Minority Report : Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
You only get balls "after" the murder is confirmed. If it's written-off as an echo then no murder is confirmed and no balls.
The only possible plot-hole in the film is the fact that Burgess clearly thinks about premeditated murder LONG before the guy he hires to do it (hence hiring him after thinking about it) yet the precogs see the hired guys murder BEFORE they see the one committed by Burgess (which is convenient to say the least).
The only possible plot-hole in the film is the fact that Burgess clearly thinks about premeditated murder LONG before the guy he hires to do it (hence hiring him after thinking about it) yet the precogs see the hired guys murder BEFORE they see the one committed by Burgess (which is convenient to say the least).
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Not so sure about that. Echoes are written off after the murder has already taken place (or was supposed to take place), which is well after the murder was confirmed.
Depending on what determines how long the balls are generated before the murder, Burgess brown ball probably should have come first (unless it's determined by the time of the murder and not the time spend premeditating).
Depending on what determines how long the balls are generated before the murder, Burgess brown ball probably should have come first (unless it's determined by the time of the murder and not the time spend premeditating).
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
As long as Pre-Crime cops haven't caught John Doe and stopped him from killing Anne Lively at the designated time, there would be no reason why a prediction of Burgess killing Anne Lively should pop up.
Not so sure about that. Echoes are written off after the murder has already taken place (or was supposed to take place), which is well after the murder was confirmed.
Depending on what determines how long the balls are generated before the murder, Burgess brown ball probably should have come first (unless it's determined by the time of the murder and not the time spend premeditating).
If John Doe manages to kill Anne Lively as predicted, then Burgess doesn't need to commit the crime; and hence a prediction of Burgess committing the crime would make no sense.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
The prevision system is designed primarily to show what happens if Pre-Crime doesn't intervene and stop the murder in time. In other words, if Pre-Crime failed to respond to the prevision alert correctly and successfully, then John Doe would indeed have killed Anne Lively. The "Burgess kills Anne Lively" potential only becomes actual/reality after the first threat (from John Doe) had been averted. Hence why it makes sense that the first prevision alert shows John Doe (and not Lamar Burgess) committing the crime.
The only possible plot-hole in the film is the fact that Burgess clearly thinks about premeditated murder LONG before the guy he hires to do it (hence hiring him after thinking about it) yet the precogs see the hired guys murder BEFORE they see the one committed by Burgess (which is convenient to say the least).
However, Agatha's datastream did show Lamar Burgess committing the crime (because she was more gifted than the other precogs); that was her minority report.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
"The pre-cogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do."
Burgess was the FIRST person who thought of killing Anne. In order to do it, he needed to hire the drifter to attempt it first but the fact remains, Burgess resolved to murder Anne BEFORE the drifter did. His WILL DO came before the drifters WILL DO.
Pre-cogs should have seen Burgess first.
Burgess was the FIRST person who thought of killing Anne. In order to do it, he needed to hire the drifter to attempt it first but the fact remains, Burgess resolved to murder Anne BEFORE the drifter did. His WILL DO came before the drifters WILL DO.
Pre-cogs should have seen Burgess first.
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
I've said it in other threads before: that quote was merely what Anderton said from his (limited and spoon-fed) understanding of the Pre-cog system, but it's not necessarily true. Anderton was merely quoting the Pre-Crime marketing babble because at that point he believed the system was perfect. Anderton was pushing his belief system onto a potential skeptic (Witwer). Anderton doesn't want to consider any slight notion of the possibility that he has put innocent people in jail for life.
"The pre-cogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do."
"Thought of killing Anne" and "resolved to murder Anne" refers to intent. Fact is, if Pre-Crime hadn't been competent enough and had arrived late on the crime scene (as they did when trying to prevent the Leo Crow murder, and the final "Burgess vs. Anderton" confrontation") then John Doe would have killed Anne Lively.
Burgess was the FIRST person who thought of killing Anne. In order to do it, he needed to hire the drifter to attempt it first but the fact remains, Burgess resolved to murder Anne BEFORE the drifter did. His WILL DO came before the drifters WILL DO.
Whether Burgess was the first person with the thought to kill or not, is irrelevant.
