Leo Crow Murder Is Not A Plot Hole. - Minority Report (2002) Discussion

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

I don't think it was a plothole either, but I have to note the following points:

1. Lamar leaves some clues at Anderton's appartment that would have led Anderton to Leo Crow.

Lamar never left some clues at Anderton's apartment.

2. The above causes the precog to see the murder, as that is what would have happened.

In the Anderton/Crow case, the precogs didn't see what would have happened, they saw exactly what later *did* happen. The prevision showed Agatha being there in Crow's apartment with Anderton.

The timing would be the same, because Crow was told what time to go back to the appartment.

How could Lamar plan at which time Anderton would arrive at Leo Crow's home and tell Crow beforehand at what time to return to his apartment?

And how could Lamar foresee that the occurrence of the prevision would not mess with the time that Anderton would arrive at Crow's apartment? Lamar has no control over the time that the precogs would form a prevision.

Just a different series of events, that would lead to the same thing.

There is no trail or hint in the movie at all of a different series of events (regarding the Anderton/Crow case) than the one we see in the movie.

______
Signature: currently unavailable

reply

[–] keithmoonhangover 11 years ago

Lamar could have arranged for a hundred different ways of leaving clues or guiding Anderton to Crows appartment and the clues could also have led Anderton to Crow's apartment before Leo returned. He could have been waiting there for five hours, it wouldn't have mattered. He couldn't have done anything until Crow returned.

Regarding #2, you missed my point. The possible clues would have set that series of events in place, but not what Agatha saw, because Anderton didn't see any of the possible clues.

Obviously there is no trail that Lamar set up a different series of events, because that would spoil the big reveal and ruin the momentum of the film.

"If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fook."

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

Lamar could have arranged for a hundred different ways of leaving clues or guiding Anderton to Crows appartment and the clues could also have led Anderton to Crow's apartment before Leo returned. He could have been waiting there for five hours, it wouldn't have mattered. He couldn't have done anything until Crow returned.

He could have gone to the store to get rope, duct tape, some tools that could be used as torture utensils...

I agree that there are many different ways in which Lamar could have set Anderton onto Crow's trail (in an earlier thread, I myself proposed that Lamar had sent an anonymous e-mail message to Anderton, with just the words "You will kill Leo Crow" or "the man you're looking for is Leo Crow"; and nothing else), but I don't see how Lamar could have timed everything such that Anderton arrives at the apartment before Crow returns; which is what you are claiming. Even if the clue had stated "John Anderton will kill Leo Crow next Tuesday at 8 o'clock P.M." (I'm just making up the day and time; I don't know what the actual date and time in the movie were), there's no guarantee that the precogs will form a prevision 36 hours before that moment, to give Anderton just enough time to decipher all the necessary clues in a hurry and make it in time at the apartment. What if the precogs had formed the prevision only three or so hours in advance (like in the Howard Marks case)? Anderton would have found the e-mail but would not be in a hurry as he wouldn't take it seriously (he doesn't know Leo Crow and he has more important work to do), and Tuesday at 17:00h he would suddenly jump into emergency mode by the precogs'alert, but it wouldn't be enough to figure out where Crow lives. So Anderton wouldn't arrive in time at the location, there would be no killing, which means there would have been no reason for a prevision; and certainly no prevision with Agatha in it.

On the other hand, if Lamar had littered Anderton's apartment/environment with many clues such that Anderton would certainly find them, and the prevision would indeed come soon enough to trigger Anderton's attention and allow him enough time to figure it all out, then why didn't the prevision simply picture that series of events: Anderton finds Lamar's clues, figures out on his own where Crow is staying, and arrives at Crow's apartment alone, without Agatha? You see now why I think your scenario doesn't explain everything?

Also, if Anderton had arrived at Crow's apartment much earlier than Crow, and had been waiting for several hours for Crow to arrive, then Anderton might have had enough time to have a change of mind (since he would have been pondering what he would exactly do with Crow), his anger might have settled, he might be thinking more clearly instead of acting on impulses, and he might have decided to not kill Crow right away; but rather tie him up, torture him and interrogate him instead (also on behalf of Crow's "other victims"). And then Crow would have spilled the beans to Anderton, and Anderton would have known that he has been set-up -- *without* Crow having the opportunity to fire the gun on himself! And then there would be no kill, and the prevision wouldn't have occurred (even though Anderton might have followed up on the clues that Lamar had left at his apartment or whereever). In other words, there was a big chance that Lamar Burgess' plan would have resulted in the arrest of only Lamar Burgess. So why did Lamar think it was a good plan?

By the way, if Lamar had planted many clues in Anderton's environment, then Anderton might have been searching for the mysterious source of the clues (i.e. Lamar) instead of the whereabouts of Leo Crow; and Anderton might then have found out that he was set up, instead of killing Leo Crow; and so again Lamar's plan would simply not have been enough reason for a prevision. Lamar's plan to have Anderton kill Crow could only have worked if it did result in a prevision, which Lamar couldn't control because it's not Lamar who can predict the future.

Regarding #2, you missed my point. The possible clues would have set that series of events in place, but not what Agatha saw, because Anderton didn't see any of the possible clues.

I didn't miss your point. That explanation still doesn't explain why Agatha saw herself in the prevision, and why the actual events didn't unfold in the way that Lamar had initially set it up.

Obviously there is no trail that Lamar set up a different series of events, because that would spoil the big reveal and ruin the momentum of the film.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of movies with a twist or reveal in the end, but which also contain many clues that lead up to that twist but that are only noticed when the viewer watches the movie a second time, or in retrospect (if the viewer has a good memory). Moreover, the filmmakers could have made the precogs' prevision of Anderton killing Crow slightly different, in order to hint at a different series of events (as they did with the Anne Lively case); but they didn't.

