Talk:Minority Report (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Minority Report (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Thoughtcrime

I have removed a reference to thoughtcrime from the article, because it's irrelevant: the characters in Minority Report are not arrested for thinking of committing murder, but for the crime itself (even though, in the event, they do not get the opportunity to commit the crime).

It may help to consider the example shown in the film itself of the Precrime unit collaring a murderer-to-be: the crime is clearly (to have been) a spur-of-the-moment action, and it's arguable whether the guy had even formed the intention to commit it when the cops intervened. --Paul A 04:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The whole thoughtcrime aspect of Minority Report was one of my main criticisms of the film. I think though that the makers (and Dick himself) were more concerned with the plot than the philosophical ramifications of the film, to be honest. If the Precrime department halted the crime, from a cause and effect point of view only the capability to commit the crime could have been punished, making it a sort of thoughtcrime (although really more of a psych-crime if you ask me, like say, locking up paedophiles or homicidal sociopaths before they strike). Saying that the crime was going to happen anyway is an ethical or moral cop out, because if destiny were so well written nothing could be changed. Although one might argue that the element of premeditation or conspiracy is criminal, in most rational countries it is certainly not punished as severely as in the film. Indeed the punishment handed down for acts of Precrime completely ignores the notion of rehabilitation, which suggests a clear fascistic element to this future world. Indeed, it would probably be cheaper to alter the brains of the "guilty" to remove the crime-capable element of their minds than store them for large periods of time. Of course, at the end of the film there is a complete and utter about turn and the Precrime department is disbanded and the guilty are released, making the entire philosophical perspectives of the characters seem a little half-baked.

Anyway, I've been dieing to bring this up for ages, so apologies for writing a mini-essay. As it stands I don't think the film is concerned with the idea of thoughtcrime, although more through plot reasons than any naturally occurring philosophy. Therefore unless a notable critique of the film can be found and referenced, I think any mention to thoughtcrime might merely constitute personal opinion or primary research, and I have no problem with leaving it out. Thank you for your time ;-) ClarenceAtomkraft 07:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time travel

I'm considering removing the reference to "time travel" in the "Similar movies" section, as precognition and time travel aren't exactly related. Any objections? --Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although time travel is usually depicted in fiction as the movement of the protagonist backwards or forwards in time, from a physics point of view, something could be traveling backwards in time in order for the precogs to be able to see it. This would mean though, that the actions of the the Precrime division constitute a time paradox. Thinking about it, the characters mention that only murders are picked up because of the extremity of the crime. This would suggest that it's not information travelling backwards in time but more of a gestalt consciousness effect (the noosphere maybe?). Alternatively one might consider a spiritual element as Witwer does. All things considered, I suppose from a plot point of view, it isn't really a genre time travel movie per se. What do others think? ClarenceAtomkraft 07:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is definitely a kind of "time paradox" going on here. Such paradoxes can occur when merely information travels backwards in time (as in the Minority Report), albeit not quite as dramatically as when people travel backwards in time. --68.0.120.35 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neuroin

random fact i was interested in. neuroin is the fictional drug in the movie cruise uses. I went thru the (2001 revised) movie script [[1]] perhaps someone might include this in the article, or just use the script as a reference.

[edit] specifically in reference to the use of "utopian"

"While the discussions didn't change key elements needed for the film's action sequences, they were influential in introducing some of the more utopian aspects of the film"....

I recall seeing steven spielberg on oprah promting this movie and he mentioning somthing about him presenting these technologies and near future methodologies as a means for us, the actual public, to "make a choice" as to whether we wanted this kind of world as our future. etc. I don't believe "utopian" is a correct assessment of what is presentation in the film. If the film denotes anything, i might venture to call it dystopian.

I agree totally; furthermore, in the movie there's a clear reference to the threat of a totalitarian society (where the government controls everything, invades privacy at will (eg spider sequence) etc). This should be mentioned in the article!).

