The film opens with a discussion about pre-crime going national.
So why not just arrange to meet Agatha's mother outside of DC and kill her there? Job done.
Additional, how could it go national when the pre-cogs had a limited range of 200 miles (because... Well just because they did).
Were there more pre-cogs?
Very good point about killing outside of DC. The director of PreCrime should have been the first person to think of that, also.
shareIt's not a very good question at all. In fact, I think it's a stupid question.
And it's been asked before a number of times. See this thread:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/thread/247345148
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile
Of course it's good question. You're presumably too much of a cretin to see it. Let me help your gentle mind.
1) All he needs to do is have her killed outside the range.
2) How does pre-crime go national?
No, it isn't. And for the record, I'm not referring to the "How does pre-crime go national?" question. That is actually a good question - I don't dispute that. There isn't an answer either, unfortunately. It's not explained in the film so we can only speculate.
But, as was referenced in the thread in the last post, killing her (or having her killed) outside the range would have meant a full-on murder enquiry. That would be a huge risk to Burgess - just as it would for anyone who decides to commit murder.
However, killing Ann Lively the way he did by taking advantage of the system that he runs gave him absolute control.
It's a shame you couldn't see the bigger picture. :)
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile
Durp.
No it wouldn't because Burgess wasn't doing the killing. That's the point. He would hire a drifter to do it so the drifter getting caught would be exactly the same as what he planned in the film except he (Burgess) would be utterly untouchable.
And before you say... but the drifter might have confessed that Burgess put him up to it... Well that applied in the movie too. The drifter was arrested by pre-crime and could have told the authorities that he was paid to do it by Burgess.
Let me simplify it for you:
Tell Anne to meet in some place outside the radius. Hire a drifter to kill her once she arrives. Drifter goes to prison (and hope the drifter doesn't drop you in it).
Or (what the film does)
Create a massively elaborate scenario where you pay a drifter to kill Ann then when he's captured by pre-crime officers, you recreate the murder with the exact same location and physically kill her yourself (and still hope the drifter doesn't drop you in it).
I mean seriously.
And before you say... but the drifter might have confessed that Burgess put him up to it... Well that applied in the movie too. The drifter was arrested by pre-crime and could have told the authorities that he was paid to do it by Burgess.Which authorities? Burgess was the authorities. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, John Doe was a bum and a drug addict. Burgess might have promised him a lifelong ecstatic rush while in prison when he does exactly as told (and never exposes anything about the pre-meditated plot). In other words, getting incarcerated and provided with free drugs for life, without ever having to worry anymore about how to get through the day, might have been exactly John Doe's goal.
Why not just kill Agatha's mother outside of DCWhy would Burgess consider that? His actual plan, where he had complete control over every single detail (or at least he thought so), was almost perfect, nobody even knew that Anne Lively was dead (as far as people knew, the attack on her life had been prevented), and Burgess would have never been found out if it wasn't for an "unfortunate" collision of circumstances eight years later...
Which authorities? Burgess was the authorities. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, John Doe was a bum and a drug addict. Burgess might have promised him a lifelong ecstatic rush while in prison when he does exactly as told (and never exposes anything about the pre-meditated plot). In other words, getting incarcerated and provided with free drugs for life, without ever having to worry anymore about how to get through the day, might have been exactly John Doe's goal.
Pre-crime didn't take testimonies from their captured "suspects"; that was not their job. The "suspects" weren't even really "suspects" anymore: the previsions were considered sufficient evidence to catch and sentence those pre-murderers immediately, without any subsequent trial, hearing, or whatever. In other words, they were considered automatically guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, as soon as they were halo'ed, they were numb compliant zombies; there was pretty much no opportunity for them to resist their sentence by making their voice heard.
Why would Burgess consider that? His actual plan, where he had complete control over every single detail (or at least he thought so), was almost perfect, nobody even knew that Anne Lively was dead (as far as people knew, the attack on her life had been prevented), and Burgess would have never been found out if it wasn't for an "unfortunate" collision of circumstances eight years later...
Yeah, that's called gibberish, pal. If Burgess is the only authority then why not just kill Anne and tell the pre-crime staff to ignore it. Clearly, his power and reach was limited.Burgess may not have been the only authority; but he was pretty much the highest (local) authority. And he did (ab)use the possibilities within his power and reach (limited or not) in order to get away with murder - twice.