EDIT: By the way, here is the earlier thread that I was referring to (my post is the last one in the thread):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/nest/182137484?p=1

And here is another interesting thread that discusses how Lamar could (or could not) have set Anderton up:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/thread/163189641

______
Signature: currently unavailable

reply

[–] JohnL11 11 years ago

The real plot hole I see is that Anderton wouldn't have gone after Crowe in the first place if he hadn't seen that the murder in the prevision. The knowledge of Crowe's name is originated by the precogs (unless Lamar hacked the procogs, which would turn the entire film into a giant deus ex machina).

reply

[–] karlhinze 11 years ago

That is exactly the point, JohnLigtenberg. Too many people try to go to extremes and come up with complex theories to disprove that. But it really is that simple.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] darkzero 10 years ago

The real plot hole I see is that Anderton wouldn't have gone after Crowe in the first place if he hadn't seen that the murder in the prevision.

That's not a plot hole. That's a paradox.

Originality needs a reboot.

reply

[–] karlhinze 10 years ago

And why can't it be both?

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] darkzero 10 years ago

Because a paradox, by its very definition, can't be explained through simple intuitive logic.

A paradox is a staple of many sci-fi stories, especially those involving time travel. When dealing with dynamics involving the alteration of past/future events, just because something can't readily be explained in an intuitive or linear sense doesn't make it a plot hole.

Originality needs a reboot.

reply

[–] karlhinze 10 years ago

A plot hole, by its very definition, creates a paradox.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] WorldSacred 11 years ago

I have just finished re-watching the movie, and it states clearly that the reason why Anderton was lead to the murder scene was because he found out about Anne Lively. This was when Anderton was performing a lucidity test (ie, waving his hand in front of Agatha) whilst he was in the pre-cog room. He is grabbed by Agatha and is beckoned to look up at the screen to see the Anne Lively murder. This sets in motion the chain of events that leads Anderton to investigate what will transpire. However, the pre-cogs interject what is going to happen by predicting what was going to happen. Plus having, coincidentally, Anderton to see an alternative future of himself murdering Leo Crow, means that he is coercing himself into investigating his own murder attempt. Thereby creating a new timeline. Ergo, the fact that he knew what was to happen, meant that he could change his future, even when he that brown ball seems obsolete in value. This leaves the viewer to speculate that Anderton does have a minority report, but is firstly erased by the tech because he considers it an echo. Then you could further speculate that since the alternative future that Anderton lived up towards didn't culminate into a murder (rather it was a suicide), that the red ball didn't eventuate. Therefore, the precogs didn't predict it. In the aftermath of the suicide, it was obviously different to the viewer, even compared to the fuzzy viewing of the precogs' initial murder prediction.

Of course, this all seems ridiculous when you find that the reason (and this was stated) that the set up of Anderton came about was because of the murder of Anne Lively. Lively, the woman who was the mother of Agatha, was murdered because she desired her Agatha back. Had Burgess simply let Anne live, instead of setting up this stupid elaborate and unnecessary loss of lives for about 4 or eventually 5 people (Anderton, Lively, John Doe, Witwer, and himself), he could have kept Agatha's whereabouts a secret. Thereby avoiding the electronic and commonsense detective investigation trail back to himself. Of course, Burgess' name doesn't get mentioned in a brown ball. Nor does there be any mention of John Doe's real name being mentioned in a brown or red ball in the Lively murder. And why wouldn't the precogs not recognise who John Doe really is, in spite of Doe having his eye's swapped? Anderton had his eyes swapped whilst he was on the run after being identified by the precogs. Does that mean that as long as the eye donor's identity is considered legally deceased (assuming that they were), then the precogs wouldn't be able to identify John Doe after he had been solicited to murder Lively?

Well, I would assume that Burgess had good reason to go after Lively. Anne might have received word that his daughter was being held as a slave in precrime headquarters. Especially if Agatha let it be known that she sensed her drug-free mother trying to get into contact with Agatha, by way of displaying her nostalgia on screen. Who knows if Wally might get too emotionally attached to Agatha, take pity on her, and then find Anne Lively somewhere in DC. The security at Precrime is atrocious, and Wally (for example) might let Anne in to the temple, which might result in a 'jailbreak', and the end of precrime as they know it. Heck, even Anderton wasted time, money, and risked the ability to see having his eyes swapped, when he could have kept using them without detection. Apparently, they only identify Anderton's location when he rides the metro system, and not the dozens of advertising billboards that beckoned to him using his full name. Anderton could have done it himself.

By the way, what were they going to do to make precrime go national? Crank up the juice on the precogs to recognise murders across the country and maybe a few across the borders?

reply

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

Keithmoonhangov...This is a big plothole since Lamar cant control time and space himself, so if we gonna look for realistic details this movie fails hard, cause Lamar could never have known that Anderton would even find the buildning Crowe was in...Anderton found that buildning by coincidence by spotting the big comercial billboard on the building across the street, the guy with the sunglasses billboard. That is one plot hole that Lamar could never foresee Anderton to find and he could never foresee that Anderton would find his kids picture among all of those pictures on the bed...that was a coincidence aswell...therefore a big plot hole in the movie.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] keithmoonhangover 9 years ago

Read the thread. Lamar doesn't need to control space and time.

If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck.

reply

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

keithmoonhangover...im not talking about Lamar leaving any clues in Andertons appartment cause that never happens, Im talking about the plot hole that Anderton finds Crowes appartment in the first place and Im talking about the plot hole that Anderton just happens to find his sons photo among all other photos, it wasnt even on top of all the other photos...this is the plot holes Im talking about.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] keithmoonhangover 9 years ago

The photo was planted there by Crow. Anderton finding it is'nt a plot hole. If you think that, then you don't know the meaning of plot hole.

