posted
Yeah, but he's got a point. That part was tense specifically because we as an audience were expecting him to go blind if the spiders found him. It was something of a letdown when he didn't. Whatever tension the scene had seemed like a cheat later on.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Also that was a fairly bright light the spider shone in his eye...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Elna
Ex-Member
posted
I thought it built up the tension for no point aswell. I mean, after all that, nothing happened to him concerning the spiders. Still, the film was top notch and i'm not gonna go on about the bad parts too much...
IP: Logged
posted
Gee, I waited weeks to see the film before I could finally read this thread. . . and only about 5 posts have anything to do with it. And as for that scene, I wondered from the start why they picked that building to do a sweep in at all. Coincidence = sloppy plotting, and if they had other information should have gone further than "Oh, just a drunk. Lunchtime!"
posted
In addition, as far as I remember, there were no spider scanners in the story. Nor were there any half ass chase scenes that did nothing for the story.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
There wasn't a big red fancy Lexus either. A direct translatory piece would've been as dull as I am. The spiders weren't as cool as they could have been, though.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And, as far as the idea of a national Precrime department goes, I just assumed that those three kids weren't the only surviving drug babies out there, and that maybe other facilities would be set up for other precogs; maybe not as good as the original three, but close.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: And, as far as the idea of a national Precrime department goes, I just assumed that those three kids weren't the only surviving drug babies out there, and that maybe other facilities would be set up for other precogs; maybe not as good as the original three, but close.
Which is a possibility, but then why would the villain go to the trouble of staging an elaborate crime just to keep Agatha, when he could just get nearly as good precogs elsewhere? Then you also have the commercials stating that these three precogs are a "gift to society" and even minor religions being built around them. The existence of more procogs would tend to undermine that, especially since you would need three or more for every city to go national. (which admittedly seems to be a contradiction, if you need more for other cities to go national, then the original three aren't that valuable, then why commit a crime to keep them in order to make pre-crime a success, in order to go national? Wow, thats near circular)
Wasn't it also mentioned that the designer drugs that created them were eventually cleaned up so they wouldn't have this side effect, so there wouldn't be any possible new sources of precogs either?
Then again, PKD books usually aren't too coherent when it comes to drugs, so that could just be an influence from the book (which I have not read) , and not a fault of the movie.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well there's a similar problem with the shooting of Leo Crow:
In the vision Anderton shoots Leo Crow after discovering that Leo Crow seemed to be his son's killer, with Agatha in tow. Then after seeing the report Anderton goes on to kidnap Agatha, and replay the scene almost exactly, with the only difference being Leo Crow shoots himself.
The thing is though, how would Anderton have gotten there in the first place without seeing the vision? Did the vision cause the crime in the first place? But if that were the case, how would Anderton's boss know that just by hiring Leo Crow to act like Anderton's sons killer, that the pre-cogs would have the vision that leads Anderton there? My brain hurts.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I seem to recall that was the original point of the short story, shorn of all the extras put in to pad it out to feature length - that Anderton only ended up killing someone because he had to go on the run. . . for going to kill someone. A self-fulfilling prophecy, in effect.
when Anderton told the layd in the greenhouse he had no idea who Leo Crowe was, didnt the doctor reply that [something to this extent, i dont remember the exact wordage] whoever he was, u'l end up on a path to kill him...
a self-fulfiling prophecy, since all Agatha knew would be that John would seemingly kill Crowe, she didnt (or rather the ppl back at pre-crime HQ didnt) know the events which lead up to the Leo Crowe murder. As the mall chase scene would imply that Agatha knows what to expect (duh..she's a precog).
and about the pre-cogs in a nationwide program, couldnt they just clone the original 3 and then put the clones through the same process that the 3 precogs went thru? i assume that by then the genetic manipulation technology would be available to them [from what i gather by that lady Doctor in the greenhouse's explanation - what's her character's name again?].
neways thats just my thawts
-------------------- "Tom is Canadian. He thereby uses advanced humour tecniques, such as 'irony', 'sarcasm', and werid shit'. If you are not qualified in any of these, it will be risky for you to attempt to decipher what he means. Just smile and carry on." - PsyLiam; 16th June
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
These thoughts about the plot holes bothered my friend and I as well, who saw it the other night. But it was very hard to articulate them during the movie.
It felt as if there were something wrong, even as I was watching it, but just couldn't pin it down.
Did anybody else have these problems, or am I just stupid?
I have to say, if it did nothing else, it did for the most part provide an interesting view of the future. and something which seemed fairly reasonable on most accounts. Not for 2054 (?), but perhaps farther off.
I loved those aircraft thingies. Is there anything out there on what they are, the concepts they're based off of, etc.?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: Then again, PKD books usually aren't too coherent when it comes to drugs
Er, are we thinking of the same author?
Minority Report = better Dick film than Blade Runner (Though not, necessarily, better film.) Why? Because it wasn't about a minority report.
That is to say, a good Dick story isn't about what you think it is. Or at least not about what you think it is in the way you think it will be. The supposed central gimmick of Minority Report is the minority report. But it turns out that there isn't one regarding Cruise, and then the main bad guy is brought down by an entirely different phenomenon.
In contrast, there weren't any twists like that (and by "like that" I mean of a minor and subtle degree, as opposed to "And it turns out that the villain is a robot communist!" stripe) in Blade Runner. (Also, no Mercerism, which seems to me the heart of the story, though it does not stop the film from being very good.) Total Recall has none, despite what Verhoeven may say, and let us remember that Verhoeven's sole goal is the destruction of all we hold dear. In Screamers the robot girl falls in love with him. Case rested.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
