Passengers | Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence | Dec 21, 2016 | Trailer pg 70

[Lordmandeep]

Star power with a solid film does benefit.

 

 

I am sure Revenant would not have done half what it did without Leo.

 

 

'I heard its good and Leo is in it'

[Krissykins]

20 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

Exactly.

 

Ironically, this is her best role ever. She should play less entitled and more submissive characters. Will make her more likable.

 

Ah, so you think for an actress to be likeable she has to play weak characters, not strong ones?

 

I know your type.

 

 

[Krissykins]

Sly was only a noteworthy draw in one role, evidently.

 

 

[amelin]

19 hours ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

Did it help Crazy Stupid Love?

 

I guess it's difficult to say, but I think it's a tricky comparison. They weren't as established as a pairing back then, and they were part of an ensemble cast. La La Land depends to a much greater extent on their appeal as a couple, much like Passengers depends on Pratt and Lawrence.

Edited January 14, 2017 by amelin

[Incarnadine]

15 hours ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

 

Did it help Crazy Stupid Love?

I think it definitely did. Even back then when they were both up and coming, but not yet "stars" the chemistry was undeniable and the whole "Dirty Dancing" bit had a lot of female audience members salivating. The movie as a whole was quite good, but its best part was from the point "Hanna" storms into the bar and plants a kiss on "Jacob" to where he passes out and she gently gives him a peck on the forehead before snuggling up to him and going to sleep. I 'll watch that part every time it's on TV.

CSL also had a nearly 4.5x multiplier, which for 2011 was amazing. If I recall, only something like 3 or 4 wide releases managed a 4x or better multiplier (and Emma starred in two of them)

[amelin]

I absolutely agree that they're the best part of that movie (I too was salivating). I just think it's difficult to say how much that helped at the box office, but I guess a multiplier like that would indicate very good word of mouth, which in turn probably had a lot to do with the two of them.

[misafeco]

	Passengers	TGWTDT	%
5 day	22,19	21,15	104,97
Fri	2,66	3,53	75,36
Sat	3,81	4,95	77,03
Sun	2,34	2,88	81,22
Mon	0,75	0,94	79,61
Tue	1,23	1,25	98,10
Wed	0,78	1,08	72,35
Thu	0,71	1,00	70,57
Fri	1,53	1,94	78,68
Gross to date	85,90	83,12	103,35
Legs (5 day)	3,87	3,93	98,46
Final gross*	101,17	102,5158	98,68
*if Passengers holds the last day's %

 

Very good Friday increase (estimate) despite losing a bigger amount of theaters. Projected final gross is over 100M again.

[JennaJ]

It lost a lot of theaters and the openers that got them instead are mostly bombing. I wish it could hold on to its theaters for the next few weeks and not continue to bleed them out. Honestly think it has more potential than newer movies like Live By Night or Underworld.

 

Basically I'm just waiting for it to cross 100m domestic and 300m WW.

[Moviesareawesomegirl]

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

[misafeco]

2 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

Ghostbuster bombed. It couldn't even make budget x 2 WW. Passengers has a good chance for ~budget x 3 WW.

[JennaJ]

24 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

 

Yeah it had two of the biggest stars and a holiday release.

It also had terrible reviews, think pieces dedicated to how creepy and wrong it is (I disagree with a lot of that judgmental rhetoric), and a lackluster marketing campaign.

This genre is particularly susceptible to negative reviews, and this had the added bonus of being categorized as morally problematic.

So it hardly had everything going for it.

 

All that considered, it's doing decently well.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by JennaJ

[trifle]

5 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

Star power with a solid film does benefit.

 

 

I am sure Revenant would not have done half what it did without Leo.

 

 

'I heard its good and Leo is in it'

 

The way I heard it was "The movie Leo is going to get his Oscar for..."  But same difference!

 

 

1 hour ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

 

56 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

 

Yeah it had two of the biggest stars and a holiday release.

It also had terrible reviews, think pieces dedicated to how creepy and wrong it is (I disagree with a lot of that judgmental rhetoric), and a lackluster marketing campaign.

This genre is particularly susceptible to negative reviews, and this had the added bonus of being categorized as morally problematic.

So it hardly had everything going for it.

 

All that considered, it's doing decently well.

 

 

It is also an original property with none of the built in audience a sequel, spin off, franchise or book adaptation has.  What it had, was its stars. That it is making more than other critically attacked original properties is, imho, due to them.  Well, and it is beautiful.

[shayhiri]

7 hours ago, Krissykins said:

Ah, so you think for an actress to be likeable she has to play weak characters, not strong ones?

 

I know your type.

 

Yeah, the Shay especially liked how Chris Pratt tamed her here - like one of his velociraptor bitches from JW.

 

We've had enough of the Katniss and Mystique "This is a rebellion, I rebel!!" types, lol...

[robertman2]

7 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

Yeah, the Shay especially liked how Chris Pratt tamed her here - like one of his velociraptor bitches from JW.

 

We've had enough of the Katniss and Mystique "This is a rebellion, I rebel!!" types, lol...

[Frozen]

5 hours ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

 

It won't bomb as badly as Ghostbusters, but it might just barely break even (depending on China) and I doubt that's what Sony was expecting when they spent $110 million on a film with two huge stars. 

[trifle]

2 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

Yeah, the Shay especially liked how Chris Pratt tamed her here - like one of his velociraptor bitches from JW.

 

We've had enough of the Katniss and Mystique "This is a rebellion, I rebel!!" types, lol...

 

OK, I know you intentionally goad people for a reaction, but that goes too far...

 

 

 

I am glad you enjoyed it and hope your girlfriend did.  Jen wants to play all sorts of different roles.

[trifle]

13 minutes ago, Frozen said:

 

It won't bomb as badly as Ghostbusters, but it might just barely break even (depending on China) and I doubt that's what Sony was expecting when they spent $110 million on a film with two huge stars. 

 

No, but just imagine if they had done it without these two huge stars.  Can you imagine it breaking even then? Seems like they bought a kind of insurance. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by trifle

[UTJeff]

The movie clearly isn't a complete flop.  It's an under-performer for sure, but all things considering, and possibly finishing with at least $100 million domestic, it did OK.  I don't think you can call it a flop.

[Frozen]

53 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

No, but just imagine if they had done it without these two huge stars.  Can you imagine it breaking even then? Seems like they bought a kind of insurance. 

 

 I think without Jennifer, it flops totally. Pratt is debateable. He didn't really bring anything special to the role. But the main issue is still the script. 

[shayhiri]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

 

OK, I know you intentionally goad people for a reaction, but that goes too far...

 

 

 

I am glad you enjoyed it and hope your girlfriend did.  Jen wants to play all sorts of different roles.

 

Well, Krissy said "she knows my type" so I felt I had to answer the expectations.

 

My girlfriend didn't want to see the movie, because of - exactly! - JLaw's self-entitled and bitchy image. I wish I was making this up. Once I told her the plot - she suddenly was keen to see the movie. I will keep you informed on what she thinks when we see it together next week.

 

PS: That's a nice whip you crack there... it could be used for some taming...

Edited January 15, 2017 by shayhiri