If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck.

reply

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

omg keithmoonhangover...you either dont read what I write or you cant just think straight...cause what I mean with him finding the photo as a plot hole is the whole lame scene when he just happens to walk past the right building exactly the right time he suppose to according to the precog and then in the room finding his sons photo in the bottom of all the thousand photos on the bed...and then the whole plot can play out just like predicted...thats a plot hole...if it would be realistic he would have to take all of the photos and then sit down somewhere and check em all out to find his sons picture...but in this movie...he walks to the bed and just picks up his sons photo under the pile...like its just jumped in his hand...and thats a *beep* lame plot hole...the building and the photo. The whole damn plot if you like.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] keithmoonhangover 9 years ago

'A plot hole, or plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation.'

Finding the photo and being at that room are easily explained.

He sees pictures of lots of kids, his gut instinct is to look for his son. He looks, he sees it and picks it up.

That is not a plot hole.

If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck.

reply

[–] karlhinze 9 years ago

In fairness, your posts are difficult to read without giving up halfway through because there are no breaks in anything you write.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

he just happens to walk past the right building exactly the right time he suppose to according to the precog

Ummm, yeah, that's what pre-cogs like Agatha do: they are able to foresee when Anderton would walk past a certain building.

then in the room finding his sons photo in the bottom of all the thousand photos on the bed

You may find it lame that the movie didn't waste more time showing how Anderton examined each and every photo before he found the one with Sean; but that's still not a plothole.

and then the whole plot can play out just like predicted...thats a plot hole

It's a causal-loop paradox, which is an old narrative device that has been used since the ancient Greeks and possibly even before. It's not a plothole because the writers opted for it on purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

if it would be realistic he would have to take all of the photos and then sit down somewhere and check em all out to find his sons picture...but in this movie...he walks to the bed and just picks up his sons photo under the pile...like its just jumped in his hand...and thats a *beep* lame plot hole

You may find it lame, but that's not what a plot hole is. And like I already said, if they depicted it in the way that you want, then the scene would have lost the pace and tension/suspense of how Anderton realizes that he does want to kill Crow.

the building and the photo. The whole damn plot if you like.

So what is it then? The photo? Or the building and the photo? Or the whole plot? Oh, come on, make up your mind!

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0

reply

[–] karlhinze 9 years ago

It's a causal-loop paradox, which is an old narrative device that has been used since the ancient Greeks and possibly even before. It's not a plothole because the writers opted for it on purpose.

Well that's open to opinion, as we both know ;)

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

It's not inconsistent within itself. The precogs predicted that Anderton would be at Crow's apartment while a Revo sunglasses billboard is being hoisted up, and that he would have a reason to kill Crow; and lo and behold, Anderton does come across Crow's apartment building while a Revo billboard is being hoisted up, and he finds his son's photo so that he wants to kill Crow. If the pre-cogs predicted that that would happen, then it would be weird (and a plothole) if it wouldn't happen. So parishedByhisName's complaint (when he wrote "and then the whole plot can play out just like predicted...thats a plot hole") is illogical/flawed, if you ask me.

The question remains how Lamar Burgess could have planned all this (and that's the topic that the OP wanted to answer with this thread), and whether the actual events indeed followed the prevision or eventually deviated from it; but those are not the points that parishedByhisName was addressing.

______
== This sentence is true. ==

reply

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

Im talking about the plot hole that Anderton just happens to find his sons photo among all other photos, it wasnt even on top of all the other photos

If the movie had shown how Anderton had waited an hour before Leo Crowe returned to the apartment and how Anderton had eventually noticed Sean's photo after having looked at all the other photos one by one, then it would have taken the built up tension out of the scene.

Moreover, that's not what a plothole is.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0

reply

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

Yes that might be true yurenchu...but with the lame finding of the picture and the building I call the whole plot a plot hole...I dont mean its a sepearte thing, its the whole plot with the building and the photo that is a plot hole.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] karlhinze 11 years ago

In the Anderton/Crow case, the precogs didn't see what would have happened, they saw exactly what later *did* happen.

Except it didn't, did it? What later happened was that Anderton gave Crow his Miranda rights (which is a bit daft in itself, but that's another story) and then Crow pulled the gun towards himself and ended up pretty much committing suicide. All of this happened after the time had lapsed (which, again is a bit silly as the police had never been late before but, again, that's another story).

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

I didn't say that everything that did happen was also featured in the pre-vision. But from what I remember, everything that we see and hear in the prevision, also happened later for real, such as (from top of my head, and in random order):

- Anderton pointing gun at Crow
- gun fired
- Leo Crow flying out of the window while Anderton is holding the gun in his hand
- Anderton saying: "Goodbye Crow"
- Crow saying: "You're not going to kill me?"

There is also mention somewhere in the movie that events in the prevision are jumbled, they are not necessarily in correct order.

The time had lapsed: well, Anderton set the stopwatch himself, I'm not sure it was meant to be too accurate to the minute, he set it to 36 hours or so (without setting the minutes and seconds). I could be wrong though, I'll have to re-watch the movie to see how he synchronizes his stopwatch to the predicted time from the previsions (in the Leo Crow case as well as in the Howard Marks case).

Crow pulled the gun and essentially committed suicide: except the gun was still in Anderton's hand, and it was Anderton's finger that pulled the trigger, although not intentionally. Therefore, technically Anderton was still the perpetrator. It was a killing, but not a murder. Maybe that's also why it was not a red ball, because a red ball would indicate a "sudden, heat-of-the-moment, passionate" intent from the perpetrator (crime of passion), such as for example when a father unexpectedly meets with a criminal and kills him in a sudden rage over a long lost son. Leo Crow's death was premeditated because Crow was planning on being killed while Anderton had no intentions of killing (premeditated or otherwise) when the gun went off; hence a brown ball.

