I don't mind film adaptations of novels; the reason I say "tampering" here is because these changes just turn a good work into a bad film.
The logic of the novel is clear and there are no flaws.
The logic of the movie has changed a lot, and it can't justify itself after the changes.
The structure of the novel is simple and short, and although it involves power struggles, the core is still science fiction.
The film participates in a large number of psychological dramas, emotional dramas, and action movies to fill the time, playing humanity cards and political cards. It is not so much a science fiction film as it is a power struggle drama dressed in science fiction.
The logic of the novel:
The first report: Anderton killed Kaplan. The
second report: Anderton learned of Kaplan's conspiracy, changed his mind, and did not kill Kaplan.
(This is the abandoned "Minority Report") The
third report: Anderton faced the second situation and changed his mind again and killed Kaplan.
[The details are as follows:
Donna’s report: Kaplan kidnapped Anderton and threatened him to voluntarily cancel the crime prevention system. In order to avoid civil war, the Senate rejected Anderton's request for help. Anderton finally killed Kaplan successfully.
Jerry's report: After Anderton learned that he was about to commit a crime, he cancelled the crime. This is the discarded "minority" report.
So Kaplan decided to publish Jerry's "minority" report to prove that the system was ineffective.
Mike's report: In the face of this situation, Anderton changed his attention again. Kaplan, because he believed in the rejected minority report, did not take precautions, but tried to appear in the public with Anderton. Anderton killed Kaplan to protect the system and was exiled to the Sagittarius constellation. 】
Therefore, the three reports are different. Although Donna and Mike's report ended in the same way, they were actually narrating events in different time courses. The third report invalidated the second, and the second invalidated the first. Mike's report is the most correct, and there is no fourth report to invalidate it.
This exception will only happen to the few people who can see the report, such as Anderton and his successor, Witworth. The entire system continues to operate.
The novel does not involve too many legal and moral issues, so a few unsolved questions are left:
1. How to prove legally that a person who has not committed a crime is a "criminal"?
2. If the "future offender" learns the predicted results, what will be the series of changes in the outcome? Do you need more forecasters to overturn the previous timeline report? Who can be the final minority reporter? Is it fair to these "criminals" if the information is not disclosed?
The remedy and response of the film:
insert theological theory. Compare crime prevention to sacrifices, and predictors to gods or prophets to solve the problem of how to convince the people. This is actually great.
But then, the film quickly introduced the subject of criticism of superstition technology. Fall into the pit of technology vs. human nature and ultimately human nature defeats technology.
In order to avoid the problems of multiple timelines, the film tampered with the important logic of the
novel : in the novel, minority reports exist, and all three reports are “minority” reports; in the
movie, the results of the three predictors are the same, the so-called The "minority" report actually does not exist.
In the novel, Anderton must kill, but the same ending in different timelines, a science fiction drama.
In the movie, Anderton must kill because of revenge for his son, a psychodrama.
In other words, it is more reasonable to remove the science fiction element of the film and only show how Pukaran designed and made Anderton finally kill.
In the film, the essence of the novel is tampered with into a big bug. As the Prophet and himself later emphasized, he still had choices. In the novel, the second “choice” after knowing the prediction can still be predicted, but because there are no multiple timelines in the movie, this second choice cannot be predicted. Therefore, Anderton's killing does not mean that the crime prevention system is correct, and Kaplan eventually contradicts the prediction and again declares the failure of the prediction system.
Even so, the director is still not satisfied. In order to express the dualism of humanity & technology, and the former surpasses the latter, the director not only endowed the hero with the "humanity" psychology of losing his son, but even endowed the "prophet" with humanity. Lead the audience to slump to the ground in moral condemnation of this system.
This is still not enough. In order to cater to the broad audience, the technology is perfect but contrary to humanitarianism (in fact, as mentioned above, this technology is not perfect), people are flawed but heroic expectations, the character image settings in the novel and the interrelationship between them are also The tampering is beyond recognition: In the
novel, Anderton and Witworth first have the illusion of contradictions, and then they are on the same front; the two people's common interests and concerns are the technology system itself.
And Anderton is a typical middle-aged educated youth plus a small leader image, and Anderton in the film is almost like a superman.
In the movie, Anderton and Witworth have different interests and concerns. Anderton cares about how technology avoids tragedies, while Witworth cares about legal fairness.
Anderton, has become a superman who can fight against the best.
[So here is another bug: a system that relies on human resources so much, shouldn't there be a back-up that can be played at any time in order to ensure its operation? The setting of Witworth in the novel first appeared as Anderton's assistant, while in the movie, it is a direct layman who seizes power. In addition, as Witvoo, who maintains judicial justice, why not just come to supervise the system, but to direct it himself? How can he objectively evaluate this system after he has been a leader himself? Rely on his own perfect morality? In the
novel, the opponent Kaplan belongs to the military and does not belong to the system insider, but uses the system's flaws to seize power; in the
movie, the opponent Kaplan belongs to the system insider and uses artificial flaws to control power.
[So the film has another ridiculous ending. In order to highlight the director's lofty justice, the previous criminals can only be released. Kaplan's show failed, Anderton's vengeance was fulfilled, and the little angel of justice Witworth also died heroically. So the other gangsters went back to their homes. The whole story is like a joke, full of Hollywood self-entertainment heroism complex.
People say that it's okay not to pretend to be forced, pretend to be a shameless pen. 】
Other changes for commercial purposes include:
in the novel, the foresee can predict the process and convert it to text output;
in the movie, the foresee can only predict the ending and convert it to video output.
This not only makes the visual effect more dazzling, but also, in determining the specific location of the murderer, the role of the police is extremely great, our two heroes and a great hero can be useful. Many questions have arisen here. For example, if you only know the end of the murder, why do you not need to interrogate future murderers? If the position of the police is so dependent on manpower, how can they be foolproof? For example, in the first case, what if the killer's door was closed?
For another example, the crime prevention system is set to not belong to government departments, obviously to cater to the public opinion tunes of American audiences who pretend to be democracy and the government.
In addition, for
example, the movie also tried to promote the system, but the system was built on three freaks who survived unexpectedly. Regardless of the issue of legal fairness, the system plan can be rejected by this point alone.
The freak in the novel has a special training school, which implies that the system can continue to operate.
Furthermore, if the prophet can predict the whole country, there should be a lot of "redundant" real information; conversely, if there is not so much information from other states, how can the whole country be predicted?
In the novel, administrative units are not divided into states and countries, and there are other planets.
Not in terms of science fiction, but from the perspective of suspense films, there are too many incompatibility.
For example, Kaplan’s plan to commit suicide by the female prophet. Now that he knew that the prophet was human and could store his faith and his body, it was too lucky for him to do so. There are totally better ways.
For example, after Kaplan exposed and killed Mother Prophet, Anderton’s wife actually pointed out on the spot that she was not afraid of being killed? And Kaplan's reaction turned out to be to leave, not trying to control her?
For example, Anderton in the novel is both an officer and a scholar. He researched and created criminology and its corresponding system. Anderton in the movie has limited understanding of the principles of the system, and his role is assigned to Anderton and the witch in the movie. Do you believe that a seemingly proficient executive has such a limited understanding of the mechanism?
For example, Anderton can single-handedly defeat the heroes. I don't know whether his guards are too weak or the criminals in the United States are too weak.
In addition, I personally think that the design of future chips, three-dimensional projections, three-dimensional roads, personalized advertisements, and eyeball surgery in the movie is quite attractive.
In addition, for the sake of the original work, give it to a three-star.
View more about Minority Report reviews