This is nonsense, it could never work logically; your scenario would result in a plothole. Burgess can't kill Anne Lively after John Doe succeeded in killing her. That's why the Pre-crime cops had to apprehend John Doe first. That's why the "John Doe kills Anne Lively" prevision would come in first. (Except that Agatha was smarter than that and hence already figured the Pre-Crime intervention into her prediction; hence a deviating minority report.) A unanimous prevision that warns that Burgess "will do" kill Anne Lively can only occur after the threat from John Doe has been successfully averted.
His WILL DO came before the drifters WILL DO.
Pre-cogs should have seen Burgess first.
Burgess would only proceed to kill Anne Lively if (1) John Doe hadn't killed her yet, and if (2) Doe had been arrested by Pre-Crime on that spot at that time (because Pre-Crime had to believe they caught the real would-be killer, and stop their search). Burgess might have "will do" intentions, but fact is he couldn't & wouldn't kill Lively if those two conditions hadn't been met. That's why Burgess' "will do" intentions at that moment were nothing more but intentions.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Whether Burgess was the first person with the thought to kill or not, is irrelevant
Nope. The whole point of the system is to stop the murder you WILL commit. Premeditated murder. The issue is with timescale for seeing the future. The film fudges this by focusing on crimes of passion which are last minute. Premeditated murders (which we don't actually see in the film) do not have the same problem. Depending on the time frame, the pre-cogs should see everyone involved in such a premeditated murder.
This is nonsense, it could never work logically; your scenario would result in a plothole. Burgess can't kill Anne Lively after John Doe succeeded in killing her. That's why the Pre-crime cops had to apprehend John Doe first. That's why the "John Doe kills Anne Lively" prevision would come in first. (Except that Agatha was smarter than that and hence already figured the Pre-Crime intervention into her prediction; hence a deviating minority report.) A unanimous prevision that warns that Burgess "will do" kill Anne Lively can only occur after the threat from John Doe has been successfully averted.
Unless the arrest of Burgess occurs before he hires the drifter.
Burgess would only proceed to kill Anne Lively if (1) John Doe hadn't killed her yet, and if (2) Doe had been arrested by Pre-Crime on that spot at that time (because Pre-Crime had to believe they caught the real would-be killer, and stop their search). Burgess might have "will do" intentions, but fact is he couldn't & wouldn't kill Lively if those two conditions hadn't been met. That's why Burgess' "will do" intentions at that moment were nothing more but intentions.
Again, arresting Burgess first (before he hires the drifter) stops his murder and the drifters murder from taking place.
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
No, the pre-crime system was designed to only focus on the perpetrator and the victim. Catch the perpetrator and you automatically foil the plans of any masterminds who might be behind the murder plot. Pre-Crime didn't care about catching all conspirators; the only thing that mattered was to bring the murder rate down. Because that's what scores points with the populace. Achieve the highest gain with the lowest cost. That's what the people in charge would call "efficiency" (and skeptics might call it: "laziness" or "complacency").
Nope. The whole point of the system is to stop the murder you WILL commit. Premeditated murder. The issue is with timescale for seeing the future. The film fudges this by focusing on crimes of passion which are last minute. Premeditated murders (which we don't actually see in the film) do not have the same problem. Depending on the time frame, the pre-cogs should see everyone involved in such a premeditated murder.
The whole point of the movie was to show that a Pre-Crime-like system is flawed and that human beings always have a choice. Even in a world in which Pre-Crime exists, we should remember that nothing is pre-determined, everyone has free-will. In the case of Burgess/Anne Lively, that means there were inherent links in the chain of Burgess' plan that could "fail" such that it would not lead to Burgess killing Anne Lively. Those links are:
Unless the arrest of Burgess occurs before he hires the drifter.
- The drifter: he may exert his free will and decline, even in the last minute, to go through with Burgess' plan. Or he might exert his free will and deviate from the plan and manage to kill Lively by using other means than as instructed by Burgess.
- The Pre-Crime cops: they might lack enough determination to exert their free will to do their best, and as a result fail to catch the drifter in time. Or they might exert free will and, for example, move Anne Lively away from the crime scene immediately after having caught the drifter.
