Minority Report : This is how Spielberg could have avoid the plot hole …

It seems like Lamar just sent a guy with some photographs in an apartment and he thought that John will kill him. Without premonition there would be no murder and without murder there would be no premonition, this is much more sillier than time travel paradox.
Here is something Spielberg should have tried, Lamar sends a person to kill Leo that way precogs will find out about the murder and John will be there for preventing the crime and sees the photographs and rest You all know. Just this simple modification and story will be flawless except for the smaller flaws which apparently anyone can remove just by seeing the movie one time unless you are Spielberg.

@msdeora22 Wouldn't the other cops also be there to prevent the crime, and therefore prevent Anderton from killing Crow?

As other cops might not know about the photographs, they would be just standing there and Anderton due to rage could act suddenly. This makes a lot more sense than the actual plot.

@msdeora22 That's a Red Ball, so they could still stop him before he even got there. But at least you fixed the problem of why Anderton would be visiting Crow in the first place.

Exactly my point, I rest my case.

You are correct - that would solve the plot hole.

But it would also change the film entirely - everything from the moment Anderton saw the pre-vision right up to the end would be different.

In that case, Spielberg could simply leave Crow out of the film and that would also solve it.

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

No, it won't change the movie, murder of Crow by Anderton will be seen by Anderton himself by premonition and he will run away to avoid arrest and find about crow. Same story-line.

---

murder of Crow by Anderton will be seen by Anderton himself by premonition

---

But that would not solve anything and the plot hole would remain because that's exactly what happened in the film - John seeing the pre-vision first was the issue!

What you said in an earlier post about Anderton acting in rage suddenly would suggest that a red ball would be created there and then, and not earlier on when the original murder of Crow was predicted. So Anderton would know nothing about killing Crow until right at the end - so yes, the entire film would have to change.

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

I didn't say, murder of crow could be red ball, I think it will be another one, because in actual plot too, Anderton didn't plan to kill Crow and suicide of Crow was sudden but we didn't see red ball, it was the other kind of ball. Same apply to my alternate story-line where despite of sudden killing of Crow, We won't see red ball, and rest of the story will be same.

I think the reason that in the actual movie it was a brown ball instead of a red ball is because Crow's murder was premeditated; because the future victim (= Crow) planned to get murdered by Anderton. (I think what the movie wants to show is that in general, perpetrator and victim are both participants in an act of murder; so it's not only the perpetrator who can premeditate the murder. Likewise, both perpetrator and victim have a hand in preventing/avoiding a future murder.)

In your scenario, Crow wouldn't expect to be killed by Anderton, so if Anderton would kill Crow it would be previsioned by a red ball.

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

In my case too Crow will plan to get killed, same as the original story. Only change is an extra person's involvement, which will draw the attention of precogs in the first place.

Yes, but it won't result in a brown ball with John Anderton's name on it. Hence no mystery that takes Anderton out of his comfort zone and that causes the start of his character arc and his personal learning process that mends the hole in his heart.

Moreover, the point of the story is that John had walked around for six years with feelings of revenge and anger in his heart, and that the transformation he had to make had to include his decision to not kill the (perceived) abductor of his son. That point would be lost in your version of the plot (because in your version, the reason that Anderton doesn't kill Crow is because he is prevented by the presence of other cops, instead of his own choice).

For Spielberg, the story is more important than the plot. The fact that Anderton exercises free will in order to eventually make the right choice and defies his "pre-destination" is the actual message of the story, and it's reinforced by Burgess' suicide at the end of the movie.

---

Without premonition there would be no murder and without murder there would be no premonition, this is much more sillier than time travel paradox.

---

The Predestination Paradox is a classical storytelling device, and has been around since Greek mythology; see for example the story of Oedipus. This is not a plothole; it is a plot element that the writers/filmmakers have consciously opted for.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

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

If in the movie Crow's death results in brown ball then, in my case too it will result in brown ball because in both case Anderton won't know about him in advance, and in both case Crow will plan to get killed. In my case there will Police around there and they will try to convince Anderton, not to kill Crow, and finally he will realize that he is not murderer as shown in the movie and will not kill him and Crow will commit suicide in the same way as shown in the movie. Hence brown ball.