[edit] Ending

The ending interpretation discussion is good but in the plot section it is extremely vague about the ending. This leads to the viewer having to try and piece together what occurred. And what exactly does eventually discovers a conspiracy involving the pre-cogs, an old friend, and the death (six years before) of his little boy. mean? Is it a blurb from the back of the Minority Report video/DVD? (Note: Unsigned comment by User:Chaoticana)-Colin Kimbrell 14:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That section preceded my work on the article, but I believe that the writer left it somewhat vague to avoid spoiling the film (even though there's a spoiler tag over the section). I'd be OK with an explication, if you felt like adding one. -Colin Kimbrell 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sountrack quote removed

I've removed the long Spielberg quote about the soundtrack, as it's just praising the score. I've put it here if anyone wants to work in into the John Williams article. Strad 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg is a fan of the score and calls it a 'masterful job':

"John Williams has done a masterful job in his musical presentation of Minority Report. The plot and story find their roots in the combination of American film noir and the classic "whodunit" mysteries that were so popular in the era of Humphrey Bogart and filmmaker John Huston. John Williams and I have often marveled at the way Bernard Herrmann was able to contribute so much musical suspense to an Alfred Hitchcock picture. So in that tradition of mystery, suspense and film noir, John has fashioned a fast-paced, yet dark portrait of America in the year 2054 when the murder of one human being by another can foretold through the miraculous gifts of three precognitives. Unlike our other collaborations, John's score for Minority Report is not lush with melody; it is nonetheless brilliant in its complexity and forceful in its rhythms. It is the kind of music that will start in your spine and eventually find its way to your heart in the section titled "Sean's Theme." If most of John's scores for my films have been in color, I think of this score as his first one in black and white. But as in most of John's music quite often you don't need the pictures to understand the musical story that John is telling you. After all, John Williams is the greatest musical storyteller the world of movies has ever known."

[edit] Trivia, Technologies

The trivia section currently includes this:

  • A futuristic weapon is featured, which seems to have been designed to be non-lethal. A gun that utilises concentrated sound waves to knock a person off their feet, no doubt then allowing law enforcement officers to move in and arrest a suspect.

Aside from the grammar, this doesn't seem like "trivia" at all. However, it could be included in a new section on the future technologies featured in the film. I came to this article looking for a comment on the maglev cars, as I did not understand how they were able to hover on, across, and beside what appears to be a flat surface without tracks.

By the way, the film's other futuristic law enforcement devices deserve mention if this one does. Pre-crime officers are equipped with "sick sticks," which induce immediate vomiting upon skin contact. Instead of handcuffs, they use a headset of sorts to render the wearer unconscious. -AndromedaRoach 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the headset is called "Halo" like the halo ring above an angel's head. The name relates to other things in the movie with religion-like themes such as the "Temple"(Pre-Cogs chamber room) and the Pre-Cogs pictured as "Angels" outside of the Department of Pre-Crime. HighEnergyProtons 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Alice Smith Cameo

Tkarrde, I removed this from the trivia section:

  • As Anderton and Agatha attempt to elude the pursuing PreCops, Agatha uses her abilities to assist Anderton. She asks him "Do you see the woman in the brown dress? She knows your fate" - and the camera pans quickly across a woman with a surprised expression who looks very much like (and may be) Mary Alice Smith, the second incarnation of The Oracle in The Matrix.

