately delete the user in such instances from all rights. And would also certainly report on any attempted use of such (retinal scan, pass code, whatever). (02:00:45)

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

Suggested correction: I thought that this was a mistake as soon as I saw it on screen, but reconsidered. It's perfectly possible that there was some, probably human caused, delay in updating the security system. After all, there wasn't a rush to do it since they already had the chief on ice. Maybe the sleep jail was still on a legacy system without automatic updating. Just assuming that in the near future that all systems are all perfectly integrated and instantaneous does not validate this as a mistake.

Plot hole: When Witwer invites Burgess over to discuss the problem of Anne Lively's murder, he gives Burgess Anderton's gun saying "We recovered that from Leo Crowe's hotel room", yet making no mention of why he is showing the gun. It makes no sense why he would bring the gun or give the gun to Burgess seeing as he would have to remove it from the evidence of the murder. There was no important evidence regarding the gun he would need to show Burgess and only seems to serve the plot (as Burgess uses the gun to kill Witwer at the end and the blame goes on Anderton). What complicates the matter further is that Witwer knows someone in the Pre-crime division was behind Anne Lively's murder, so to give a person who could very likely be involved in the murder a loaded gun seems a little risky and unnecessary. (01:45:50)

Lummie Premium member

Plot hole: It's good to know that in the future we will be able to simply walk inside a car factory (without anybody working, neither employees, security people, or an automated protection system), get inside a brand new car and just drive away...

Plot hole: Burgess frames Anderton for Witwer's murder, using Anderton's gun in Anderton's house, but Anderton has an airtight alibi; at the same time as the murder, he was arriving at his ex-wife's home. His ex is even on the phone with Burgess, who asks if that's John arriving with Agatha.

Cubs Fan Premium member

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

Suggested correction: This is all a matter of trust and knowledge. At this point the precogs aren't available so they don't know who killed Witwer, the word of Burgess is enough for the precrime team to believe it was Anderton, especially considering everything that was going on. All the precrime team wants is get Anderton and put the halo on him. There is no trial, no interrogation of witnesses. The team simply don't see Anderton can't have killed Witwer and they don't care as they no longer act as real cops anymore (only Witwer did). They might find out later, but Anderton's escape changed that possibility anyway. It's not a plot hole that things went as they went.


Plot hole: Anderton getting to Crow pivoted on seeing the Precog visions of Anderton killing Crow. But it's a causal loop. How did it happen the first time without the vision? To top it off, Anderton had Agatha in the room. Later Burgess points our to Witwer that there are no signs of Precrime descending on him because the Precogs can't see him about to kill Witwer because of their separated condition. However, that's the exact same condition the Precogs were in when Anderton was supposed to shoot Crow...so how would it be seen in pre-vision?

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

Suggested correction: The pre-vision of Anderton killing Crow happened before the Precogs were seperated, for Witwer's murder the pre-vision came too late. It's paradoxal but the fact there was a pre-vision of the Anderton-Crow murder, it was going to happen. But at the last second Anderton made a choice not to, something which the pre-cogs can't see as Agatha explained to him, the pre-visions are only 1 possible outcome of the future. Thats the flaw in the system.


Plot hole: Lamar makes his crime look like a glitch. But the pre-cogs must show these two as two separate murders. And they should give two sets of wooden balls.

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

Suggested correction: A ball is created when the precogs identifies the killer and victim. However they get their visions randomly and seperately, Agatha being the most powerful one but they have to work together to identify a victim and killer. They put visions together and eventually balls with names will appear. The pre-crime team, led by Anderton, then pieces the visions together to find the location and then go after it, that's all they do, technicians are the ones that bring the visions together for processing by the pre-crime team. The visions they got were seen as "echos" and disregarded before the precogs were able to identify the killer. If they had it would put Burgess as the perpetrator. But since it looked exactly the same as the previous one they didn't allow the precogs go futher into the visions and not put them together. Agatha did have the vision of Burgess but Burgess removed those vision from the system.


But the previous "one" was not a murder so it should not justify a vision (it was only a staging). The real murder is committed by Burgess and it was premeditated, so a brown ball with Burgess' name should have popped out.

Even staged murders are put in visions, same with the one Burgess tried to set up Anderton with. If someone is killed, the precogs get visions, but they don't know the context (the biggest flaw with the system of course). The visions come before the balls and if the engineers think it is a echo they will discard those visions and prevent the precogs from identifying the victim and killer. If they had the time, indeed a brown ball would be formed. Remember that premeditated murders come much earlier to the precogs in vision than emotional ones, so that was the reason why those visions showed up so soon after the staged one, adding to the idea it was an echo, perfectly calculated by Burgess.


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)


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 occuring at all.

Brad Premium member

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.


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.


Continuity mistake: In the beginning, when Anderton arrests the jealous husband, he notes that he is being arrested on April 22 - that day - for the future murder of his wife and her lover. Later, while Anderton is jogging, we see billboards advocating a "Yes" vote on pre-crime on April 22. The next day, Anderton's boss Lamar notes that the vote is in a week, which would make it April 15, making the day that the jealous husband was arrested April 14, not April 22. (00:13:05 - 00:15:15)

More mistakes in Minority Report

Officer Fletcher: John, don't run.
John Anderton: You don't have to chase me.
Officer Fletcher: You don't have to run.
John Anderton: Everybody runs, Fletch.

More quotes from Minority Report

Trivia: Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed Tom Cruise in Magnolia, has a cameo on the train. It is reported that he is so hard to find that Anderson himself does not know where he appears.

More trivia for Minority Report

Question: Why all the build up of John having sent the Russian eye-surgeon guy to jail, suggesting that he will hurt John; only to have him successfully complete the operation, and take care of John afterwards?

Nick N.

Chosen answer: It's what's known as a McGuffin; a plot element that seems to be important when introduced, but serves no purpose other than to intrigue/distract the audience. The term was popularised by Alfred Hitchcock.

J I Cohen

That's not *quite* what a MacGuffin is. A MacGuffin not only seems important, it *is* important; in fact, one of its two diagnostic characteristics is that a MacGuffin is something around which the entire plot revolves. The other property fundamental to what makes something a MacGuffin is the fact that the origin, purpose, function, and, in some cases, even identity of the object is left either vague or completely undefined. The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is a classic example (although there *is* a compelling argument that the object in the briefcase is in fact a specific artifact).

Well, according to the doctor when the operation is beginning, the doctor reveals that in prison, he spent all of his time in the library, including books on medicine and technology. As a result, he found his "true calling", and is thankful to John for helping him see that.

More questions & answers from Minority Report

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.