Miranda rights: in combination with the watch-alarm going off, it served to indicate to us viewers to which decision Anderton had made up his mind: he is not going to kill Crow. The threat that our noble hero is going to commit a severe crime, is off the table. Without the alarm going off and the Miranda rights, the viewer is left hanging if Anderton might still kill Crow, because there would be no indication that the moment (not only in time, but also the necessary mental condition of Anderton) had passed. Except surprise, surprise: the real moment hadn't yet passed: the prevision predicted Crow being killed because of Crow's intentions, not because of Anderton's intentions. (Unless I got the setting of the stopwatch wrong.)

Police arriving late: Anderton wasn't leading the Precrime arrest team anymore. The reason the Precrime team was in time to arrest Howard Marks, was because Anderton had the smarts and the drive to deduce in time which house he had to enter. Since the disappearance of his son, Anderton lived only for his work, he was more driven than anyone else at Precrime. Police was late at Crow's apartment, police was also late to intervene at Burgess' party when Burgess was threatening Anderton in the end. Police was also not able to catch Anderton at the eye doctor's apartment, because of apparent lax attitude of Fletcher and Knott ("Let's eat!"). In the case of Fletcher (Neal McDonough), it might be that there were also some loyalty issues, maybe Fletcher didn't really want to catch Anderton; maybe he thought Anderton had good reasons to do what he "did". In the case of Knott (Patrick Kilpatrick), it was definitely not loyalty and just lazy attitude, he was apparently enjoying the moment when they had finally cornered his former boss at Lara's (Anderton's ex-wife) house.

______
Signature: currently unavailable

reply

[–] karlhinze 11 years ago

Yurenchu, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

If you watch the film again, in particular the scene where Anderson first sees the pre-vision, we clearly see Anderton intentionally firing the gun at Crow with no assistance from Crow himself, which is different from the actual events.

To be honest, sometimes I think you are willing the film to work 100%, when it doesn't.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen the movie. If what you say is true and the prevision indeed shows Anderton intentionally and independently aiming and firing the gun at Crow, then it really does differ from the later actual events and I am mistaken. (However, that of course doesn't diminish the points that I was making to the OP.)

I'll pay special attention to the first scene of that prevision the next time I'll watch the movie. For the time being I'd still like to think that the filmmakers did incorporate those scenes with a logic that works 100%, even though I may not have discovered yet what that logic exactly is.

______
Signature: currently unavailable

reply

[–] Kunovega 10 years ago

Except she clearly tells him that now that he knows his future, he can change it.

How many times does she whisper you can choose at him?

That's kinda the point of the film and one of the reasons the precog program was shut down. It proved that all the precogs could do is show one possible future and it wasn't a sure thing.

They only had 3 precogs and they sometimes had to throw out minority reports. Now imagine taking that to 1000 precogs, how many additional alternate futures might get shown?

So the film actually does work once you understand that part of the point was to show that flaw in the system. He didn't have a minority report only because they still only had 3 precogs and yet he was still able to alter the future, even if only slightly. This is a huge flaw in the precog system (not a flaw in the movie) and is one of the reasons the program could not be scaled.

The precog system only looks like its working if you take a small sample size (of 3) and on top of that screen out some of the alternate futures (minority reports); Andersons ability to (slightly) alter the course of events proves that even without a minority report ~ it just meant that there weren't enough precogs to predict the other (now obvious) possibly alternate futures.

The flaw is in the precog program itself which is why it has to get shut down.

Realize this: if that flaw was not present in the system (and he wasn't able to change his future slightly) than they would probably have still expanded the precog program nationwide.

Side note: had it expanded nationwide they would likely have had to change the punishment system (another huge flaw is punishing people for things they were about to do); but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been used for crime prevention, it just shouldn't have been used for crime punishment.

Imagine for a moment using that technology only to stop potential murders, you show up, prevent it from happening and send everyone to counseling along with a few restraining orders where necessary. Murder rates would still be down and you prevent the backlash of sending people to prison who didn't even commit a crime (yet) ~ the problem beyond that however is the system was proven even more flawed: the future could be changed even if all 3 precogs didnt have a minority report because even that future was still only one possible future and not a full on fact which is what everyone had been led to believe up until that point.

reply

[–] nocakeforyou 11 years ago

It's not a plot hole, it's a paradox. You see, the precogs predicting the murder was the only reason he escaped, remained on the run, and then eventually ended up in the hotel room in the situation that would have made him kill Leo Crow.

reply

[–] arkast 11 years ago

Wasn't Crow's murder supposed to be premeditated?

reply

[–] t_oskay 11 years ago

It's a lame explanation. This wouldn't have been a plot hole if Lamar had planned also encounter of Leo and Joe, and this plan had been revealed to audience -for sake of enjoyment of the film- at the end.

Saying that just hiring Leo for this plan could led a such set of events is a contrived explanation.

I think who wants to see this film that way is attracted by the film and just doesn't want to see something negative about it.

To me it is an obvious plot hole.

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

It's a lame explanation. This wouldn't have been a plot hole if Lamar had planned also encounter of Leo and Joe, and this plan had been revealed to audience -for sake of enjoyment of the film- at the end.

- Who is Joe?

- Any detailed explanation for how Lamar would and could have set Anderton up that is tacked on to the end of the film would have only confused people and detracted from the themes and the real story of the movie. There is no simple way to bridge the paradox, it would have opened just a new can of worms. Besides, revealing plots by lengthy exposition at the end is annoying and lazy filmmaking. So if you ask me, "enjoyment of the film" (at least with the general audience) wouldn't have been served or improved if they had done that.

Saying that just hiring Leo for this plan could led a such set of events is a contrived explanation.

That's not what the OP said though. The OP offered as an explanation that Lamar had also littered Anderton's apartment with clues, which Anderton would eventually find and research.

______
Last heard: Sandi Thom - I Wish I Was A Punkrocker
http://y2u.be/vc2jDz6w-r4

reply

[–] t_oskay 11 years ago

I mean John.

