Talk:The Minority Report

Differences between story and the film
The article states: "Precrime is a government branch in the story and a Police department in the movie." I just listened to the audio book and precrime 'is' a police department. Can some someone confirm that this is the same in the written text, and if so, change the article - i.e. remove the above passage.
 * It is alluded to in the second chapter, shortly after the Anderson introduces to Witwer to his wife Lisa (page 8). It is explicitly stated by page 15, when Anderson tells Kaplan he is the Commissioner of Police.

= "Like many time travel stories,"... = In article, it is said: "Like many time travel stories,"... but this is not a time travel story, so this is misleading.Saigon from europe 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that line as "Like many time travel stories, this story about people with the ability to see into the future questions the existance of free will." It doesn't say that Minority Report, itself, is a time travel story, but that it addresses the same philosphical questions many time travel stories also touch on. (And yeah - I know that comment was ancient.) —  Indi  [ talk ] 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Editing for other content, clarified this as well - ChaunceyMo

The Minority Report
Since the title of the short story (as opposed from the movie or books of collection including the story) actually is  The Minority Report, I propose that this article be moved to The Minority Report. --193.11.177.69 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. No reason to call this article Minority Report when the title of the short story is The Minority Report. It may seem like a subtle difference, but you might as well call the Blade Runner article Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. DT29 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely, the only reason the title is "Minority Report" is because that is the name of the film. The story is called "The Minority Report" and so the page should be.

Incorrect Summary?
If I remember correctly (can't find my copy of the book right now, unfortunately) the premise in the book was that the "minority report" issue only arose when it was the commissioner who would be found guilty. This worked as follows: * The first precog said, "Yes, he will kill the man." * The second precog said, "Since he has the knowledge from the first precog, he will not kill the man." * The third precog said, "Since he has the knowledge from the first and second precogs, he will, in fact, kill the man." I'm not one hundred percent sure that that's right, though, so I'm hesitant to change it; does anyone who has a copy of the book handy care to comment? 70.16.57.154 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct. The theme of the story is that the making of predictions can itself change the future, if the subject is aware of the prediction. As I recall, there is no suggestion that Anderton can exercise free will to choose between the three futures - only that the first two predictions become invalid as a result of Anderton knowing about them. 222.152.182.245 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He did have a choice of 3 futures. 1) Allow himself to be arrested for Precrime, temporarily stopping the scheme. 2) Avoid arrest, and not kill Kaplan, playing into Kaplan's hands. 3) Avoid arrest and kill Kaplan, ending his scheme. He, of his own free will, chose option three, accepting the price of exile to prove Precrime correct.  It was not the making of the prediction, but the publicizing of it that allowed Kaplan to force that sadistic choice.  However, Kaplan didn't quite think it through.  If John didn't have it in him to kill Kaplan in cold blood, the prediction would never have been made.  So his hope to be alive and take down Precrime was not a very good bet. 74.211.58.201 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You remember right, and it should be included as one of the major differences between the book and the film (the original concept probably would be too difficult to understand for the mass public, hence in the film it's just that one of the precogs is "more accurate" because of being a woman :] ) 86.29.93.122 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading in an issue of Wizard, that this story was going to be made into a sequel to Totall Recall. Does anyone else have anymore information?

Weak Plot Premise?
I'm curious, in the book Anderson founded Precrime and has at least some grasp of how the precogs function. Why would he, after 30 years as the CEO and Commissioner of Police, be so clueless about the Minority Reports and predetermination? Has this logical flaw in the story's premise ever been mentioned by critics or addressed the author? 76.241.116.168 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty mind bending. In cases where the precriminal is unaware of the prediction (most cases) Precrime is always right. He had simply not considered the possibility of there being three minority reports, because as the creator of precrime, he had no motive to murder that he was aware of, and he believed himself to be not a killer. And only someone in his position can ever get three minority reports. 74.211.58.201 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

75.43.18.19 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Short answer: Philip K Dick wrote the story. He was a drug addict and a paranoid man. He was not Azimov, Clarke, or Bradbury. Dick thought differently, either as a result of his addictions, his mental problems or both. He wrote many terrible stories, that are full of insane "mistakes" but that work within the frame of the story.

Diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com
A link to this fansite * [http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Minority%20Report.htm "The Minority Report" fansite] is a suspected attack site. This owner of philipkdickfans.com may or may not beware their page contains malicious code. What is the current listing status for philipkdickfans.com?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 9 time(s) over the past 90 days. See ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Minority%20Report.htm Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com


 * Would it be appropriate to state something like this on the article page? Perhaps referencing more than Google so there will be no appearance of partiality. I've gotten warnings about the site from other security protection but also been informed website owner was aware of problem and trying to get it cleaned. A search from Yahoo now with this browser didn't give me a warning but I didn't click on the link and IIRC either Yahoo search results don't warn until you click on a link. My browser software doesn't display safety ratings on Yahoo's search page though it should give a block and warning if I attempt to click on a questionable link from there but I don't want to deliberately put it to the test only a couple days after updating this browser. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)