When was minority report written

For example, there is a doctoral program being passed the first at our university. I believe that faculty hired for this program should have experience with research. The committee disagrees. I would like to file a minority report but I am being told I cannot because the committee discussed the issue.

If this person is telling you that the minority report cannot be based on anything relevant to the committee deliberations, what does he propose the minority report would be based on I have to think that's not what is meant by not alluding to deliberations. I have to think you're free to mention the issues, just not the details of the debate that resulted in the majority report. But stay tuned. There is no stopping you from drafting the report, and if you are a member of the body receiving the report making a motion that the minority report be presented.

Whoever is doing all this "telling" to you is not basing his "telling" on Robert's Rules of Order. It is not the committee itself, but the assembly to which the committee reports, that decides whether or not to receive any minority report from one or more members of the committee. No, it does not interfere with democracy. You are free to introduce motions, you are free to speak, you are free to dissent.

Those democratic rights are guaranteed. Can I pay someone who is certified to rule on this? Not to rule my way but to rule if a committee member may or may not state an issue that has been discussed by the committee in a minority report. Given that the assembly may not want to hear the minority report. If they rule in a way I don't like so be it. I want to know. The ruling that I cannot mention anything that was discussed in committee just makes no sense to me.

If that was the case it seems like the section on minority reports should be eliminate. Here's my certified opinion: The minority report can and should refer to the same issue contained in the report of the committee. No charge. None of the reports, including minority reports, should contain details of the discussion.

They should contain a recommendation, ideally in the form of a motion that is ready to be moved in the parent assembly. The minority report will probably disagree with the committee report regarding what should be done.

If it does not, there is no point in presenting it. Explanations, analysis, and visualizations of The Minority Report 's themes. The Minority Report 's important quotes, sortable by theme, character, or section. Description, analysis, and timelines for The Minority Report 's characters. Explanations of The Minority Report 's symbols, and tracking of where they appear.

An interactive data visualization of The Minority Report 's plot and themes. Brief Biography of Philip K. Dick Although his talent was acknowledged within the world of science fiction—he won the Hugo Award for The Man in the High Castle —Dick did not experience mainstream success during his lifetime, and made little money for his stories.

To survive financially, he wrote at a rapid pace, generating 45 novels and short stories over his year career. His characters often question appearances, struggle to discern what is real and true, and seek to uncover sinister plots.

Dick often incorporated his own life experiences into his stories, and in several respects the themes of his life parallel those of his fiction. In , the FBI visited Dick and his second wife, who held socialist views. Throughout the s, he abused amphetamines, which allowed him to write for extended periods of time without sleep. In , after the end of his fourth of five marriages, he unsuccessfully attempted to commit suicide.

On the basis of these visions, he claimed he was simultaneously living his life in the present, as well as the life of a Christian named Thomas in the first century CE.

He incorporated these experiences into VALIS , which, along with his other later novels, focused upon metaphysics and theology. Several of his stories have been adapted to television and film, including: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The s was a time of widespread suspicion and distrust—within and amongst governments, as well as between governments and certain segments of their populations. With the rise of McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare during this decade, the United States government investigated suspected communists.

In the year the murder rate in Washington is zero because of the Pre-Crime division. Pre-Crime uses three pre-cognitives to see the near future and direct officers to arrest the murderers before they can commit the act.

However during a visit by an assessing authority the pre-cognitives see chief officer John Anderton kill a man. John runs, escaping the pre-crime police and trying to find out how and why he was seen killing a man. Anderton even changes his eyes at one point to show how his vision is changed. Aside from these metaphors the film itself is a lot more complex than Speilberg would have done several years ago. The film deals with a complex future where we are pre-judged by a big brother style police and the film does have an element of the moral questioning that this throws up.

However for the majority it is a complex mystery film and this carries it no problem right up till the end. His vision however is very good, yes, we have all the CGI we need and only occasionally does it not look good. However more than all the CGI, Speilberg mixes the present with his futuristic vision rather than having us all living in pods! Cruise has become more mature as well. He is also able to act well beside some other strong performances from good actors like Max Von Sydow and a strong Colin Farrell.

The moral complexities run nicely alongside the action but eventually it falls into Speilberg sentiment mode with a disappointing end. Overall though this is very good but not quite Bladerunner. In the year everything is nice and neat and orderly except for John Anderton's Tom Cruise apartment. In Washington D. John works for an experimental pre-crime division.