PS: About paradox, Predestination paradox is different thing, and sending someone in an apartment and hope that he will be killed by someone, is silliness.

---

If in the movie Crow's death results in brown ball then, in my case too it will result in brown ball because in both case Anderton won't know about him in advance, and in both case Crow will plan to get killed.

---

In your scenario Crow plans to get killed by a different attacker, not by Anderton. And if PreCrime somehow failed to catch that attacker in time, Crow would indeed be killed, but not by Anderton; and hence there would be no ball at all (neither brown nor red) with Anderton's name on it.

---

In my case there will Police around there and they will try to convince Anderton, not to kill Crow,

---

No they wouldn't. The point in the movie was that PreCrime cops only catch (future) killers; they're not there to judge a killer, or convince the killer of the error of his ways and make him change his mind. What PreCrime cops do is merely catch a future killer, arrest him, and send him immediately to "Containment", no questions asked. PreCrime cops were convinced of the perfection of the PreCrime system: whatever the precogs see, will indeed happen unless PreCrime successfully intervenes, and therefore the people they catch deserve the lifelong prison sentence they receive. That's the (flawed and complacent) philosophy of the distopian society depicted in the movie, which was an important story element.

---

and finally he will realize that he is not murderer as shown in the movie and will not kill him and Crow will commit suicide in the same way as shown in the movie. Hence brown ball.

---

In front of the other cops? Eh, so where is the motive for PreCrime to hunt John Anderton as a fleeing criminal?

And as I said before: your scenario loses the point that Anderton decides on his own to not kill Crow (which proves that PreCrime is flawed); instead, the prevention of Crow's murder would still be credited to PreCrime's intervention, and only strengthen the belief that the PreCrime system is perfect. You're losing the most important message of the story: that society doesn't need a "PreCrime department" to successfully battle crime.

---

Predestination paradox is different thing

---

No, it's not.

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

How about this
Lamar hires two guys, one is Crow and second is someone else, let's call him X. Lamar tells Crow to go to the apartment with the photographs and kill X, When X comes to meet him in the apartment, only if Anderton doesn't interrupts in between. and then get killed by Anderton if he visits. And then Lamar sends X to the apartment. If there were no precogs, then Crow would've killed X. But Precogs will see that (Brown Ball) and Anderton will try to locate the apartment and now that future has been changed Precogs will see another murder of Crow by Anderton again Brown Ball. And that will make Anderton to flee and after all the chase (as shown in the movie), Anderton will reach the apartment, he will stop Crow from killing X. X will flee from scene. Anderton will see Pictures, he will try kill Crow but then he will change his mind (same as in the movie).

Predestination paradox in the movie is that 'Precogs see the future, but it's not the future if Someone stops it', Not the part that in which Crow is sent to an apartment just to get killed.

Talking of flaws, when in the movie it was said that Precogs can only see future murders no assaults, rapes or even suicides, then how come the girl Precog can see the future events in the mall even without the help of twins. Does it depends upon distance of event happening or time or something director forgot to add.

---

No, it won't change the movie, murder of Crow by Anderton will be seen by Anderton himself by premonition and he will run away to avoid arrest and find about crow. Same story-line.

---

No, he wouldn't find out about Crow. In your scenario, at no point would Anderton have any reason to believe that he is being set up. He arrives at the spot to arrest Crow's attacker, then comes eye to eye with Crow, sees the photographs (at which point a red ball with Anderton's name would start rolling at PreCrime Headquarters), and believes immediately that he would kill the guy.

The character who would find out the truth about Crow would be Witwer (and/or Fletcher), when they interrogate Crow after the failed murder attempt.

So it's not the same storyline.

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

The problem I had was that there was no knowledge of who the perpetrator to Anne Lively's murder. No apparent knowledge of who the person who attempted to kill Anne. Then, no knowledge of who killed her for certain (Lamar). Nevermind the big plot hole that the precrime unit just left the victim to be killed, and no apparent follow up to the fact that the victim went missing.