This is a misquote: Agatha does not say "She knows your fate" -- she says "She knows your face" (Anderton is on the run, and his face is in the papers, remember). Furthermore, this is the only page in a google search for "Minority Report" "She knows your fate" and the only page specifically mentioning Mary Alice Smith having a cameo in the film with the search "Minority Report" "Mary Alice Smith". Max22 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've added it back in, except now with the offending line misquoting removed. The Mary Alice Smith section, however, remains (at this point, the trivia fact is basically "there is a woman in the movie who looks like Mary Alice Smith").Max22 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether "fate" or "face", the cameo's still there (I'm about 98% sure it's Mary Alice Smith, I'd have to grab the DVD and freeze-frame it to confirm but you're more than welcome to dispute). Either way, just because you heard the dialogue differently doesn't justify wiping the contribution entirely. This is known as 'blanking vandalism', as you seem intelligent enough to realize the actions you're taking. I'd suggest showing a little more discretion in the future. Because, y'know, if we all ran around deleting everything instead of modifying it to make it better, this entire encyclopaedia would be a vast collection of blank pages. TKarrde 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If there was anything notable besides the quote and the suspected cameo in the trivia item, rest assured I would have reworded the item so that could be the main part. By all means screencap it so we can have definitive proof, but this is really the only place I could find with google that says she's in there, so I really don't think it's her. Plus, Matrix Revolutions came out after this movie.Max22 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
But Mary Alice Smith began her acting career prior to Matrix Revolutions, yes? TKarrde 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I was referring to the Matrix allusion of knowing one's fate. Could it be Vanessa Cordatal, who is credited as "Woman"?206.116.141.183 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. *clicks link* Uh, if that picture is Vanessa Cordatal, that'd be a definite "no". The woman I'm talking about LOOKS like Mary Alice Smith, i.e. she's of darker complexion (African-American most likely), getting into her later years (probably in her 50s or older) and somewhat wrinkly. The woman you linked to is the exact opposite of all three characteristics I've described :P Matter of fact, I don't recall anyone that good-looking in the movie. Maybe one of the minor Pre-Cop characters? TKarrde 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it just, it seems to me that if that really was Mary Alice Smith, somebody else would have noticed by now and we'd be able to verify it from that. But I can't find anywhere else this cameo is mentioned.206.116.141.183 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Possibly an uncredited appearance, in which case it wouldn't be a 'cameo' in the strictest sense of the term. TKarrde 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay, but an uncredited appearance would still show up here, under "Rest of cast listed alphabetically", and any appearance by this actress would be referenced somewhere out there on the internet. Since it hasn't been, though, I think this falls under Cite Your Sources, or No Original Research.206.116.141.183 06:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Minority Report Face.jpg
Over at Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, edits are constantly being made to the "in-jokes and references" section based entirely on their validity. Entire entries, such as "the romance between Wallace and Lady Tottington is based on Lady Chatterly's Lover", are removed on occasion. You never responded to my last entry on this talk page about the Mary Alice Smith cameo, but you've been active; have you moved on? Max22 07:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to stay out of this because it's kind of a pointless debate, but the line is pretty clearly "face". I took a screenshot from the DVD with the English subtitles turned on to use as proof, which I will be uploading shortly. -Colin Kimbrell 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And there you go. As such, I'm taking the "Trivia" line back out. -Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending/Interpretations

Template:Spoiler I can't really support the edits that Arthicus wants to make to this section[2]. He wants to take out a large amount of content that covers both sides of the issue with one paragraph that boils down to "this isn't true because I say so". I also think that he's mistaken in his belief that the film does not address the issue of Dreams vs. Reality. This theme is addressed or referenced on numerous occasions:

  1. The dreams of the precogs, which are both creations of the mind and expressions of the world that will be.
  2. Anderton's interaction with his hologrammatic home movies.
  3. The pivotal murder scene, in which Burgess attempts to manipulate Anderton's behavior by placing him within a staged real-live version of his revenge fantasy.
  4. The bootleg club, where patrons pay for the privilige of experiencing false sensations and memories.
  5. The very attempt at the creation of a utopian society, since the word "utopian" is often used in a negative connotation to refer to that which can exist in the realm of the imagination, but collapses when attempted in the real world.

There are probably others; that's just the few that immediately came to mind when I noted his objection. I also disagree with his claim that "Brazil" isn't concerned with the idea of Fate, though that's not really something that needs to be addressed in this article. In the interest of being fair and not trying to "own" the article, I would be willing to try to re-work the wording of the section, if it is objectionable in some way, and I think that his sentiment on the ambiguity of the collapse of the utopian/dystopian society might have value in a different section of the article. -Colin Kimbrell 05:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't true because I say so. I agree there is some ambiguity in the ending but the dreams vs. reality thing is not the focus of the film unlike say Total Recall or Jacob's Ladder. The film is more existentialist in nature. ---Artihcus.