Using "pre-cons" they are able to predict murders before they happen. People are arrested and imprisoned for crimes they were going to commit.

After a successful nine year experiment, the Justice Department has begun to question how can you find someone guilty of a crime they didn't commit? You would think that would have been challenged before 9 years by legal groups, but hey, just go with it.

After we see how the pre-con system works, we find that John sees himself killing a man he doesn't know in a premeditated crime. This sets off a long series of twisted events that make this a good sci-fi mystery crime thriller drama. Yes, everything but zombies. This is a film made in , but considering our advances in micro-drone technology and revelations about the NSA, it questions what lost of freedom are people willing to fore go on their civil liberties to be safe in their home from any murderer.

The film is a bit long, but relevant to today. Parental Guide: 1 f-bomb. No nudity. With all that futuristic technology at his disposal, he should have known it would come back to haunt him. I thought this was a well constructed sc-fi mystery thriller based on a Philip K.

Dick short story. Since the picture was made all the way back in , I'm kind of surprised we don't have the kind of targeted advertising shown in the film smacking us in the face yet.

Just as well, pop-ups on one's computer screen are annoying enough as it is. At the heart of the story is an idea that I believe will be the downfall of a lot of visionary technology that scientists and corporations expect for the future, that being the fallibility of the human factor.

As just one example, driver-less cars. Sounds great on paper but they're already killing people. There's just one problem in the script that marred an almost perfect screenplay.

Once John Anderton was identified as a red ball murderer, his retina scan clearance should have been automatically removed from the Precrime database. But it wasn't, and if you think about it, that lends credence to the argument I just mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Since that clearance wasn't removed automatically why not?

But with that minor nit-pick aside, I thought this was a well paced thriller, and the final confrontation between Anderton and Lamar had all the classic elements of a Star Trek style conundrum. In other words, if Lamar doesn't kill John, then the precogs are wrong, in which case Precrime gets dismantled. But if Lamar does kill John, the precogs are proven right, but he gets arrested and put away in prison.

So the next best alternative In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit Tom Cruise is himself accused of a future murder.

The biggest flaw in this film is the casting of Tom Cruise. Not that he is terrible, mind you, but it clearly shows the people behind the camera Spielberg? Luckily, the story comes with its own moral and ethical dilemmas. Is it okay to arrest someone for murder before that murder is actually committed? Attempted murder, sure This is an old philosophic issue, made popular by the hypothetical idea of killing Hitler or the equivalent as a child.

In , an organization called PreCrime has eradicated crime through the employment of "precogs", a group of people who see crimes before they happen, allowing the police to arrest the perpetrators before the crimes happen. As a result, there has not been a murder in Washington, DC, six years. But what if one of the people working at PreCrime was charged with murder?

That's the premise of "Minority Report". Steven Spielberg's direction is good as always, but the movie suffers a little. Don't get me wrong; it's a good concept for a movie, and the idea of an organization being able to go after anyone seemed like an important topic after September 11, But the movie seems full of itself.

Still, this is one to check out, if only to see how Spielberg does it although he and Cruise did a much better collaboration with "War of the Worlds". Artificial Intelligence, and this one followed a year later, and it also followed the darker feel brought from his war films. Set in the year , the crime in Washington D. Unfortunately for Precrime head Chief John Anderton Tom Cruise , he is seen to be committing a murder, and he is now on the run trying both to escape identification and capture, and prove his innocence, as he does no know the future victim.

He decides that he will need help from the key "Precog" Agatha Samantha Morton , especially for his "minority report", i. She knows quite a lot about future events, and when John finally gets to the man he is meant to murder, it becomes apparent that he may actually have a reason to.

After he has sealed his future, John decides to trace the start of the "Precrime" program, and that means exposing Director Lamar Burgess Max Von Sydow for how it actually came to be, and in the end saving both himself and the "Precogs". Iris Hineman, Peter Stormare as Dr. Cruise is quite a good lead, but I think it is mainly the quite engaging story and fantastic special effects that make this more than just mystery thriller.

Very good! This gets high marks for being an involving film that, despite a long length of almost two- and-a-half hours, keeps ones interest all the way. Being a Stephen Spielberg-directed film, it's no surprise that the photography is first-rate.

This is nice-looking movie. Tom Cruise also was very good in here, not the obnoxious character he sometimes portrays or did more often in his younger days.