And, if the "authorities" didn't care about your confession/evidence/motvation then all you would have to do to get away with murder would be... Hire a hit man.No smart hitman would take that job because they'll know that they will be caught and incarcerated for life even before they have finished the job. The dumb hitmen who do take the assignment will simply end up in Containment before killing the target. Essentially, the Pre-Crime system works. No matter how many murders you plot and how many (smart or dumb) hitmen you hire, the murder success rate will be practically zero. Why should the "authorities" put in the effort (time, money) to go after the masterminds if they already succeeded in preventing every murder by simply catching the perpetrators?
The hit man is arrested but apparently (according to you) isn't questioned. Yeah, you're dumb.It is shown in the freaking movie! And you're calling me "dumb"?
If that were true, pre-crime would simply create a society where all attempted murders would be committed by drifters and people who were willing to take the fall for money.... and people who'd lose their composure in the heat of the moment. Yes, that's exactly the dystopia that the movie depicted; did you even watch the movie with your eyes open?
Yeah, I'm gonna repeat it because apparently there's a lot of dumb people here.You haven't watched a lot of movies, have you? What could happen is that your hired drifter simply screws up, and the crime doesn't go as planned at all. Watch for examples: Dial M For Murder, or A Perfect Murder. You, mister mastermind, are miles away, and won't know about any of the details of how your little plan went wrong, until the FBI comes knocking at your door and you become their mouse to toy with. Does that sound like a risk you would be willing to take? Another unwanted scenario is that drifter runs out of money after having spent it all on hookers/drugs, and repeatedly comes back to blackmail you into giving him more. What are you going to do, hire another drifter to kill the first drifter, again outside DC?
Option 1: Pay drifter to meet Anne outside DC and kill her. Job done. Drifter might confess you put him up to it (and that's if he's even caught).
Option 2: Pay drifter to kill Anne but then get caught by pre-crime and then recreate the murder with same location and murder her yourself (drifter might confess you put him up to it).Drifter is not going to confess because you devised those haloes that turn the arrested into numb dazed zombies.
The first option has NO downside except the drifter accusing you. Second option (the one seen) has the same downside (drifter accusing you) PLUS Agatha SEEING it was you and setting off a chain of events that lead straight to your door.Apparently you still don't understand that, in order for a unanimous prevision to occur that has your name on it, Pre-Crime has to catch the fall-guy first; because if fall-guy isn't arrested in time, the target still gets killed and your objective has still been met, without any reason for the precogs to predict you as being a perpetrator. Moreover, since you're the head of Pre-Crime (and the local police forces), you can see to it that fall-guy is arrested and silenced forever, you can instruct your staff to ignore any "echos" that might come in after fall-guy's arrest, and you can make any possible "minority reports" disappear; and should Anne Lively's corpse still pop up (even though you knew where and how you disposed of it thoroughly), you can manipulate the investigation to your bidding.
What reason would the authorities have for an interrogation/to what purpose would they interrogate the drifter?
You haven't watched a lot of movies, have you? What could happen is that your hired drifter simply screws up, and the crime doesn't go as planned at all. Watch for examples: Dial M For Murder, or A Perfect Murder. You, mister mastermind, are miles away, and won't know about any of the details of how your little plan went wrong, until the FBI comes knocking at your door and you become their mouse to toy with. Does that sound like a risk you would be willing to take? Another unwanted scenario is that drifter runs out of money after having spent it all on hookers/drugs, and repeatedly comes back to blackmail you into giving him more. What are you going to do, hire another drifter to kill the first drifter, again outside DC?
Drifter is not going to confess because you devised those haloes that turn the arrested into numb dazed zombies.
Apparently you still don't understand that, in order for a unanimous prevision to occur that has your name on it, Pre-Crime has to catch the fall-guy first; because if fall-guy isn't arrested in time, the target still gets killed and your objective has still been met, without any reason for the precogs to predict you as being a perpetrator.
Because what idiot would commit a murder in a city where pre-crime exists? They would all quickly learn to do it OUTSIDE the city so eventually any premeditated murders that took place inside the city would instantly set off alarm bells and be viewed as hugely suspicious by the authorities. If they know they're going to be caught, why would they still do it... unless something more is going on. Basic policing.1. John Doe's case happened in the early days of Pre-Crime.