[edit] parts of one section suggest original research

The No original research policy seems violated. I marked some of the obvious cases with the {{fact}} template, and marked one of the sections as well. Please see if you can find a well-known film critic to quote so that this article is more verifiable. Thanks. 66.167.138.148 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

I've added a citation for Epicurus being the originator of the "Problem of Evil". There's probably a better one available somewhere, but this one will do for now. Not sure whether you were looking for a cite for the theory as a whole or not. I don't see a lot of mainstream media discussion of the "alternate ending" theory (except for maybe this article in The Oregon Herald, a publication with which I am unfamiliar), but there's plenty of discussion of it in online sources (reviewers and blogs/message boards): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. As such, it's not original research, but it'd be nice to have a firm print citation if someone can find one. -Colin Kimbrell 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The two-disc DVD version has a bunch of extras that might be sources for some of the claims in the article. It includes a "Deconstructing Minority Report" section that I remember quotes Steven Spielberg, John Williams (composer) and maybe others about the neo-noir aspect of the film. Quotes from the DVD extras to back up some of these claims would be a great addition. At some point I'll watch those extras again and take notes for a future update. BTW, IMDb says the International Press Academy (the less-manipulable alternative to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association) gave the DVD version two Golden Satellite Award nominations — it won one (for "Best DVD Extra")... 66.167.252.115 (talk · contribs), f.k.a. 66.167.138.148 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
Sounds neat, and makes me sorry I only went for the regular release when I bought it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Google Scholar turned up a hit for this 42-page paper by a gentleman named Ian Kirk, who's apparently a professor at Goldsmiths College. According to his personal website, it was written while he was pursuing his masters' degree, but there's no publication information listed. It discusses, among other things, the ambiguity of the ending. Is that worth adding as a cite? -Colin Kimbrell 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding original research, particularly when it comes to pop culture, is still the exception rather than the rule on Wikipedia, so simply the fact that you share my concern about this is a small step forward for the community. The What counts as a reputable publication? section falls back to intuition on the matter. Personally, I'd want to cite a regularly-published professional film critic, or possibly someone who has published in a scholarly journal for film criticism. From reading Kirk's bio, it sounds like he's in neither category. But I leave it to your intuition as to whether Kirk's a reputable source in this case. 66.167.253.109 f.k.a. 66.167.252.115 (talk · contribs) 07:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Also, I found a citation for the deleted dream sequence in Google book search. It's on pages 111 and 112 of the book "Who Wrote That Movie: Screenwriting in Review: 2000-2002" by Chris C Wehner (ISBN 0595292690). -Colin Kimbrell 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good news...I look forward to reading your rewrite. And thanks for taking Verifiability so seriously. 66.167.253.109 f.k.a. 66.167.252.115 (talk · contribs) 07:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] One sour Wikipedian

One of the aspects of this article, is that is obviously npov towards placing Minority Report in an altar, for starters theres no criticism section, or that this movie seems to exist in a non-blade runner universe, as several ideas from the movie are very similar to the ones from the 1982 movie (if not just the same ideas, even the same symbolisms are used), or how it is blatantly called "noir" when a movie with such an upbeat-happy ending could in no way called noir whatsoever. This page needs a little clean up, the movie is in a way everything it says here, but in another way, its not. I believe its a watered down version of a PKD movie, where characters are so kind to explain the symbolisms and meannings to us dumber-audiences, i believe the movie aimed more to be a blockbuster film rather than any serious artistic attempt. Plus several liberties were taken from the short story, such as the precogs were no longer mindless retards, no, precogs in this movie were real hollywood movie stars (its hard to believe anyone who stays all day lying down would be in such great shape, yet thats just a little detail there), Anderton was not a middle age man like in the book, hes Tom Cruise here for commercial purposes. The movie strives for a dystophian view, yet Spielberg cant hold his enthusiasm towards making the movie look more like The Jetsons, product placement runs rampant in this "1984 brought to you by Pepsi". Criticism such as these are not reflected in this article. And seriously, i wonder if they'll ever be here one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.64.106 (talk • contribs)

