Question: There's a quote that I don't understand: "The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." I immediately thought, "Yes, it does change the fact that it was going to happen." If Witwer hadn't put his hand there, it would have happened. However, he did, thus "changing the fact that it was going to happen," right? Isn't this the point of the whole movie: determinism is foolish and that different actions produce different consequences?
Question: OK, let's see: Lamar Burgess set Anderton up; he Hired Leo Crow and sent him to be killed in a hotel. But How did exactly Burgess plan the meeting of Anderton with Crow? Anderton arrived at the crime scene by a chain of events that began with the pre-vision of his destiny. It was clear that Lamar did not fake the pre-vision, because this became true just like it was predicted; besides, when Anderton was being chased, he arrived to crime scene by a coincidence; so what did Burguess have to do to make sure the existence of the pre-vision and this possible future? I don't see a simple solution.
Question: After the pre-cogs are unsuccessful in their search for Anderton at Rufus Riley's virtual-reality/fantasy club, they search the other parts of the shopping mall with much determination, and eventually get a glimpse of him, almost catching him afterward. How could they possibly have known that Anderton was still in the mall, or that he even went to the mall and the fantasy club in the first place? Sure, they were right, but isn't that just a little convenient/lucky? A possible plot hole, perhaps?
Question: In the movie there are two different types of eye-scanners. The cops and the spiders use a beam of light that has to scan a person's eye for 1-4 seconds to identify the person. Yet advertisements, stores, and the subway use eye-scanners that can identify a person in what seems like 1/16th of a second (similar to a camera). Does anyone know if both types of eye-scanners exist, and if so, why are they different?Matty Blast
Question: When Anderton, after his eye surgery, has his dream about the day he lost his son, look carefully at the people shown at poolside after Anderton discovers that his son is gone. For about a second, the camera follows a suspicious-looking man wearing a fairly wide-brimmed hat, and a towel around his shoulders. While we see this man, the video suddenly becomes "choppy," as though something significant were happening. The camera also zooms in toward his face. This all happens in about one second. Are we to assume that this is the man responsible for kidnapping Anderton's son?Matty Blast
Question: How did John get away from killing Crow? I know it was a set up and perhaps he didn't willingly pull the trigger, but still it's a homicide.
Question: There is a huge question for me. Is the vision of Leo Crow vs. Anderton the vision of what effectively happens (Leo Crow pushes the gun into the hand of Anderton who doesn't want to kill him) or the vision of the homicide WANTED by Anderton (that in the reality changes his idea)? My opinion is that the first answer is correct, because in the vision we see Crow that says to Anderton "Wait!" because he wants to be killed by him. So, if my opinion is correct, Anderton does NOT change the vision?Latios89
Question: I have three unrelated questions: 1. My comments are in parentheses. John Anderton: Why'd you catch that?Danny Witwer: Because it was going to fall. (No, it wasn't)John Anderton: You're certain?Danny Witwer: Yeah.John Anderton: But it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was *going* to happen. (Yes, it does, doesn't it?) That was my first question - I hope that you didn't mind the format. Also, don't hold back on the philosophy - I'm well-versed in it.2. Since Crowe didn't kill John's boy, who did? If we didn't find out, are there even any theories?3. This one's about the adulterers and the fact that they weren't arrested. Isn't it more likely that, in the future (esp. one like this, which, in my opinion, was at least semi-totalitarian) there would be more laws (specifically about adultery) rather than less, especially considering that even now there are some laws that apply to adultery?
Question: Why were the cheating wife and her lover not arrested for adultery? Last time I checked, that was a crime in the United States.
Question: When Anderton is viewing the images of the Leo Crow murder, he describes the building as "federal housing." But when he and Agatha get there, the guy at the desk says, "Rooms are $95 a night" (or whatever the price was). Is it federal housing, or is it a hotel? It can't be both, can it?Matty Blast
Question: What is the story behind the cop who seems to enjoy chasing Anderton? He talks to Fletch in the Hotel (the Spyder scene) about Fletch not trusting him alone with Anderton, because he might (according to my subtitles) 'futz' him. He also seems to take some delight when they arrest Anderton at the cottage near the end. I never understood this.