A straw man since the exact same problem applies if you hire the drifter to do it inside DC. Remember dingus, the pre-cogs don't see screw-ups they only see successful murders. If your drifter screws up... no-one sees it.Which means that Burgess has a means to know in advance (long before the actual crime) if his method will be successful or not. As long as no John Doe prevision occurs, Burgess can choose to stay away from Anne Lively. The John Doe prevision is Burgess' cue to proceed with the plan or not.
And again, that applies to murders outside DC. Why would those arrested for murder in pre-crime DC receive different treatment to murderers outside DC?No, any arrestees outside DC don't get the halo treatment. The halo treatment was specific to Pre-Crime and pre-visioned future murderers. Arrestees outside DC are suspects, they are not guilty until they're proven guilty in a trial. They get a chance to make their voice heard and deliver their version of the story, because the truth is still unknown and has to be uncovered/established in a court of law.
The pre-cogs would see Burgess killing Anne and he would be arrested BEFORE he even hires the drifter.No, the Pre-Crime system doesn't work that way. Where in the movie is that ever alluded to?
The second option is playing with fire because it's Agatha's mother and provides her with an incentive that could come back to bite him on the arse. The first option however (outside DC) removes that from the equation entirely and your drifter still doesn't talk (even if they screw up).Criminals play with fire either way. Fact is, Burgess thought he had everything in control as long as he kept everything in his control. He thought that he was the one managing things, and also that he would be giving away control if he involved people from outside his jurisdiction.
1. John Doe's case happened in the early days of Pre-Crime.
2. Just because something is forbidden by law and just because there exists a quite foolproof way to battle the crime doesn't automatically mean there don't exist criminals who would still try it. The main point is: why would the (smug, complacent, dystopian) "authorities" put in the extra hassle (time, money) of investigating stuff when they already have pretty much the guarantee to prevent any serious crime automatically via the (relatively cheap) precog system?
What "alarm bells" are you speaking of? The only alarm bells that mattered to that dystopian justice system were the precog alerts when another prevision comes in. Did anyone at Pre-Crime listen to John Anderton when a brown wooden ball with his name was rolling? No, nobody did.
Which means that Burgess has a means to know in advance (long before the actual crime) if his method will be successful or not. As long as no John Doe prevision occurs, Burgess can choose to stay away from Anne Lively. The John Doe prevision is Burgess' cue to proceed with the plan or not.
And what the heck are you talking about "the exact same problem applies [...] inside DC"? Burgess' plan involved the drifter getting caught. That means the drifter is put in Containment and can't come back and blackmail Burgess endlessly.
No, the Pre-Crime system doesn't work that way. Where in the movie is that ever alluded to?
And we saw in the movie that human determination can alter the pre-visioned future. (This is the concept that Anderton demonstrated with the hand catching the falling ball.)
This means that the threat from the drifter comes first, logically.
Criminals play with fire either way. Fact is, Burgess thought he had everything in control as long as he kept everything in his control. He thought that he was the one managing things, and also that he would be giving away control if he involved people from outside his jurisdiction.
Furthermore, outside DC there's no guarantee whatsoever that the drifter won't talk.
It's not a very good question at all. In fact, I think it's a stupid question.
And it's been asked before a number of times. See this thread:
Not to mention, the ensuing conversation which had good points on both sides, means that it was an excellent question.
shareThe main problem with doing the murder outside of DC is there wouldn't be a movie.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
"How could precrime go national."
Well when Anderton goes to talk to Dr. Hineman she tells them that the trio were all children of neuron addicts.
Assuming that the drug has some sort of effect on the brain of developing fetus' when the mother takes it during pregnancy, they basically have a recipe to 'manufacture'as many precogs as they need wherever they need.
Great question. It's been pretty funny watching people defend this to the death when it's clear the only answer is there wouldn't be a movie. They never addressed it during the film, so it's obvious that it was meant to simply be ignored.
Killing her outside of DC gave him all kinds of options without any precrime interference.
Great question. It's been pretty funny watching people defend this to the death when it's clear the only answer is there wouldn't be a movie. They never addressed it during the film, so it's obvious that it was meant to simply be ignored.If Lamar had killed Anne Lively outside DC, then the same petty IMDb users would have come up with the complaint "Why didn't Lamar kill her inside DC, where he had control over the police force?"
Killing her outside of DC gave him all kinds of options without any precrime interference.
1) Because then there's no movie.
2) It couldn't go national.
But we're supposed to ignore both of these things for entertainment purposes.
Spielberg should have done more to address them though (even if he didnt offer very convincing explanations).
Who doesn't want to go to nationals?!
share