"Per Kristensen" <pzk@crayon.dk> writes:
> 1. I've been thinking about this alot, and I've realized that the whole idea
> of comitting a murder to look like an "echo" after another one wouldn't
> work. If you think about it, that system would work to cover up the visual
> part of the premonition, but how would it stop a ball from being created?
Easy. Boldene kommer først i løbet af "transmissionen", når de
relevante fakta dukker op. (Som vi ser i Andertons tilfælde, hvor hans
bold først dukker op ret sent.)
Hvis teknikeren opfatter, at det er et ekko, så afbryder han
behandlingen af sagen. Hvis det var et ekko ville der komme et ekstra
sæt bolde med de relevante navne og det ville der ikek være nogen
grund til. Altså: sagsbehandlingen afbrydes tidligt.
> 2. The police were able to track down John during most of the movie because
> his eyes were constantly scanned and his location sent to the cops, yet when
> he uses one of his eyes on the scanner to open the door tn the basement of
> the pre-crime department, no alarms go off! They were able to track him down
> all the way to an old delapidating building but not the police station
> itself?
Som skrevet et andet sted: Den kælderindgang virker som en "bagdør" på
mere end en måde. Komplekse EDB-systemer har ofte den slags. Jeg kan
huske, at jeg opfattede den som sådan, selv om det ikke fastlægges, at
det er tilfældet. Det, der kan undre, er så hvorfor Anderton er kodet
ind i denne bagdør.
> 3. In the beginning, when Anderton arrests the jealous husband, he notes
> that he is being arrested on April 22 - that day - for the future murder of
> his wife and her lover. Later, while Anderton is jogging, we see billboards
> advocating a "Yes" vote on pre-crime on April 22. The next day, Anderton's
> boss Lamar notes that the vote is in a week, which would make it April 15,
> making the day that the jealous husband was arrested April 14, not April 22.
Det er en kontinuitetsfejl. At kalde det et plothul er
sensationsjageri (ligesom det ikke er et plothul, at sagsnummeret 1008
står på skærmen, mens Anderton arbejder på sag 1009)
> 4. After the fight scene in the automobile plant where Anderton is built
> into a car on the assembly line, we see him sit up after the car is done
> being made. It's obvious that we are looking at the tail-end of the
> production process, because we see the car he is in being painted as it
> rolls along. When the car is finished, Anderton sits up in the driver's seat
> and drives the car out an exit that is apparently right in front of him. If
> this is the end of a giant assembly line, where do the rest of the cars go?
> Does someone drive all of them off of the line as well?
De har naturligvis allesammen et elektronisk navigationssystem, der
kører dem ud af døren og hen på lageret. Man må gerne tænke selv.
> 5. This really confuses me. The guy who got caught/framed for the murder of
> the pre-cog's mother was known as "John Doe", because they didn't know his
> real name. Then what was the name on his ball?
Heh. Ja, den er faktisk god.
> 6. The movie makes a big deal about "pre-crime" going national. Are we to
> believe that the same three pre-cogs are now going to cover the entire
> nation? (har jeg selv omtalt tidligere)
Måske. Vi kender ikke teknologien i detaljer, så måske er det
muligt. Det kan også være, at man vil klone dem. Igen: Det er for
pokker ikke alting, der behøver at blive forklaret, for at man kan
acceptere det.
Jeg mener: "In Star Wars the Millenium Falcon flies at speeds _above_
the speed of light. That is impossible. How do they do that?"
Nej vel?
> 7. After the first attempted murder of Anne Lively the police would surely
> have taken her away to make a statement. Not only do they not do this, but
> she is immediately left alone to be murdered, and somehow the police see
> nothing odd in her instant vanishing, and they treat it as just another
> disappearance.
Hun var narkoman. Du ville blive chokeret over hvor lidt man faktisk
gør for at finde ud af hvad der er sket med forsvundne narkomaner.
> 8. 1) The futures that are projected ONLY come from timelines where the
> visions have not had an effect (because you don't see police in the murder
> visions crashing through windows). 2) John and Agatha (the Precog girl)
> appear in the vision together. 3) If John and Agatha appear in the vision,
> then the future that was projected comes from a timeline affected by the
> visions. 4) The future that was projected CANNOT come from a timeline
> affected by the visions. 5) Therefore, John and Agatha appearing in the
> vision is incorrect.
Igen: Logik og precog-plots er som olie og vand. De er plot devices, ganske
som tidsrejser er det, og man kan ikke forvente alt for megen
konsistens i måden de virker på. Man kan sagtens lave forklaringer på,
hvorfor det ovenstående kan ske i dette tilfælde, men det er
meningsløst.
> 9. If Burgess was planning to kill Anne Lively through that whole elaborate
> system, he would have had to think about this for a long time. Wouldn't the
> precogs have seen it BEFORE he hired someone else to kill her? He had to
> think of killing her himself before anyone else did...
Se 8.
> 10. The time period of the movie is 2054. There is an election day (April
> 22nd) that is on a billboard and then announced as a Tuesday. However, April
> 22nd, 2054 is actually on a Wednesday.
Vi skifter kalender i 2016. Se 3.
> 11. In the scene where they give a tour to school children they saw
> pre-crime has been running smoothly for 9 years. Anderton's son has been
> missing for 6 years why then when John was talking to Burgess did he say if
> the company would have been around 6 months earlier his son's death would
> have never happened, when the company had been around 3 years earlier?
Fordi alt hvad de fortalte børnene var løgn? "The precogs have their
own rooms, TVs and gyms, bla bla bla"
> 12. Why at the end of the film do the pre-cogs see the future murder of
> Anderton by Von Sydow's character, and thereby enable the cops to appear at
> the last minute to save him, when it is in fact his own suicide? Max Von
> Sydow knew that the murder would be detected, but clearly wanted to do it
> anyway - no information is given to him to change his mind that he didn't
> already know, and the cops turn up after the shot is fired, so why was it
> ever seen as a murder? Or is this just intended as final proof that the
> system doesn't work after all?
Mordet på Anderton i visionen var et affektmord.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Plej omgang med vise, så bliver du vís,
The RockBear. ((^)) den, der omgås tåber, går det ilde."
I speak only 0}._.{0 Ordsprogenes bog 13,20
for myself. O/ \O