So, to say that the system is flawed is an understatement.

---

Nevermind the big plot hole that the precrime unit just left the victim to be killed,

---

Huh, what? Pre-crime cops assumed they had averted the crime and caught the perpetrator, and hence that it was safe to leave the victim. Burgess exploited a loophole in the system. He is the only one who could do that, because he was the head of Pre-crime.

---

and no apparent follow up to the fact that the victim went missing.

---

The victim wasn't "missing", she had no other next-of-kin in this individualistic dystopia, and hence nobody missed her.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"

---

Huh, what? Pre-crime cops assumed they had averted the crime and caught the perpetrator, and hence that it was safe to leave the victim.

---

It does not matter what the year, nor the situation. You do not leave a victim of an attack alone straight after being attacked. She might probably be suffering post traumatic stress, and need some form of assistance like a ride back in to town, for starters.

And there seems to be a problem with technicians not able to pick up a brown ball with Burgess's name over it. So, we are to assume that Burgess manipulated the system so that he could get around being identified by the pre-cogs.

---

The victim wasn't "missing", she had no other next-of-kin in this individualistic dystopia, and hence nobody missed her.

---

It has been a couple years since I watched Minority Report, and I can't remember what the story of Anne was after the attack. Did she go missing? Because that was the impression I got when Anderton investigated what happened to her. Data missing. Therefore, we seem to have a problem with the follow up of the victim. Capital crimes don't need a victim to testify against the accused (not that they did that with the accused not even getting a trial). But to assume that the police/pre-crime unit went about their way without atleast wondering about, or checking on the victim, is an absurdity.

[Doing the report]Officer: *inputs perpetrator's name as "unknown". No apparent need to build a psychological profile, or gather possible associates, for possible future references.
*inputs victim's name*. Victim said she was okay. Left out in the woods without any further police interaction. Perhaps a victimology report?

You can see how bad that looks.

Eventually, we have to figure that the whole events of this movie would not have needed to take place if Burgess just let Anne live. She was looking for Agatha, and it would not have been possible for her to find out about Agatha becoming a precog, unless someone spoke up. Cleaning up her drug habit, Anne would not have been able to find out information about Agatha. Seeing that the precogs had no identity to the world, it would have left Anne searching the world before she figured out where Agatha was being kept. Agatha would have had to have gotten off the drugs, and then released herself, so that she could find her mother. Not the other way around.

---

She was looking for Agatha, and it would not have been possible for her to find out about Agatha becoming a precog, unless someone spoke up.

---

Are you kidding me? Anne gave her daughter in the care of Burgess; she knows Burgess' name and face, even knows how to contact him. And Burgess' face was going to be the nationwide symbol of bringing down crime, all over TV and the media, in the next few months.

Anne probably also knew who Iris Hineman was.

---

Agatha would have had to have gotten off the drugs, and then released herself, so that she could find her mother. Not the other way around.

---

I have a personal favorite theory that Agatha had control over the Anderton-kills-Crow prevision: Agatha knew in advance when Anderton and Witwer would enter the Dome, she knew how to draw attention and "get the ball rolling" (in the figurative sense), and she dreamt up the prevision as a self-fulfilling prophecy in which she would get "released" (kidnapped by Anderton) and eventually have Anderton find her mother's killer. So in a sense, what you propose did in fact happen.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"

---

It does not matter what the year, nor the situation. You do not leave a victim of an attack alone straight after being attacked. She might probably be suffering post traumatic stress, and need some form of assistance like a ride back in to town, for starters.

---

Yes, I agree. But there was no reason for Pre-crime to assume that she was "left to be killed". And maybe there was simply no room for civilians in that fancy police dropship.

And apparently Pre-crime was not in the business of taking care of traumatized citizens, the only thing they did was catch murderers; and that was indeed a severe flaw in the whole system. It was not a plothole.

---

And there seems to be a problem with technicians not able to pick up a brown ball with Burgess's name over it.