The OP offered as an explanation that Lamar had also littered Anderton's apartment with clues, which Anderton would eventually find and research.

You mean Leo's apartment I guess. If it is, I don't find photos of Sean on the bed as an appropriate respond to my question. If you mean Anderton's apartment please be more spesific.

Let's see things through Lamar's point of view:

Lamar wants to trap John and hires Leo to act like the one who abducted Sean. And they leave fake photos of Sean on Leo's bed so that when John comes in he will lose control and kill Leo. But what leads John to do that is prevision of the crime. It is problematic:

It is indicated in film that precogs can see two types of crime, planned ones and sudden ones. The case of John and Leo is neither of them. It is planned but not by John and it should be out of precogs' capability. First it contradicts with the mechanism of precognition. Second, even though I ignore this, I should ask then how Lamar could be sure about that when he set things to trap John, precogs will see John's crime and this prevision will lead John to search this conspiracy and at the end meet Leo and kill him. So Lamar arranges this set up and waits but there are two probabilities: 1. Precogs see nothing and nothing triggers John to run. 2. Precogs see John's crime and this prevision leads John to run and search things. If Lamar want to get rid of John, he must make a detailed plan for this. A good plan here for Lamar's purpose must include the arrangement of John's encounter with Leo (Which doesn't have anything to do with photos of Sean on the bed). If it had been the case, it would have been more plausible (Indeed such an encounter would cause a sudden crime which cannot be seen too earlier. The story could have been written through that direction!)

Any detailed explanation for how Lamar would and could have set Anderton up that is tacked on to the end of the film would have only confused people and detracted from the themes and the real story of the movie. There is no simple way to bridge the paradox, it would have opened just a new can of worms. Besides, revealing plots by lengthy exposition at the end is annoying and lazy filmmaking. So if you ask me, "enjoyment of the film" (at least with the general audience) wouldn't have been served or improved if they had done that.

I don't think so. It could be done without any confusion and/or anoyying. Don't see what I say like an extra 15 minute part to film's present form.

And let me say lastly: I didn't hate this film. It would have been one of my TOP 10 movies if this plot hole had never existed.

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

No, the OP said and really meant John Anderton's apartment. Just read the thread; we've already gone through all of that.

And in its essence, it's a time travel/time loop paradox that we're dealing with here; no matter how much a movie explains, there will always be questions and inconsistencies (and the more the movie explains, the bigger the chance the writers will shoot themselves in the foot and blatantly contradict themselves).

______
Last heard: Sandi Thom - I Wish I Was A Punkrocker
http://y2u.be/vc2jDz6w-r4

reply

[–] t_oskay 11 years ago

no matter how much a movie explains, there will always be questions and inconsistencies

I don't mind it in general, but here it is a little different. Lamar's use of precognition mechanism to cover his crime and its revelation were very brilliant. I don't see much films in which science-fictional elements, such as time travel, in Minority Report precognition, used in an effective way to shape the story rather than just to create the environment the story takes place in. While we have a brilliant explanation for Lamar's use of precogniton to cover his crime, I expect to see same brillance in his trap to John.

I read many posts about it, it is still possible I miss something. But I'm not satisfied with the arguments.

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

I can see how you would expect a similarly clever and tight explanation of how Lamar traps John, as the clever and tight explanation of how Lamar covers his murder of Anne Lively. But a major difference is that his murder of Anne Lively didn't involve a paradoxical "causal loop", and hence a rational explanation was attainable. The set-up of John to kill Crow on the other hand does involve a paradoxical "causal loop", which means that it doesn't matter how much the scriptwriters will try to rationally explain Lamar's plan, there will always be an inconsistency or loop-hole somewhere. So rather than bothering the audience with technical exposition to merely "explain away" (i.e.: hide) the loop-hole (and risking contradicting themselves in the process), I think they did the wise thing and just glossed over it while focusing more on John's choices and the implications of Pre-crime.

Despite the fact that it gives problems when it comes to explaining how Lamar could have put his plan in motion, I think the paradoxical "causal loop" is a good and important (and necessary) element in this movie however, because it helps greatly in making its point about free will.

______
Last heard: Sandi Thom - I Wish I Was A Punkrocker
http://y2u.be/vc2jDz6w-r4

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] transmentalist 11 years ago

Agatha spelled it out for us in Crow's hotel room: "you can choose."

That was the difference (that I believe) the movie was trying to point out: pre-criminals were being summarily arrested without being informed of their pre-crimes. They were not given the opportunity to choose.

Had they been stopped, then informed of their pre-crimes, then given the opportunity to NOT commit murder, likely 100% of them would have chosen not to do it (since they'd get arrested immediately for even trying). They'd choose, just as Anderton chose, not to follow the pre-vision.

By the way, there's no question that Anderton's pre-crime murder of Crow did differ from Crow's actual death. That discrepancy is probably present for EVERY successful pre-crime arrest. The visions show the actual pre-murders, not the interrupted/prevented versions. Significantly, the police do not appear in any of the pre-visions (admittedly, we're only shown a couple of them).

So ... as was the case with the other pre-visions, Anderton's pre-vision is how the murder would've played out had Anderton himself not witnessed the pre-vision. Lamar's plan would've worked better had someone else witnessed the actual vision (though we'll never know how Lamar would've led Anderton to Crow). But Lamar's plan was clever enough that it'd work even if Anderton himself witnessed the pre-vision, as we saw in the film.

Last thing: someone asked why no brown ball appeared for Lamar's murder of Anne Lively. Murder-balls don't get generated for echoes.

Remember, there was a pre-vision for Anne Lively's (attempted) murder by Lamar's patsy (who then got arrested). And there was ALSO a separate a pre-vision (with the ripples going the other way) for Anne's actual murder by Lamar. The handler in the temple would erase Lamar's pre-vision as an echo, BEFORE the murder-ball gets carved.