The presence of those links constitute "BIG IF"s in the chain of Burgess' plan and mean that the future is still very much open and that there's no irreversible guarantee (at the time before hiring the drifter) that Burgess WILL be faced with the opportunity (or necessity) to kill Anne Lively by himself; all the necessary conditions are simply not in place yet. Hence it would make no logical sense for the pre-cogs to issue a pre-vision that unanimously predicts that Burgess WOULD kill Anne Lively.
It would be like a prevision predicting that a father would murder the killer of his son, even before the son had been born/conceived: it doesn't logically work, there are simply still too many "IF's" that make the prediction unreliable and unwarranted. Precogs don't issue unwarranted alerts.
Or compare the prevision to Witwer's hand that catches the wooden ball rolling towards the end of the whiteboard gutter: Witwer would have no reason to bring his hand in place before Anderton had actually tossed the ball and sent it rolling.
Sure, why not arrest the whole world right now, before anything takes place?
Again, arresting Burgess first (before he hires the drifter) stops his murder and the drifters murder from taking place.
Burgess understands the workings of the Pre-Crime system and knows that this is not how the system works. The precogs were not going to issue a unanimous "Lamar Burgess kills Anne Lively" alert until all the conditions for the opportunity as well as for the necessity for that murder had been met.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
No, the pre-crime system was designed to only focus on the perpetrator and the victim. Catch the perpetrator and you automatically foil the plans of any masterminds who might be behind the murder plot. Pre-Crime didn't care about catching all conspirators; the only thing that mattered was to bring the murder rate down. Because that's what scores points with the populace. Achieve the highest gain with the lowest cost. That's what the people in charge would call "efficiency" (and skeptics might call it: "laziness" or "complacency").
The four day window scuppers that. As I said, the film fudges "crime of passion and premeditated." It conflates the two and hopes you don't notice.
John Doe should have been arrested at home four days before he committed the crime IF it was truly premeditated.
So Burgess trying to kill Amme in the woods would instantly become a new reality. One which the pre-cogs would see.
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Huh? What does that have to do with the part of my post that you quoted? What "four day window" are you talking about? And how does the "four day window scupper" that the pre-crime system was designed to focus only on the perpetrator and victim?
The four day window scuppers that. As I said, the film fudges "crime of passion and premeditated." It conflates the two and hopes you don't notice.
I won't even ask how the movie conflates "crime of passion and premeditated". Let's address the simple issues first.
Huh? How? It's specifically said that they couldn't identify John Doe, not before they caught him and not after they caught him; that's why they named him "John Doe" (which, in the English language, is a placeholder name for any person whose name/identity you don't know; such as Mr. Smith or Mr. X; the female equivalent is "Jane Doe"). So how could Pre-Crime have ever found him and arrested him four days before the moment of the crime?
John Doe should have been arrested at home four days before he committed the crime IF it was truly premeditated.
What do you mean, "IF it was truly premeditated". You think John Doe was attacking Anne Lively as a result of an innocent quarrel that escalated?
It was explicitly shown in the movie that Pre-Crime caught John Doe at the moment of the crime, and not before. You may not like it, but that was the reality in the movie. Furthermore, it was explicitly said in the movie that the Pre-Crime technicians were instructed to immediately discard any incoming prevision datastreams that were regarded as "echoes" (i.e. repetitions of earlier previsions; they also called it a "deja vu", which is French for "already seen").
So Burgess trying to kill Amme in the woods would instantly become a new reality. One which the pre-cogs would see.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Huh? What does that have to do with the part of my post that you quoted? What "four day window" are you talking about? And how does the "four day window scupper" that the pre-crime system was designed to focus only on the perpetrator and victim?
I'm talking about the four day window that's in the film. You might try watching it sometime.
Huh? How? It's specifically said that they couldn't identify John Doe, not before they caught him and not after they caught him; that's why they named him "John Doe" (which, in the English language, is a placeholder name for any person whose name/identity you don't know; such as Mr. Smith or Mr. X; the female equivalent is "Jane Doe"). So how could Pre-Crime have ever found him and arrested him four days before the moment of the crime?