---

Well, maybe Burgess picked up the brown ball with his own name himself, just like Anderton later did. Or maybe there was no wooden ball system yet in the early days of Pre-Crime; it might be a later technological addition to the pre-cog system. We never see a wooden ball with perpetrator John Doe's name (or victim Anne Lively's name) either.

Furthermore, as Anderton later explains during the final confrontation with Burgess, the technicians at Pre-Crime were trained to dismiss any incoming datastreams that were considered a repetition of the same crime, a so-called "echo".

Burgess also made Agatha's "minority report" of the Anne Lively murder disappear from the archives. So yes, he was powerful enough within Pre-crime to manipulate all that.

See also the following threads:
-

I never thought that solution before

I don't think it's a plothole.

The precogs are the progenitors of this event, which they couldn't predict if they didn't initiate, but that just means that they, too, are slaves of their own destiny. The precogs predict the crime that will happen, Anderson sees these events, and the crime happens.

It's just another nuance to the story's examination of fate vs. free will. The precogs aren't making destiny, just displaying it.

How very vague.

Please elaborate.

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

Okay. Bear with me. I found myself having trouble expressing this in the first post

So, the main theme of the movie is the idea that there might be destiny, such a thing as predetermined fate, and that if that is the case, knowing that destiny allows us to judge and sentence criminals prior to crimes committed, without the mess of the crime having actually occurred. This is definitively what the movie is about, particularly pertaining to the idea that, once destiny is known, you can change fate, making fate not Fate, but just a predictable and preventable outcome.

This is illustrated in the ball-toss scene where Anderton chucks the wooden ball across the curvature of a pre-crime desk. Witwer catches it and they converse. "Just because you caught it, doesn't mean it wasn't going to fall," or something to that effect.

The precogs can predict what will happen (the ball falling) which can be prevented (catching the ball), and the big question of the movie is whether or not these outcomes are choices, Fate, possible outcomes, etc., and regardless: what to do with the foreknowledge provided. Can you incarcerate for a crime you definitely would have done, even if you didn't do it?

And here's where we get to the plothole, or alleged plothole SPOILERS HEREAFTER.

If Anderton never sees the precogs predict his murder, he will not commit it. If he will not commit it, how can they predict the murder will occur?

Let's work backwards, shall we?

We, as the audience know that Anderton will commit the murder. We see him do it. That means this event WILL take place, or, in the greater context of the movie's theme, CAN take place, making it capable of being predicted.

So, the precogs predict that happening. This spurs Anderton into his quest for the truth, and allows him to become his own prime motivator in his own fated path.

My take is that Fate exists, as presupposed by the plot/ themes. The precogs just predict what can, will, and does happen. They initiate the events that are destined to happen. Whether Fate, in this case, is an intelligence, or Intelligence, or just a force of nature, like gravity, is irrelevant. The fact is that prediction of action is possible, and happens.

Likewise, the fact that seeing these images is what starts Anderton is irrelevant. They are shown to him as part of the machinery of the universe and he moves on those visions, ultimately turning them true.

If we consider Oedipus Rex, one of the seminal works on trying to circumnavigate your Fate, we see that Oedipus, fully aware of the prophecy that he will destroy his father and marry his mother, nevertheless is bound by Fate and succumbs to it, anyway. In Oedipus Rex, indeed, he is ONLY able to fulfill his destiny because he attempts to subvert it, by running away (for full details, just Wiki Oedipus Rex).

Thus, in Minority Report, to fully explore its theme of Fate/Free Will, the writer(s) show Anderton and Witwer debate the paradox of acting on "destinies" that have not yet happened (pre-crime) and then dramatically illustrate that scenario, flipping the tables on Anderton, showing him succumbing to the fate, or perhaps Fate, he actively tries to prevent, only to find himself falling to Destiny, anyway.

It's probably a direct reference to Oedipus, too (especially with the sight/blindness motif running through Minority Report which mirrors the macabre ending of Oedipus nicely).