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

By the way, there's no question that Anderton's pre-crime murder of Crow did differ from Crow's actual death. That discrepancy is probably present for EVERY successful pre-crime arrest. The visions show the actual pre-murders, not the interrupted/prevented versions.

I still haven't rewatched the scene, but from memory I recall that Leo Crow's line "You are not going to kill me?" (after Anderton has read him his Miranda rights) is uttered by one of the precogs when the prevision was formed at Pre-Crime. Moreover, this was *not* a successful Pre-Crime arrest.

So ... as was the case with the other pre-visions, Anderton's pre-vision is how the murder would've played out had Anderton himself not witnessed the pre-vision.

No, the prevision shows Agatha with Anderton in Crow's apartment, in other words the prevision predicted that Anderton would see the prevision and therefore kidnap Agatha on his quest.

Lamar's plan would've worked better had someone else witnessed the actual vision (though we'll never know how Lamar would've led Anderton to Crow). But Lamar's plan was clever enough that it'd work even if Anderton himself witnessed the pre-vision, as we saw in the film.

It's so clever that we don't even know how he did it without counting on mere luck.

Last thing: someone asked why no brown ball appeared for Lamar's murder of Anne Lively. Murder-balls don't get generated for echoes.

I don't see anyone asking about that in this thread though.

Remember, there was a pre-vision for Anne Lively's (attempted) murder by Lamar's patsy (who then got arrested). And there was ALSO a separate a pre-vision (with the ripples going the other way) for Anne's actual murder by Lamar.

That was not a separate prevision, that was the same minority report stream that Agatha had the first time around. See also this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/nest/210021469?d=210113505#2 10113505.

______
Last heard: Sandi Thom - I Wish I Was A Punkrocker
http://y2u.be/vc2jDz6w-r4

reply

[–] karlhinze 11 years ago

So ... as was the case with the other pre-visions, Anderton's pre-vision is how the murder would've played out had Anderton himself not witnessed the pre-vision.

No, the prevision shows Agatha with Anderton in Crow's apartment, in other words the prevision predicted that Anderton would see the prevision and therefore kidnap Agatha on his quest.

Which is EXACTLY where the plot hole lies. I don't think either of you are wrong, however I don't think either of you are exactly right, either.

Had Anderton not seen the pre-vision I think it's fair to assume that Agetha would not have been there. But at the same time, it is suggested that the pre-vision shows what would have happened had Anderton not seen it. After all, the events were different.

P.S. Yurenchu, you keep saying you've not seen it for a while, so it might help if you did! :)

Edit: If Anderton had not seen the pre-vision, I think it's fair to say he'd have been arrested long before he met Crow, but I'm probably digressing somewhat!

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] transmentalist 11 years ago

If Anderton had not seen the prevision, Lamar almost certainly would've had some other means in place to lead Anderton to Crow. After planning Anne Lively's murder with such care, why wouldn't he put just as much effort into keeping Anne Lively's murder a secret?

So if, say, Jad had witnessed the prevision, Agatha would not have been present in Crow's room. The Revo billboard probably wouldn't have been there either (since there's no reason to assume the murder would've occurred at the same, exact moment).

What we see in the movie is the prevision that, itself, presumes Anderton witnesses the prevision. I mistakenly assumed it'd be the same prevision had he NOT witnessed it, but that doesn't really work.

Since Anderton DID witness the prevision, a chain of events was set into motion that included Agatha being present for the murder. That chain of events includes everything Anderton does from the moment he starts running until his watch alarm goes off.

And it was a murder in the prevision; the same words may have been said, but they were definitely said differently: "Goodbye, Crow [BLAM]," with Anderton's gun held out at arm's length. The prevision clearly showed Anderton committing premeditated murder (premeditated, once he'd seen his son's photo amidst the "orgy of evidence").

Reality only strayed from the prevision after Anderton's watch alarm went off, and he CHOSE not to murder Crow. Until that moment, even Anderton believed Crow's murder was inevitable. So yeah, he said, "goodbye, Crow," again, but not with the gun at arm's length, and certainly not before shooting Crow at a distance.

Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make. Anderton's crime may not have been interrupted by the police, but it WAS affected by Anderton's having witnessed the prevision. That introduced his ability to choose the outcome, choose not to murder. And by extension, he proved that any or all of the other precriminals could also have chosen not to murder.

reply

[–] liquid_snake0074 11 years ago

I agree with talat-oskay 100%. I liked the movie and everything showcases and how ahead of its time it was, depicting the disgusting and massive militarization and comic-book level police state we now live in and all the hoaxes to give it the pretexts it needs. Had just the right mix of humor, action, drama, and a good level of comic-book hues to it. It all worked nicely.

However, you guys trying to justify this as paradoxes or other types of 'isms' is just silly. Honestly, calling it a paradox is just semantics. Its a plot hole guys, and its a blatant one, sadly, which is quite shocking considering who directed and wrote the short story. Someone summed it up here earlier with what im about to say. In short, there needs to be a MURDER TAKING PLACE. The person doing the murder has to CONSPIRE that murder, whether a flash-murder or premeditated. Sorry, guys, but John Anderton didnt do any of this leading up the prevision, which then causes the movie to go off its own rails and break its own rules. So yea, its a Deux Ex Machina, sadly. Its really just that simple.

Also, forget Ann Lively, it has NOTHING to do with the whole prevision and the Crow narrative. I mean, yea, it was done because John found out about her, sure, but it has zero to do with the prevision of John, working his way to Crow and being framed by Lamar. People are conflating the two either through trying to find something plausible or just through confusing themselves more.