Well thanks for clearing the John Doe thing up. Idiot. So you can't identify a man but you can identify the lakeside forest where he commits murder and turn up just in time? Oh and you can also apparently recruit someone with no identity to commit murder (so not that hard to find after all).
What do you mean, "IF it was truly premeditated". You think John Doe was attacking Anne Lively as a result of an innocent quarrel that escalated?
It's a rhetorical question (look it up). It clearly was premeditated BUT that is contradicted by the last minute arrest. Convenient.
It was explicitly shown in the movie that Pre-Crime caught John Doe at the moment of the crime, and not before.
Which is exactly what they do with crimes of passion. It is not what they need to do with premeditated murder. The film says otherwise because it's flawed and doesn't stick to its own rules. There is no reason for it to be last minute. You've got four days to investigate because you know the actual events do not involve your presence (the precogs see no arrest) so making the arrest immediately makes no difference.
Hiding behind John Doe's supposed lack of identity doesn't work. Not when you're dealing with magical future-seeing pixies who can provide you with information that happens to be convenient to the plot. Oh look, I saw John Doe go into a butchers on main street. Let's go and arrest him.
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Yeah, I think what Yurenchu was asking was what four day window in the film? Please explain this phantom window.
I'm talking about the four day window that's in the film.
It's a bit sketchy how someone can be unidentified, but the fact of the matter is, he was. Why must every minor detail be explained in the film? The point is, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to find a homeless drug addict with no abode than to identify him using the pre-crime system in the short time frame that they had.
So you can't identify a man but you can identify the lakeside forest where he commits murder and turn up just in time? Oh and you can also apparently recruit someone with no identity to commit murder (so not that hard to find after all).
And this is where your stupidity manifests itself for all to see. I've read through you post, and you don't even ask a question! How can it, therefore, be a rhetorical question? That's rhetorical by the way
It's a rhetorical question (look it up).
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Yeah, I think what Yurenchu was asking was what four day window in the film? Please explain this phantom window.
Perhaps try watching the film, cretin.
Fletcher: Filtered, the precogs can see outward up to four days with a sensory range of 200 miles.
Witwer: So if you wanna kill someone, you take him to Miami.
Fletcher: Not after the vote next week. Once the Amendment passes, we go national, there's gonna be nowhere to hide
And this is where your stupidity manifests itself for all to see. I've read through you post, and you don't even ask a question! How can it, therefore, be a rhetorical question? That's rhetorical by the way
You didn't pay attention to the film and you clearly didn't pay attention in school. Google is your friend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
You dumb fvck
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Alright, I'll clarify: Fletcher says that the precogs can see outward (= into the future) up to four days; however, it's clear from the movie that the murder pre-visions occur (mostly) involuntarily, and there's no guarantee that every pre-vision of premeditated murder will occur four days in advance. The movie never explains in detail what the "game rules" are that say how long before the actual murder the pre-visions will appear.
Yeah, I think what Yurenchu was asking was what four day window in the film? Please explain this phantom window.
Perhaps try watching the film, cretin.
Fletcher: Filtered, the precogs can see outward up to four days with a sensory range of 200 miles.
Witwer: So if you wanna kill someone, you take him to Miami.
Fletcher: Not after the vote next week. Once the Amendment passes, we go national, there's gonna be nowhere to hide
There's no rule that says that premeditated murders are always previsioned four days in advance. What Fletcher says merely means that so-far, the pre-cogs haven't predicted a murder five days (or longer) in advance. Also note that Fletcher's line has no bearing whatsoever on any difference between premeditated murders and crimes of passion.
So again, I'll ask you the questions that you conveniently ignored:
- What does [the "four day window"] have to do with the part of my post that you quoted?
- And how does the "four day window scupper" that the pre-crime system was designed to focus only on the perpetrator and victim?
(See:
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
Idiot. The film is flawed. All films that play with time travel type issues are flawed. The whole film talks about premeditated murder BUT never actually shows one (because this will bring their flaws home to roost). Instead, they pretend that premeditated murder no longer exists (who would be stupid enough to do it under the new system) so the whole film then focuses purely on "crimes of passion." Last minute decisions to commit murder.
They have attempted to distract the dumber viewers (that's you) from noticing that they're contradicting themselves. The pre-cogs see what you will do. There is a four day window to see that "premeditated" murder.