In conclusion, it's all a mindf. They want the audience thinking about whether or not this would have happened if Anderton had not seen the prophecy, and in so doing, thinking as well about what is Fate and what is Free Will. It's not a plot hole because it is a deliberate paradox, but one which conforms to the laws of nature as set up and established in the film (through the tossed-ball scene and conversation).

There is probably more to be said on the nature of time (if it exists simultaneously, if there are multiple pathways, etc.) and its effect on outcomes in the film, but I'm not smart enough to understand relativity, so I'll leave it alone.

---

Let's work backwards, shall we?

---

Hmmm, that's a problem. Life doesn't work backwards.

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

No, but spacetime might (or, rather, might not work forwards or backwards, but rather, simultaneously).

Furthermore, and more importantly, in analysis of plotlines in film, theatre, TV, etc., back-to-front analysis is a useful tool.

Finally, most importantly, if the film's presupposition is that the precogs accurately predict events, which may be altered, then that window being opened into the future (so to speak) might be both observer ("I can see the future") and an agent acting to bring about the future ("This happens because I say it will") Which, again, is almost certainly a reference to the self-fulfilling prophecy paradox/ theme of Oedipus Rex.

What a load of absolute nonsense.

---

We, as the audience know that Anderton will commit the murder. We see him do it. That means this event WILL take place, or, in the greater context of the movie's theme, CAN take place, making it capable of being predicted.

So, the precogs predict that happening. This spurs Anderton into his quest for the truth, and allows him to become his own prime motivator in his own fated path.

---

What you're basically saying here (behind what appears to be egotistical jibba-jabba) is that the plot hole can be explained away by saying that the events happens in the film, so it must work. That's it.

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

No, that's not what I'm saying; you've misunderstood me.

I'm saying first that the film is doing its thinking about space-time and how it operates. That our perception of time is what's missing.

But the most important thing is the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In Oedipus Rex, there is a prophecy which only comes about because it is told to the king who tries to circumvent it and, in so doing, brings the prophecy about. Same thing here. It is an allusion to Sophocles' tragedy.

The bottom line is that the precogs perceive the murder happening and report it. The system spits out Anderton's name and that sets off the chain of events that fulfills the prophecy. It is irrelevant, in the ebb and flow of time, that this appears to be a paradox. It never was.

If Anderton is fated to murder Crow, likewise, he is fated to see the wooden sphere with his name on it and, thus, fated to try and prevent his crime, ironically, bringing it about.

First of all, I'm not overly familiar with Oedipus, but what you're explaining is also a paradox.

---

The bottom line is that the precogs perceive the murder happening and report it. The system spits out Anderton's name and that sets off the chain of events that fulfills the prophecy.

---

Yes, I know. And that is a paradox. Perception of time has *beep* all to do with it. I fully understand exactly what you're saying, but it's just wrong!

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

karlhinze, a paradox is not necessarily a plothole. And furthermore, in this particular case, the paradox is not inconsistent in itself. It's like the following statement:

= This sentence is true. =

If we assume the statement is true, it works. If we assume the statement is not true, it works too.

In Minority Report, the screenwriters incorporated a self-fulfilling prophecy paradox as a plot device in order to get the story going. One could draw a logical reasoning that the paradox could never have occurred. But one could just as well draw a logical reasoning that the paradox could indeed have occurred. Both reasonings work, each is consistent in itself. However, the question which of the two reasonings is correct is not important; what's important is if the filmmakers ultimately managed to get the story's message of "free will vs. determinism" across.


______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"

Hey, yeah! That's a great way of putting it!

Another way of looking at it is to think, once more, of the scene where Anderton tosses the wooden ball across the desk, only to have it be caught by Witwer. Anderton makes it so that the ball will fall, unquestionably, prompting Witwer to catch it. Now, if Anderton had said (acting as an oracle) "I'm going to throw this, so you go ahead and let it fall" and then he throws the ball, it doesn't change the action on the other end. In other words: the precogs initiating the event doesn't require Anderton to already be thinking about it. They predict it and show two moments in time: paradox, but a "logical" paradox.

And, yurenchu, man, you put it all beautifully!

That's absolute nonsense once again. The situations are not alike.