any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.212.183 (talk • contribs)
Instead of wondering if we will ever see the day when criticism "such as these" will end up on the page, why not just take a shot at it and do some of it yourself ?
Regarding your remarks :
- noir : the article doesn't say it's a film noir, but that it mixes genre, and noir is one of them. I don't think that can be disputed. The story revolves around a main character way over his head in a pickle of a situation, pretty much alone against everybody else.The lightings often show strong contrasts (spiders scene, Anderton walking home). Also, there is some darkness to the story (the city doesn't exactly look like Disneyland, especially Anderton's neighborhood, and the whole movie deals with murder), and finally the hero has a dark side to him, namely his addiction and an underlying, threatening violence (unjustified aggressiveness towards Witwer for example)
- blockbuster : that's your opinion, but if you want that on the page, you'll have to find citations to back it up (as for my opinion, I think that's Spielberg's strongpoint, making very accessible movies while maintaing a terrific artistc standard)
- PKD : the introduction does say "loosely" based on the short story. If you feel you need to add some details about the differences, go ahead, however I don't see why that should be held against the movie, there's no rule (except maybe fan dogma) that says adaptations should be literal
- product placement : I agree that there definitely should be a paragraph or two about product placement, first just to say that there's a lot of it, and second that it actually plays a part in the story, with targeted advertising raising privacy issues, and finally that it is ironic that a critical standpoint of advertising is conveyed with the use of actual advertising, which might weaken the statements made.
Voilà ! Unmitigated Success 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you placed this under the "once sour wikipedian" title?. How cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.212.183 (talk • contribs)
Title by: Unmitigated Success. Travb (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this section should include discussions on aspects of future reality in the film, for example the Mag-Lev system.

[edit] Removed weasel sentence to talk

People have also noted resemblances to Brian De Palma's The Fury.[citation needed]

Signed: Travb (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ending & Why they should have kept Precrime

Another problem with the dream-ending theory is how Anderton would even come to the "revelation" that his friend is his betrayer in the first place. He never knew that his friend is his betrayer. Did he, coincidentally, dreamdt (sp?) that his friend is actually the person who is betraying him (which is actually what happened, prior to the dream)? Which, of course begs the question: why he would dream of something that has negatives. The article already brings up that point. But I'm still wondering why Anderton would know he betrayed him in the first place.

Another criticism I have of the ending, and assuming that it is literally what happened, is that the Precog program gets shut down! What is there to benefit from shutting down that system? The only flaw in it was human error. And now that the old man behind all that corruption is gone, they know the flaws of the system. They have caught the man behind all the mess -- there is nothing wrong with the system itself. It is perfect. I think the world would still benefit from Precrime's existence.

Minus the fact the PreCogs didn't want to keep doing it? I mean, they've been kept locked up and drugged and the official line people were told is that they couldn't even percieve the present - which apparantly they could. In the end they got allowed to live out their lives in peace dozens of miles from anyone which is all they ever wanted to do. The system might be perfect only so long as you don't mind it being utterly heartless. RobM1558 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing that no one has brought up is this: If the future is indeed a pre-determined set of events, then the PreCrogs's predictions must be WRONG! Because by their seeing the "future", the PreCrime unit intervenes and averts a murder, therefore changing the future themselves! If the PreCogs were to accurately predict the future, then they would have had to have predicted their seeing of the future, and the subsequent action of the PreCrime unit moving in to stop the murder---which means that the crime would have never actually been performed, because the PreCrime unit has moved and taken the "perp" away! If John Anderton's comment, The PreCogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you WILL do, is correct, how is this possible if the PreCrime unit stops the crime from happening! This calls into the question again if crimes should be preemptively punished. Furthermore, if this is NOT the future the PreCogs are seeing, then what the CRAP are they seeing?! --- JS,156.110.47.73 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research in Themes -> Eyes and Themes -> The ending

Deleted: [13]. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also: [14]. I've left some of the things that may—given some reference—be true; but the things I deleted are definitely WP:OR without a quote from the screenwriter/director/whatever. If anyone wants to delete the whole thing, I don't mind. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 10:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending

The last sentence of the synopsis section reads "Anderton ends up remarrying Lara, and Lara is shown pregnant." She is clearly heavily pregnant in the shot but how is it implied that they remarried? Anderton's final narration doesn't mention this, can anyone verify it? Craigy (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a fact tag on that. Quadzilla99 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot section

The plot section was 1850+ words and had a Template:plot tag on it. Through a massive amount of work I was able to trim it down to 980 words which is still slightly long (shouild be around 900 words max I was told). So keep this in mind when editing it, and don't add too much information. It's alright if you add info, just try to delete other info and think it through first. Thanks. Quadzilla99 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I reviewed this article for GA status and found a few issues that need to be addressed.