The only way that the four day view isn't in play is if it's a crime of passion because premeditated murders CANNOT happen under this system (hence they have gone away).
Burgess plans to kill Ann. He plans to hire a drifter to do it. Once the drifter is hired, he (the drifter) is also committing a premeditated murder. The pre-cogs must see this four days prior to ANY murder attempt BECAUSE it is premeditated!!!!
This means you either (best case scenario) arrest Burgess four days prior to the murder or (worst case scenario) arrest the drifter four days prior to the murder. Either way, they are both complicit in making a premeditated action come to pass. Such actions are seen FOUR DAYS before they happen by the pre-cogs.
The film manipulates you into thinking that all murders must be stopped at the last minute but this simply isn't true. It is only true for crimes of passion. It's a slight of hand attempt by the film makers to distract you from the fact that premeditated murder CANNOT happen. Even if Burgess succeeds with his echo plan, the drifter still gets arrested four days prior to his attempt. In doing so he is NEVER in the woods. Thus The Burgess echo CANNOT be an echo.
Flaw.
Suck it up.
This is a rhetorical statement.
You are an idiot.
They have attempted to distract the dumber viewers (that's you) from noticing that they're contradicting themselves. The pre-cogs see what you will do. There is a four day window to see that "premeditated" murder.
The only way that the four day view isn't in play is if it's a crime of passion because premeditated murders CANNOT happen under this system (hence they have gone away).
Burgess plans to kill Ann. He plans to hire a drifter to do it. Once the drifter is hired, he (the drifter) is also committing a premeditated murder. The pre-cogs must see this four days prior to ANY murder attempt BECAUSE it is premeditated!!!!
This means you either (best case scenario) arrest Burgess four days prior to the murder or (worst case scenario) arrest the drifter four days prior to the murder. Either way, they are both complicit in making a premeditated action come to pass. Such actions are seen FOUR DAYS before they happen by the pre-cogs.
The film manipulates you into thinking that all murders must be stopped at the last minute but this simply isn't true. It is only true for crimes of passion. It's a slight of hand attempt by the film makers to distract you from the fact that premeditated murder CANNOT happen. Even if Burgess succeeds with his echo plan, the drifter still gets arrested four days prior to his attempt. In doing so he is NEVER in the woods. Thus The Burgess echo CANNOT be an echo.
Flaw.
Suck it up.
IF it was truly premeditated
This is a rhetorical statement.
You are an idiot.
Re: Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Reply |
The movie never showed us two wooden balls in the Anne Lively case, let alone four.
But here's the problem, the visions aren't the only think Precrime works with, there's also two wooden balls, one with the name of the killer, and one with the name of the victim.
Why didn't anyone at Precrime think it was odd that they got four balls instead of two (two with the Anne Lively's name, one with John Doe's, and one with their Director's)?
It's possible that the Wooden Balls system didn't exist yet at the time that the Anne Lively case occurred. This was the early days of Pre-Crime, maybe they only worked with the visual cues from the datastreams (the pre-visions) back then. Maybe the Wooden Balls system was invented and added later.
However, even if the Wooden Balls system existed, the Anne Lively case would have resulted only in two wooden balls, not four. Because it was only one murder case: Anne Lively is drowned in a lake by a man in a mask. The only question is: will she be drowned by John Doe, or by Lamar Burgess? Arthur and Dashiell thought it would be John Doe, Agatha (being the more gifted precog) thought it would be Burgess. Hence Agatha's version of the prevision was a so-called minority report. So if there was a wooden "perpetrator" ball, it would have John Doe's name on it, not Burgess' name.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
Where was the Lamar Burgess brown ball?
Joe Doe is arrested, Anne is saved.
Then Burgess comes in and kills Anne. The pre-cogs see this, but Precrime writes the visions off as a echo and Burgess (for the time being) gets off scot-free.
But here's the problem, the visions aren't the only think Precrime works with, there's also two wooden balls, one with the name of the killer, and one with the name of the victim.
Why didn't anyone at Precrime think it was odd that they got four balls instead of two (two with the Anne Lively's name, one with John Doe's, and one with their Director's)?