In the Anderton/Crow situation, the future event was what got the ball rolling (no pun intended). Without it, it would not have happened. Something Anderton saw in the future changed what he did in the present. Without the pre-vision (say, for example, the precogs simply didn't see it), the murder wouldn't have happened.

In your example, if Anderton had said he was going to throw it, then that would have been him in the present telling us what he was going - or what he was intending - to do. He wouldn't have said he was going to throw it based on what he had seen in the future.

Once again, somebody not comparing eggs with eggs.

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

Try thinking about Watchmen and the examples in Doctor Manhattan. There are several times where Manhattan's mind will be changed in the future by an event that hasn't happened yet, but he doesn't affect the change until the event occurs. While this doesn't display how the future might affect the past, it does show a "photo album" view of spacetime.

Then, conjure movies like Back to the Future, which wrestle with time-travelers' paradoxes. Minority Report is asking similar questions, though in a more serious manner.

If spacetime exists in the narrative as a constant, and paradoxes are possible, then the existence of a paradox that crosses back-and-forth across spacetime is not a plothole, it's a story element and part of the innate fabric of the film's world.

Within the narrative of the story, the precogs know when somebody is thinking of something before they were thinking of it. They can predict crimes of passion (the first arrest in the film is just this). That means that the subject of the crime need not be even considering it to precipitate its occurrence.

I keep bringing up the ball scene because it shows what somebody with foreknowledge can do. When precrime knows that Howard Marks will kill his wife, they intervene and he doesn't commit the crime. If they did not know about the crime, they would not act and arrest Marks.

So: we have a world where paradox can exist (and, indeed, questioning this chicken/egg relationship is a main theme of film itself), where spacetime is being toyed with, and where causal relationships are questioned and tinkered with. In this world, foreknowledge is possible and there is the possibility of the future changing once foreknowledge is handed out. The precogs can predict things the subjects have not yet thought of, or are not aware of themselves. And in this world, the world of the film as it is created, I see no reason why the paradox of Anderton receiving foreknowledge of his actions, before he has thought of them, cannot be both catalyst and warning of future events. It is consistent within the world created by the film, and therefore it is not a plot hole.

You might as well say that psychics don't exist, therefore there is a plot hole in Minority Report.

---

Try thinking about Watchmen and the examples in Doctor Manhattan. There are several times where Manhattan's mind will be changed in the future by an event that hasn't happened yet, but he doesn't affect the change until the event occurs. While this doesn't display how the future might affect the past, it does show a "photo album" view of spacetime.

---

I'm not familiar with this, therefore it's irrelevant.

---

Then, conjure movies like Back to the Future, which wrestle with time-travelers' paradoxes. Minority Report is asking similar questions, though in a more serious manner.

---

Back to the Future is NOTHING like Minority Report. And, quite frankly, using that as an example loses you credibility. Back to the Future at no point predicts future things happening.

---

If spacetime exists in the narrative as a constant, and paradoxes are possible, then the existence of a paradox that crosses back-and-forth across spacetime is not a plothole, it's a story element and part of the innate fabric of the film's world.

---

What are you saying? That if a paradox is possible then that justifies the paradox? Another example of you basically saying that it's logical simply because it happened.

---

Within the narrative of the story, the precogs know when somebody is thinking of something before they were thinking of it. They can predict crimes of passion (the first arrest in the film is just this). That means that the subject of the crime need not be even considering it to precipitate its occurrence.

---

Even if this were true (I disagree with this due to when Anderton inferred that a brown ball was down to somebody being "dumb enough" to premeditate a murder, but I'll let that one slide), then it's irrelevant. It sounds to me that you're justifying the pre-vision by saying that he could have been set on that path at a later time? Out of interest, are you?

---

I keep bringing up the ball scene because it shows what somebody with foreknowledge can do. When precrime knows that Howard Marks will kill his wife, they intervene and he doesn't commit the crime. If they did not know about the crime, they would not act and arrest Marks.