  • criteria 3a ((a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic) - It does not address the similarities and differences with the original story. It does not discuss negative critism of the movie. Discussion of important themes and issues in the movie not addressed well enough.
  • The plot synopsis should not be a play-by-play of the movie. It should be condensed significantly.
  • All other aspects of the article appear to conform to the GA criteria.

I hope these issues can be addressed and that this article is soon promoted. ike9898 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Okay Igordebrada addressed some of the concerns, the plot was trimmed from 1,800+ words to the current size (992 words) by myself (before the GA nom), it would be extremely hard to trim it any further while still remaining coherent (don't think I haven't tried, you can look at the edit history and my sandbox history:[15] to see I put as ton of work into condensing this thing). It's shorter than V for Vendetta (1,086 words) and several other FA's, some criticism was added. The Themes will be addressed, this is hard to do without OR so it might take a day or two to gather all the necessary sources and contstruct the thing. Incidentally I was working on this with the intention of nomming it for GA so I'm glad you put it on hold, I didn't feel it was ready yet. This will give me time to address things I felt needed addressing. Quadzilla99 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is definently in better shape now. I still think the synopsis is too long and the prose in 'theme' section could use a little polishing. I'm going to promote it; I hope this article contines to mature and improve! ike9898 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence to talk page

The follwoing statement needs a source so I removed it. "The only original element from the early script which made it to the final film is the sequence in the car factory, an idea that Spielberg loved."[citation needed] I couldn't find a reliable one so I removed it in lieu of one. Feel free to re-insert if a source can be provided. Quadzilla99 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I'm pleased to see that work has been done on this film article! I was actually considering this film as one of my next projects (trying to finish up Fight Club these days). I'd like to make some suggestions on improving the article:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraphs should be a concise overview of the film article. Thus, citations are not necessary in the lead if the article's content already covers it.
Both are acceptable as FA's typically are done in both formats. There's no heavy citation density which is a definite no-no. In most of the articles I work heavily on such as Michael Jordan I don't put links in the lead. It seems fine to me, but if you want to remove them go ahead. Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. I've seen what you've seen on these articles; guess I'm trying to pursue uniformity. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest identifying the major actors in the Synopsis, such as who portrayed Anderton and Agatha. I realize that the lead covers that, but sections should be able to stand alone; the lead draws from them to create the overview. So I'd suggest having "Anderton (Tom Cruise)" and "Agatha (Samantha Morton)" -- you don't need to say "portrayed by", I think it's pretty clear what the set up means.
I removed them, because given the complexity of the plot I had a tremendously difficult time getting the word count down (I got it from 1,800+ words to a shade under 1,000), I'll put them back in. Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think these are probably acceptable. I haven't really developed an opinion on the Plot yet. I know that it's complicated, but I'm trying to see if it can be trimmed further without losing content. I'm aware that some FA-class film articles have sections of similar length. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • De-link wiktionary words -- better yet, replace the linked "lam" with on the lam.
I replaced the lam link. There's nothing wrong with linking to wiktionary. When trimming I linked some terms to condense the word count. Also the orgy of evidence entry was created by me so we would not have to explain the scenario in detail. In addition, as I learned people in foreign countries might not know what "set up" or "framed" means or such (I learned this through several FAC's and GA noms). Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, really? That's fine, then; I just took these terms for granted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Production needs to start off with more detail about the short story, such as the short story's actual title with "The", the year it was written, the author wiki-linked, etc. I would also suggest changing wording like "fell apart" and "tossed out" to something more professional. Also, can more specific production information be provided? How long did filming take, and did it film on location anywhere?
I'm sure it could be provided, I'll look for it. As I said be Bold if you can find some. Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see if I can change some of the wording. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As for Style, is there anything that can be mentioned about the cinematography? I seem to recall that the scene in which the camera sweeps over the spyders' search of the apartment floor was fairly notable in the cinematographic sense.
I'll look into it, but feel free to be bold if you find any info. Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could Style and Music be subsections under Production, as they are related to that?
Maybe, I like the idea of style as a stand alone section. Quadzilla99 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some other minor suggestions to make, but I might see if I can take care of these myself. If you want, I can help dig up more resources related to the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll address these as I get time, be Bold if you want to make any changes yourself. Quadzilla99 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you viewed the commentary for the film's DVD, if there is one? It could be pretty useful, as information comes straight from the lion's mouth. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually lost my DVD, so you/I could probably go to Blockbuster, rent it, and answer a lot of the questions. I replaced fell apart with dissolved and tossed out with discarded in the production section for now, maybe a better wording could be provided. Quadzilla99 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible citations