The film is a good mixture of action and suspense. Only the one chase scene was overdone with Rambo-like mentality of the good guys not getting hit when they should, and vice- versa. The subject matter is interesting, too: what would do you or the police had very reliable information on crimes that were about to be committed, that you could prevent things from happening before they actually did? I am of the opinion that this is one of Spielberg's underrated gems.

I'm afraid watching this thing, the images on the screen constantly in motion, the blurry images, the supersonic warp-speed editing, must have fused my synapses. I couldn't get through it. Oh, I enjoyed the score. Always liked Beethoven. But it was much easier to listen to with eyes closed. The performances weren't bad. How can a performance be bad in a plot-driven special-effects loaded action SF flick? Even Max von Sydow, who, I was happy to see, is still working, was perforce animated.

Lots of opportunities for exploring issues like, If you can see something coming and you stop it before it comes, how come it still comes?

It's the grandfather paradox of future time travel. I really didn't care much about the characters because I didn't get to know anything much about them except that they can run fast and jump from one vertically moving vehicle to another -- the car chase, as it were, in dimension number two, up and down.

It seems to me that this movie will be an embarrassment when rolls around and everything looks and acts pretty much like it does now, in Well, I suppose they weren't BIG problems, but still. Will it really ever be easier to manipulate images by waving your hands like some guy in a demonic Tai Chi frenzy than by tweaking a few dials with your fingertips?

Tweekums 4 August This film is an intelligent sci-fi murder mystery with a twist Set in a future where the future can be seen by three "pre-cogs" murder is a thing of the past as the would be killers are arrested before they can commit their crimes. One day the head of this police department has terrifying shock when the pre-cogs tell him there is going to be a murder and he will be the killer. From then on the hunter becomes the hunted as Chief John Anderton must run from his own officers to determine why he is destined to kill a stranger before they can incarcerate him.

He is never fully sure who he can and can't trust and only has thirty six hours to find out if his destiny is truly written. The acting is pretty good with Tom Cruise being believable as the fugitive police officer, however the best performance comes from Samantha Morton in the role of Agatha; the pre-cog who Anderton turns to for help and who in turn seeks his help in solving an old case.

Steven Spielberg did a fin job directing this. Using just the right amount of special effects he never lets the story be overshadowed by explosions and excessive CGI. When I first watched it I wasn't too sure about the washed out colours used in every scene apart from the few flashbacks it the more of the film I saw the more I thought they suited the tone of the film. If you are a fan of slightly dystopian science fiction I'd certainly recommend this.

Before they joined forces to give sci-fi fans their hugely disappointing version of War Of The Worlds, Spielberg and Cruise worked together on Minority Report, a near-future tale based on a short story by Philip K. Dick in which violent crimes can be predicted and prevented from occurring, the perpetrator intercepted before they can carry out the deed. Star Cruise plays pre-crime cop John Anderton, who finds himself on the run after it is predicted that he himself will commit a murder.

The good news is that Minority Report is a lot more enjoyable than the duo's H. Wells debacle, with an engrossing murder mystery plot, lots of great visuals, excellent production design, and some well executed and extremely fun action set-pieces, all of which help detract from the story's inevitable paradoxical issues and Spielberg's occasional, frustratingly unrestrained direction Cruise leaping from car roof to car roof on a towering vertical road stretches plausibility a bit too far, but at least it's not 'nuke the fridge' bad.

Good movie, not great. Relies strongly on "pre-determination. The film gets its name from a mention, half-way into the film, that when one of the three "predictions" differs from the other two it is suppressed as a "minority report" so as to not cause a furor.

The main protagonist, John Tom Cruise , pursues this to see if there is a flaw in the pre-crime arrests and perhaps innocent people are incarcerated. If you take away the futuristic setting of this film, and all the special effects, it is quite an ordinary film noire "whodunnit. Same story has been done many times. To his great credit, Spielberg didn't just try to invent what technology will be prevalent in 50 years, he held a retreat with experts in various fields and used their input for the film's design.

Perhaps the most likely to be implemented are the various retinal scanners to identify people, and even target public advertisements as individuals walk past.

The whole story of "Minority Report" would fall apart without 1 the belief in God who creates a pre-determined universe and 2 God will choose to communicate the pre-determined path. In the two depicted "future" murders the film uses, at least 3 or 4 people are involved in the images that are transmitted as "future" events.

In a random universe, it is quite unlikely that the events, even only 20 or 30 minutes in the future, would happen exactly as predicted, and it would be impossible for any one participant to "see" all the others.

Therefore, it would have to be a supreme being, causing a pre-determination, and communicating it.