---

Anderton having foreknowledge of himself rolling the ball is a different scenario to a precog having foreknowledge of another party doing something. As per my previous point, again it sounds like you're saying that Anderton could have been set on his path at a later time. Again, is this what you're saying? The Howard Marks example is also completely irrelevant and because he was about to kill his wife regardless of the pre-vision.

---

So: we have a world where paradox can exist (and, indeed, questioning this chicken/egg relationship is a main theme of film itself), where spacetime is being toyed with, and where causal relationships are questioned and tinkered with.

---

Sorry, but as I disagree with your other points, then, naturally, I disagree with this one.

---

In this world, foreknowledge is possible and there is the possibility of the future changing once foreknowledge is handed out.

---

Agreed! But that's not the issue.

---

The precogs can predict things the subjects have not yet thought of, or are not aware of themselves. And in this world, the world of the film as it is created, I see no reason why the paradox of Anderton receiving foreknowledge of his actions, before he has thought of them, cannot be both catalyst and warning of future events.

---

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but, again, are you suggesting that Anderton could have been set on this path at a later date regardless of the prevision?

---

It is consistent within the world created by the film, and therefore it is not a plot hole.

---

Once more, it sounds like you're saying that if the film allows it, then it's OK.

---

You might as well say that psychics don't exist, therefore there is a plot hole in Minority Report.

---

That's stupid. Psychics predict the future. They don't create it, unlike what the precogs have done in this instance.

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

Not being familiar with Watchmen doesn't make the example irrelevant, it just makes it difficult for me to use it as an example. In the comic book Watchmen, a character of superlative power (Dr. Manhattan) spends a chapter of the book detailing his history, which (in a creative burst from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons) is laid out as though it were happening simultaneously because Manhattan perceives time differently than normal humans. I was referring to this notion that time is happening simultaneously, not unfolding slowly, which is a matter of perception.

Back to the Future is, yes, nothing like Minority Report (Watchmen isn't, either), but I'm just trying to use one aspect of that story to relate to this story. I'm trying to talk about cause and effect across time, whether perceptual (Watchmen, Minority Report) or through spacetime (Back to the Future).

I was not saying that Anderton could have been sent down the path to murder Crow with or without the prevision (though, why not?).

I'm not talking about Howard Marks to show that Marks' actions were set in motion by the precogs, I was talking about him to show how the film allows for futures which are (paradoxically) definitely going to happen, yet are still thwarted. Incidentally, that's also why I'm talking about the ball scene.

If the world of the film allows paradoxes and allows for future and past relationships to be blurred because of the precogs (a reality it sets up in the scenes I describe), then it follows that in this world it is possible for the paradoxical occurrence of the initiation of an event to happen simultaneously to its conclusion.

When I said, "It is consistent within the world created by the film, and therefore it is not a plot hole," I meant that the film sets up a world where these possibilities exist before Anderton's dilemma and then exploits that world to move the plot forward. I will compare it to The Matrix: in the world of the Matrix, there are elements of that film's reality which dictate that characters can bend the laws of physics within the computer programs. This is set up in the first scene by Trinity's miraculous escape. In Minority Report, the opening of the film is concerned with the would-have-been murderer Howard Marks and his arrest by precrime, showing us visually the future being predicted and altered. Later on, they establish that paradoxes occur and after that is established, the film shows Anderton his paradoxical murdering of Leo Crow.

It is not that the film gets to be "right" just because it says it is, but that they build their world logically from step one up through to the point where then take that internal logic to send Anderton on his journey to find out the limits of what he believes in (precrime) and who he is as a person (finding Crow and coming face-to-face with his past).

Sorry. Irrelevant was probably the wrong word. I mean it means nothing to me, and it's not something I can relate to.

---

I was not saying that Anderton could have been sent down the path to murder Crow with or without the prevision (though, why not?).

---

Because the only reason he came to get Agetha was because he saw the pre-vision. To me, that completely rules out that being a possibility. And one cannot use that as a potential possibility and then justify the paradox, because if it were the case that Anderton could have been sent down the path by other means, then one is saying that there is no paradox. But if you're not saying that he would have have gone down that path without the pre-vision, then the paradox remains. And, to me in this instance, the paradox is a plot hole.