What they should have done, was just find a simple and easy plot device of having John pushed into murdering Leo, but ACTUALLY THINKING OF IT ON HIS OWN, premeditated, and truly wanting to kill him, via whatever methods mentioned here already, ie, Lamar spreading clues, saying he found the guy who did it and telling him where he lives, hacking a fake data stream by the Pre-Cogs (this is even alluded to when John himself thinks he was set up) or perhaps even being taunted by the killer himself. Whatever they could have come up to lend this area proper validity, but as it stands, none of it makes any sense according to the movie's own rules, since the prevision came BEFORE John ever even contemplated such a thing. His son died, he moved on, and was fighting against these very kind of crimes, and wasnt thinking about murdering anyone.

And if you really wanna go out on a limb, and though the movie didnt touch on this, if anyone should have had a red ball roll down early on, it should have been Lamar, due to him CONSPIRING to murder, which as we know, warrants the same punishment in our 'justice' system today. Conspiracy is just as wicked and evil, but the movie doesnt touch on whether or not that is something the pre-cogs can filter or detect.

They did a GREAT job with the whole Ann Lively case however, and how Farrell's character figured it out, why it was done, and the whole double-switch/erase the data angle. Worked out fine, but the whole John/Leo thing was just hastily thought out.

Which, leads to another issue. Would not have the cogs issued another red/brown ball back at the station just after the patsy tried killing Lively? Lol...i mean, it WAS another murder about to take place, whether 5 minutes after or 5 weeks. Of course, the only way to write that off, would be to assume Lamar, being as high level as he was, had his own goons 'shut off' the cogs right at this time...oh but wait, that didnt happen, because Agatha recorded it lmao...so umm...hmm, wheres the balls dropping then? Surely, someone would have been manning the station too two more balls drop, this time with Lamar as the perp, especially the guy in the pool who was always tending to the cogs. Uhhgg lol...honestly, there are just some minor issues here too.

Also, as for the 'you can choose', alternate future variables, etc, yes, thats all fine and good and that moral makes itself prevalent throughout the movie, however, again...it doesnt negate the fact this huge hole exists. Fact is, he didnt premeditate a murder, and there is simply no way in hell Lamar could have timed everything to work out just perfectly if he 'hacked the cogs' (which never took place whatsoever, so that is instantly out of the equation).

I disagree too with the reason behind the writers not divulging any of Lamar's 'clues' to John to push him in the right directions (ya know, the ones they NEVER showed in the movie lol), with the excuse of it taking too long. Ever seen Lucky Number Slevin? That movie sure didnt have a problem with it.

reply

[–] yurenchu 11 years ago

I liked the movie and everything showcases and how ahead of its time it was, depicting the disgusting and massive militarization and comic-book level police state we now live in and all the hoaxes to give it the pretexts it needs. Had just the right mix of humor, action, drama, and a good level of comic-book hues to it. It all worked nicely.

To be honest, I didn't like the movie much at first, I found it too weird and I didn't get many of the subtleties after just one viewing. However, it grew on me after repeated viewings, and you are spot on on the style of the movie and the dystopia it depicts.

However, you guys trying to justify this as paradoxes or other types of 'isms' is just silly. Honestly, calling it a paradox is just semantics. Its a plot hole guys, and its a blatant one, sadly, which is quite shocking considering who directed and wrote the short story. Someone summed it up here earlier with what im about to say. In short, there needs to be a MURDER TAKING PLACE. The person doing the murder has to CONSPIRE that murder, whether a flash-murder or premeditated. Sorry, guys, but John Anderton didnt do any of this leading up the prevision, which then causes the movie to go off its own rails and break its own rules. So yea, its a Deux Ex Machina, sadly. Its really just that simple.

It's not just semantics. A plothole is something that has been overlooked by the writers, while the causal loop paradox is a classic storytelling device (often utilized in stories involving time travel, oracles etc.) that has been consciously opted for. Also, the term "deus ex machina" means something else and is completely out of place here (unless were talking about Anderton's (ex-)wife - but she's not the topic of this thread).

Also, forget Ann Lively, it has NOTHING to do with the whole prevision and the Crow narrative. I mean, yea, it was done because John found out about her, sure, but it has zero to do with the prevision of John, working his way to Crow and being framed by Lamar. People are conflating the two either through trying to find something plausible or just through confusing themselves more.

Not much to comment here. Well, obviously there is a connection, because as you already point out, (the potential revelation of) the Ann Lively case is the reason why Lamar Burgess decided to set up John Anderton. I'm not sure anyone in this thread is conflating the two cases though.

What they should have done, was just find a simple and easy plot device of having John pushed into murdering Leo, but ACTUALLY THINKING OF IT ON HIS OWN, premeditated, and truly wanting to kill him, via whatever methods mentioned here already, ie, Lamar spreading clues, saying he found the guy who did it and telling him where he lives, hacking a fake data stream by the Pre-Cogs (this is even alluded to when John himself thinks he was set up) or perhaps even being taunted by the killer himself. Whatever they could have come up to lend this area proper validity, but as it stands, none of it makes any sense according to the movie's own rules, since the prevision came BEFORE John ever even contemplated such a thing. His son died, he moved on, and was fighting against these very kind of crimes, and wasnt thinking about murdering anyone.

Your suggestion of how the story should have gone would have gone against the message of "free will vs. determinism" inside the head of the common man (= flawed and traumatized protagonist Anderton) that the current movie is conveying. In other words, it might have worked, and would have resulted in an easier to understand, enjoyable crime thriller movie, but it would have nixed its key theme. In order to deliver the message home, Anderton had to find himself as "victim of the situation" (rather than as the guy who pulls the strings at own conscious will). Otherwise, we would have "free will vs. free will" and it wouldn't have made sense why Anderton would change his mind at the last second.

And if you really wanna go out on a limb, and though the movie didnt touch on this, if anyone should have had a red ball roll down early on, it should have been Lamar, due to him CONSPIRING to murder, which as we know, warrants the same punishment in our 'justice' system today. Conspiracy is just as wicked and evil, but the movie doesnt touch on whether or not that is something the pre-cogs can filter or detect.

