Name-calling with a side of misplaced condescension? Good luck with that. And your unnecessary parenthetical definition is even incorrect! Delicious.

Oh man thanks so much for that! From now on I’m going to make sure I think about that before I write anything. So simple & so smart.

If you’re ten years or younger, I apologize. But your arguments are not only flawed, they are also repetitive. And you’re getting abrasive (it means bitchy). Enjoy your Power Rangers.

“I’m not going to get into a discussion about time travel paradoxes.”

I don’t believe I’ve mentioned either time travel or paradoxes.

“And the scene is about demonstrating the premise of the film: pregogs are showing them what’s going to happen unless they stop it. In doing so, the scene preemptively answers the question: How can you be so sure it would have happened? Well, how can you be so sure the sphere would’ve fallen. It’s really not that complicated.”

I agree that it’s not complicated. One can be sure the sphere would’ve fallen because such things are governed by defined physical laws. Human behavior does not follow such a deterministic trajectory; therefore, the analogy is inapt.

“And no, it’s not “the same as with murders”. Murders don’t fall off tables do they?”

I don’t know if you didn’t read the scene or didn’t see the quotation marks, but I can’t believe you posted this.

I’m not going to get into a discussion about time travel paradoxes. This is about screenwriting. And the scene is about demonstrating the premise of the film: pregogs are showing them what’s going to happen unless they stop it. In doing so, the scene preemptively answers the question: How can you be so sure it would have happened? Well, how can you be so sure the sphere would’ve fallen. It’s really not that complicated. Whether the precogs ARE always spot on or not is not the issue. Jed and his peeps believe they are and so the story unfolds…

And no, it’s not “the same as with murders”. Murders don’t fall off tables do they?

“Precognition accurateley predicts the future.”

The truth of the movie–and the reason for this scene–is that precognition does not always accurately predict the future. If it did, then either the prevention of foreseen murders would be impossible, or the visions would be of the precrime agents swooping in to stop the murder. Neither is the case.

“The point is, the scene does not compare the two, it uses one to illustrate the other.”

OK, fine, it uses the comparison (“It’s the same with the murders”) to illustrate. Quibbling is unproductive.

You create the rules of your universe and then you abide by them.

Back to the Future was careful to lay down its own rules. You can’t do X, but you can do Y. If Marty doesn’t repair the timeline, he will fade from his photograph and from history. In a clever twist, by repairing the past, Marty was able to improve his future timeline as well. And we all go along because the author was consistent to his universe and the tone of his piece.

It is the same with Minority Report. They lay out the science fiction premise and we go along for the ride. When the paradoxes get written into the plot, it does become VERY complicated. Nevertheless, form follows function, and those time travel pecadillos are part and parcel of the Minority Report premise and execution.

Star Trek is not hinged on a time travel premise. Quite the contrary. Standing on the shoulders of endless amounts of preexisting mythology and content, we have a social contract with the filmmakers that we are going to get more of the same, albeit, updated with modern special effects and JJ Abrams’ savvy rock and roll attitude. Lo — we have come to bear witness to the early years of Kirk and Spock. In essence, we bought a ticket to see the Starfleet Academy days.

We learn only at the mid-act climax that the current timeline we have been watching is an altered one. Then, though a vulcan mind meld, we are treated to confusing exposition about RED MATTER to explain this.

Then they follow that bit of chicanery with yet more. Fine. We ASSUME Kirk has to right what went wrong. That will surely the timeline, save Vulcan, etc. so that cosmos is the same and those wonderful Next Generation episodes can still happen down the line.

Not so fast. Well, our ASSUMPTION is wrong. In a very unsatisfying scene between Spock Prime and New Spock, we realize that this is a new timeline. Forever. In the old one, Kirk’s father lived to old age. In this one, he dies heroically to save his son.

Does speculative quantum mechanics make this possible?

Sure. Is it good storytelling? No.

Now you might say, “Well, I will swallow that bitter pill so that I can have real suspense. If I know they all live, why will I then watch?”

Well, Ben, it is an ORIGIN story. There are inherent limitations on the form. Don’t we know Darth Vadar’s future plans when he is a boy? But we bought a ticket to Phantom Menace anyway. This is not a story limitation, per se, but a grand opportunity to show turning points. When did Kirk find his leadership, or Spock his ability to suppress emotion?

The movie succeeds when it plays with these story points. Bones begins by adoring Spock, only to detest him the moment Spock turns on Kirk. Great. So that is the origin of their feud!

Only, wait… it isn’t. Because this is the drastically new timeline. See what I mean? You can’t have it both ways. But the movie did, and then just ended as a springboard for new sequels.

Now having said that, I totally dug the movie for the most part. Star Trek was a fun genre movie. In fact, in Imax, it is downright magical.

But you just can’t have it both ways. We can’t be delighted to find out the origin of Star Trek lore only to throw it out and present an alternate reality…

If you watch the movie a second time, as I did, you will basically see that:

The time travel plot is illogical. Red Matter is never explained except as the most simple of McGuffins. The Bad Guy was very cliched and uninteresting.

Finally, I couldn’t help but notice that this was more of a Star Wars movie than a Star Trek film, down to the production design and tone. It’s homages to Star Trek were of the most superficial nature: “Damnit, I’m a doctor, Jim!” Yet beasts, cantina scenes, and non-stop action abound.

Fortunately for me, I like both Star Trek and Star Wars. But I also call a movie as I see it. I was not emotionally satisfied with this story, and I feel it’s amazing reviews have yet to take into account the lack of elegance with which this particular time travel choice was executed.

Great link, since I’m about to start work on a time-travel script while between projects.

In general, I definitely go out of my way to directly address any questions which will invariably come up. Whenever there’s a “plot hole” like these, I always wonder why someone doesn’t just ask the main character this very question and have him/her address it (just like in Minority Report).

It’s true that the scene is comparing gravity to precognition, but I don’t see how you can deny that it is, in doing this, also comparing falling objects to human behavior.

If you like, I’ll say it’s comparing gravity regarding wooden balls to precognition regarding human behavior. It’s the human behavior part that’s important. If it was precognition regarding dice rolls or coin flips I would have no problem.

@Michael

I thought the idea was to address questions or questionable aspects of the movie in an intelligent, effective way–or as John says, to “kill” the questions–not to treat the audience like children.

What I was left pondering as I left the theater was how a movie with such numerous and gaping plot holes escaped development.

Also, I didn’t say it would stop cops from arresting people–it wouldn’t, as they would have no more volition than the murders–just that it would be unjust.