---

I'm not talking about Howard Marks to show that Marks' actions were set in motion by the precogs, I was talking about him to show how the film allows for futures which are (paradoxically) definitely going to happen, yet are still thwarted. Incidentally, that's also why I'm talking about the ball scene.

---

The murder of Donald Dubin was not a paradox. Looking into the future and changing what would have happened had there not been any intervention is not a paradox.

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

I guess the main point that we differ on is whether or not the paradox is a plot hole. That's what all this claptrap is ultimately getting at. I just don't see the paradox as a plot hole because of, well, all the stuff I've been yammering on and on about.

Because the malleability of the future is a main theme, because there are frequent Oedipus allusions (self-fulfilling prophecy), and because of a whole whack of ideas and philosophy being set up and presented in the film, I just see the paradox as a plot point and a way for the film to address its themes in mind-bending ways.

Contrariwise, you, as you say, view the paradox as a plot hole because it can't exist (as per the nature of the paradox), and you don't think that it fits within the film's world.

Most of what we're talking about hinges on that one, crucial point where we are, I'm afraid, at a bit of an impasse.

---

a paradox is not necessarily a plothole

---

Don't disagree with you here. In fact, I think we've kind-of moved on from 'plot hole' to 'paradox' in this recent discussion.

However, I don't agree with your "this sentence is true" example. You're not comparing eggs with eggs - Minority Report is an example of a causal loop, your example is not. It's more of a liar paradox. Anyway, you and I have discussed this to high heaven, and I already know we disagree and we aren't changing each other's viewpoints, so I don't think we need to go any further.

I'm right, by the way.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

Nah, you're wrong.

I agree with Ace_Spade and yurenchu.

Ace_Spade's explanation is perfectly cogent and reasonable. The existence of the paradox is not a plot holeit is the plot.

Nah, you're wrong.

If it were the plot, then why make no reference to the fact that there's a paradox at any point during the film?

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

I don't think they have to directly reference paradox to allow paradoxes to be part of the fabric of the film. It's in the cracks and underpinnings. Not everything needed to be explicit - and they already do quite a bit of philosophical pontificating on the ramifications of foresight. They come very close to saying "paradox" many times.

I don't think there is a plothole here.

You have to consider the existence of an original timeline. Lamar could have used a way to lure John to the apartment in the original timeline.
Murder happens and the prevision gets created.
Because this prevision is created Lamar no longer needs a way to get John to go to the apartment.

John's situation is unique in that he is the first person to see the prevision of his own murder and thus being able to change little things along the way.



"The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering" - Bruce Lee

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Agetha is in the pre-vision, so we KNOW that the pre-vision is based on what happens because Anderton sees it.

Plot hole, paradox agree or disagree and call it what you like - but the pre-vision was not created because Anderton was lured there any other way.

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

Dis explanation worx. Ppl r thinking it's premonition dat caused these eventz but they cud be caused by other eventz tho dis wud mean dat 2 completely diff eventz led 2 same outcome which is a BIG coincidence.

Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka

There is no plot hole. People just think there is because they weren't paying attention.

Crows death. The precogs see the event THEN INTERPRET IT. Their interpretation is that Anderton committed murder but Agatha disagrees. She tells him he has a choice because she knows there are alternative versions of the future.

---

Their interpretation is that Anderton committed murder but Agatha disagrees.

---

What?! Talking of not paying attention, did you not see the bit where Agatha confirmed that Anderton didn't have a minority report? Agatha predicted Crow's murder just like all the other precogs!

---

She tells him he has a choice because she knows there are alternative versions of the future.

---

No, she tells him he has a choice because she knows that Anderton knows his own future - he'd seen the pre-vision.

It's the same principle with Burgess at the end. Anderton told him, and I quote word for word: "you know your own future, which means you can change it if you want to" (although how he'd know without seeing the pre-vision is a grey area to say the least).

I find it funny that you call other people stupid when you clearly suffer from the DunningKruger effect.

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