Anderson's credentials here. Could be used to help with Themes, Reception, or be added in External links. I'll add more in time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be some good stuff in these resources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the script:[16] Quadzilla99 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anderton dreams happy ending due to halo?

I don't know if anyone has ever thought of this interpretation, but I seem to remember the organ-playing security guard mentioning as Anderton is put away that when haloed, "all one's dreams can come true", that one can dream anything. Perhaps everything in the movie after this point is playing out in Anderton's mind; it would certainly seem to be a perfect ending, from his point of view. He gets out of jail, he gets back togother with Laura, Burgess is caught, the precogs are released, and precrime is shut down. However, in reality, he would only be dreaming this due to his halo - in reality, Burgess is not caught and precrime goes national, etc. Anderton's mind had simply made an ending where he gets out, is vindicated, etc. This is clearly a much darker interpretation of the movie, but I don't know if the producers intended it.

Zatomics 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an original thought but it's original research and as such has no place in Wikipedia. Quadzilla99 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


So what. This is a Wiki page for a Tom Cruise movie not "The Evolution of Man" or "Mr. Marcus lost his keys,balls". Go check out other pages on movies (and about every other topic) there is plenty of "original research" included-under its own section of course. I vouch that it be REincluded into the page. I'll reinclude it myself soon enough. End speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.228.4 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

İn the movie names of three precogs are Arthur, Dashiell and Agatha. Names of precogs are diffirent in the original story. So I suspect these names given to characters by screenwriter or Spielberg are a referance to the greatest crime fiction writers Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle and Dashiell Hammett. Even in one scence John Anderton calls precogs as "dedectives". I thought if someone can prove my suspicion with a statement by director or something, we can put this info on trivia. Isatay 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was in there before but t had to be trimmed when we cut down the plot summary to avod copyright problems (overly long plot summaries are a copyvio). Not sure if t merits mentiion it's kind of trivia. If I find a source and a place to put it I'll add it back in. Quadzilla99 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's mentioned in one of the making of things, so you could cite one of those. hbdragon88 06:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3rd Interpretation?

I recently rewatched this movie and had a sudden itch to read the wiki article on it as a result. However, upon reaching the Possible Interpretations of the Ending section of the article I noticed a new addition to the two interpretations I have read in the past. It reads, "... Lastly, is it possible that the system of "putting away potential criminals" has a parallel to our present day that takes into consideration the way a subset of psychiatry community have abused their authority to undermine the credibility of some among us who are privy to rouge activities in major organizations around the world and takes a group effort to rid of it." Although I don't have any problems with the statement (other than a few missing words and possible grammatical errors) I was wondering if this interpretation should remain in the article, as it has no source. 202.216.120.125 07:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style, The Matrix

This distinctive look is the first major stylistic shift in science fiction films since Blade Runner and the "used future" look of Alien, and has subsequently influenced cinematography and production design in the same way that those earlier pictures influenced the look of the science fiction films of the 1980s and 1990s.

What about 'The Matrix'? I don't know anything about film or film styles, but I remember it having a distinct appearance & coloring (which differed between the real world and the virtual). So that movie didn't influence the style of any succeeding movies (or cause a "stylistic shift")? --70.143.50.204 —Preceding comment was added at 06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)