It's no biggie, but you got the colors of the balls mixed up. Red balls were the crimes of passion.

Lamar's name wouldn't have turned up on any wooden balls in the Anderton/Crow case because the balls indicate the perpetrator and Lamar is not the perpetrator. The "perpetrator" is the person at whose hands a crime is committed, in other words the person who does the dirty work, the guy who holds the murder weapon. There's no way Lamar can be pointed out as a "perpetrator" after he merely asked a guy to "sit duck" in a hotel (no matter the amount of conspiring). See also my posts in the threads I'm linking to below the next quote.

Moreover, it was pretty much explicitly stated in the movie that the precogs at PreCrime only predict murder; not other crimes (hence not conspiracy either).

Which, leads to another issue. Would not have the cogs issued another red/brown ball back at the station just after the patsy tried killing Lively? Lol...i mean, it WAS another murder about to take place, whether 5 minutes after or 5 weeks. Of course, the only way to write that off, would be to assume Lamar, being as high level as he was, had his own goons 'shut off' the cogs right at this time...oh but wait, that didnt happen, because Agatha recorded it lmao...so umm...hmm, wheres the balls dropping then? Surely, someone would have been manning the station too two more balls drop, this time with Lamar as the perp, especially the guy in the pool who was always tending to the cogs. Uhhgg lol...honestly, there are just some minor issues here too.

I've answered the same question in these threads:

- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/nest/210021469
- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/nest/211182452
- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/nest/208313685

Also, as for the 'you can choose', alternate future variables, etc, yes, thats all fine and good and that moral makes itself prevalent throughout the movie, however, again...it doesnt negate the fact this huge hole exists. Fact is, he didnt premeditate a murder, and there is simply no way in hell Lamar could have timed everything to work out just perfectly if he 'hacked the cogs' (which never took place whatsoever, so that is instantly out of the equation).

I'm inclined to agree, Anderton didn't premeditate a murder. Why it was a brown ball instead of a red ball, is one of the unresolved questions on this board (apart from the fact that it gave the protagonist (and the filmmakers) time to have him go through all the events that we see him go through). And of course, Lamar didn't hack any pre-cogs. What Lamar did do in order to set off his plan, we will never know.

In my opinion, the only theory that has been tossed around this board so far and that would work as a plausible explanation, is that the whole chain of events had been premeditated and set off by Agatha, in order to set the record straight regarding her mother's murder. She saw an opportunity when Witwer visited PreCrime and Anderton gave him a tour into the "core", and she grabbed it (literally, LOL). This explanation would in one swoop resolve (nearly) all questions regarding "plotholes", "who premeditated?", "why is Agatha in the previson?" etc. It also explains why the movie begins and ends with Agatha (she is in the very opening shot as well as in the very ending shot): this is Agatha's story, not Anderton's.

I disagree too with the reason behind the writers not divulging any of Lamar's 'clues' to John to push him in the right directions (ya know, the ones they NEVER showed in the movie lol), with the excuse of it taking too long. Ever seen Lucky Number Slevin? That movie sure didnt have a problem with it.

From what I remember, Lucky Number Slevin was a boring "crime with a twist" movie; nothing more, nothing less.

______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg

reply

[–] SloppyJ30 10 years ago

Look, I've always really liked this movie, but the whole plan to lead Anderton to Crow was just completely impossible, even by the movie's internal logic. I would say it's a 5-star classic but for that failing, a few other minor hiccups, and the cliche "bad guy accidentally blurts out information he shouldn't have known, giving himself away in the process" ending.

It all comes back to this: There was no murder/manslaughter set to happen in the future until Lamar Burgess set it in motion. The problem is, Burgess would've had to have been omniscient to have known that putting Crow in a hotel with a picture of Anderton's son would necessarily lead to Anderton murdering Crow. I mean, that's a stretch, isn't it? Try to go through his thought process . .

"Hmmm . . I need to kill this guy, but I can't KILL him, so I'll set it up that he's going to intentionally kill someone else. How to do this . . HEY! I've got it! I'll put some guy in a room across town, toss some pictures of kids on his bed, include one of Sean Anderton, and the rest will take care of itself! It's a virtual lock that John will make his way to Crow and try to murder him, and he'll get haloed! It's a perfect plan!"

That was a serious leap of faith. Hey, it's a movie, and I can still suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy Minority Report, but this undeniable plot hole has always bothered me. It's essentially a time-travel movie without the time-travel, meaning plot holes are unavoidable.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

reply

[–] EnfantCache 10 years ago

Didn't read all of the previously posted theories, so not sure if this has been mentioned, but the way I see it is that this could be a "layered" murder with the fist going along the lines of John getting an anonymous call from Crow instructed by Lamar to mention that he has info on Sean, and for John to meet him at the apartment at a set time. With the evidence and confession laid out John kills Crow, which sets of the first alarm. Trying to prevent the murder John sets the second and true murder into action, and visions of this is then mixed with the echo of the fist murder, and the two are seen as one.

reply

[–] karlhinze 10 years ago

The words 'clutching' and 'straws' come to mind.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] Tristan_Carter44 10 years ago

The precog guessed the murder, but it didn't happen how she saw it. It wasn't even a murder, it was a suicide. Right then, the idea of changing your future and having a minority report was proven. The only thing was, the cops were unaware of the mistake. Plothole? Meh, depends on how you look at it. There were many plotholes in the movie though, that wasn't the biggest one.

reply

[–] carbon-101 9 years ago

You are pretty thick!!!

reply

[–] TheAdvocator 8 years ago

It isn't a plot hole but it is a paradox. It's a throwback to the old crime noir stories. The woman comes to the detective looking for help solving a crime and she ends up setting him up. If the woman hadn't hired him then he'd never be set up. It's not perfect but it's an entertaining story none the less.

A good review of "Inside Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXC_205E3Og

reply