Hello, I am currently in high school grade 10 level and we are supposed to write an essay about what Philip J. Dick (author of the short story of M.R) would think of the movie. Please take a look at it, and if possible, tell me what setences or even paragraphs can be edited. Thanks in advance.
When preventing crime becomes a reality?
In the year 2054 humans still dominate the planet Earth. Technology, too, has been advanced since the mark of the 20th century. Such technological advances include the ability to replace delicate body parts such as the eyes, vehicles that hover, jet packs, and space ships that can go as far as the frontier planets. Though all of these futuristic advancements sound neat, it does not match up to the all famous technology making crime a thing of the past. The relatively new Pre-Crime system allows the government to operate an elite police force, which with the help of three very talented and unique humans capable of seeing into the future prevent countless crimes, especially murders, before they happen. Philip K. Dick replicated this near-perfect civilization in the short story Minority Report. In his novel, he describes how crimes are reduced significantly and victims' lives were spared, and how victims were able to live in peace and prosperity without being afraid of what might happen. Likewise the movie Minority Report directed by Steven Spielberg also shows the flawless, crimeless city. However, in both the short story and the movie, the so-called pre-crime accuracy is yet to be tested to it limits.
In Phillip K Dick's version of the short story he explains the protagonist Anderton being an old person who is the director of the Precrime organization. However in the movie, Anderton is played by the young, hip and healthy looking Tom Cruise being not the founder of Precrime but instead working for the elite police force under Precrime. Also, in the movie version Steven Spielberg added the fact that Anderton was taking drugs to ease his so called pains caused by the abnormal absence of his son. Next, in the short story version Anderton has a healthy relationship with his married wife with no children for many years but in the movie version Anderton is divorced with his wife due to the fact that his son was abducted. Also, both have different personalities for instance the story version Anderton cares for the wellbeing for the organization of Precrime and was willing murder a man and to sacrifice his wealthy life on Earth by going to a frontier planet but in the movie version Anderton sacrificed the well being of the Precrime organization because there was a possibility that some of the accused were accidental. In the character section of the movie it seems that the author of the short story well would be ashamed of the output of the movie as it did not at all resemble what he described as Anderton. Really the only resemblance in the character section of both the movie and the short story is that both of the protagonists share the same name. Rather weak move to make a movie based on a short story.
The setting in both the movie and the short story seem vaguely peculiar and different. To start off with, in the short story, Philip J Dick was describing about a futuristic and cold-tempered state in New York where it was impossible to trust anyone. Anderton was framed in Precrime to murder a person he didn't know causing his trust in his wife flicker as fast as a lit candle in a raging windstorm. Anderton couldn't trust anyone it seemed, knowing the fact that he was framed and everyone is against him was the tempo. Even innocent Ed Witwer seemed to be a player in this framing scheme because of the logical fact that he might be after Anderton place in Precrime. In the movie, however, the setting seemed happy, calm and certainly action packed in the state of Washington. Tom Cruise does his typical hero works in the protagonist shoes preventing murders and saving the victims in need. A typical run-of-the-mill action movie presumed. Suspense too was added to this movie such as the time when Anderton had his eyes surgically removed and electronic spiders were sent out by the elite force of Precrime. These spiders were doing eye tests and unfortunately for Anderton, if the bandages for his eyes were to be removed early he would become blind. Move on to the end of the movie, there was the typical cheesy good ending when Tom Cruise once again becomes the hero by shutting down so called "corrupt" Precrime and everyone becomes happy like the criminals, accidental accused criminals and the precogs. As you can see, in a sense both of the settings were very different and being in Philip J. Dicks shoes he too would have been ashamed again that the setting in the movie is nothing related to the one he described in the short story. His ideas once again go unheard or possibly ignored...
Now that we now know that the characters and themes are both different in the short story and the movie we later learn that the conflicts is partially related but not to much all together. In the short story the conflict was Anderton was being framed for a pre-murder. Likewise, in the movie Anderton too gets framed by murdering someone he never even heard of. Anderton from the short story reactions to this uproar however was to search for the minority report that he recently learns from the person who is framing him but the movie however doesn't even mention the idea of the Minority report. So basically the short story is about Anderton chasing on about the Minority report and does what ever he can to make Precrime a successful company. The movie story altogether is about a loop hole or rather better defined as a "glitch" being present in Precrime. This mishap allows a person knowing of this "glitch" to successfully murder someone without the Precrime organization noticing. When Tom Cruise learns about this Precrime breach his priorities ascended from first stopping the person who is abusing this glitch then shutting down the company. Surprisingly, the director of Precrime himself was the one abusing the loophole, creating a very ironic element in the story. Philip J. Dick might feel satisfactory for the difference of conflict from his short story and the movie; nonetheless it seems passable.
If you were the author of such a beautiful and potential story who just saw a recent movie based on your idea that does not at all explain what you were trying to describe then you should feel empathy for the author Philip J. Dick. He was trying to make a world with crimes being a thing of the past but Steven Spielberg apparently just wanted to make a movie as it seems.
