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

[trifle]

6 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

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 next week.

 

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

 

Should I lend it to your girlfriend?

 

but I don't think we can ever tell which or if the combination of both of the stars is the draw.  Pratt has his fans, and Jen has hers. And I liked having them both together.  Jen's next two male leads are going to be in their 40s again, and despite how 'common' that age pairing might be, and how clearly talented the two actors are, it isn't as fun to watch all the time.  I like something to look at , too.

Edited January 15, 2017 by trifle

[A District 3 Engineer]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

 

Jen's next two male leads are going to be in their 40s again, and despite how 'common' that age pairing might be, and how clearly talented the two actors are, it isn't as fun to watch all the time.  I like something to look at , too.

 

Hey, we still don't know if Bardem is going to be Jennifer's love interest in Aronofsky project (and I keep crossing my fingers for Domnhall Gleeson).

Edited January 15, 2017 by A District 3 Engineer

[trifle]

8 minutes ago, A District 3 Engineer said:

 

Hey, we still don't know if Bardem is going to be Jennifer's love interest in Aronofsky project (and I keep crossing my fingers for Domnhall Gleeson).

 

Yeah, but there was that thing about her being a famous poet's wife, and Bardem's picture on an autograph book being sold on ebay.......  I think Bardem being one of the unwelcome visitors and DG being Jen's love interest would be great.... which might then make Pfeiffer Bardhem's love interest?

 

I don't remember how reliable the source for the rumor that her character was married to a famous poet was.....

 

lol! I guess if we continue this we should switch threads.  I am very curious, though, and Aronofsky is doing nothing to alleviate that.

Edited January 15, 2017 by trifle

[Frozen]

Why would people think Jlaw was self-entitled or bitchy? She comes across as a really funny and down to earth person. 

[trifle]

 

[babz06]

So it looks like this is gonna make over 300m WW. The last major place left to open is Japan in March. 

Its performance so far reminds me of Elysium and Oblivion, other original star driven sci-fi that were modest performers. 

 

[misafeco]

84.6% of TGWTDT this weekend. Nice recovery after the not so good weekdays. Chart later.

[trifle]

1 hour ago, A District 3 Engineer said:

 

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$90,004,731	38.0%
+ Foreign:	$147,100,000	62.0%
= Worldwide:	$237,104,731

 

 

huh, an article in her/his quote didn't show up.  Here's Deadline on Passengers taking over the lead in overseas box office this weekend:

 

Quote

http://deadline.com/2017/01/rogue-one-passengers-international-box-office-weekend-china-1201887316/

1 minute ago, babz06 said:

So it looks like this is gonna make over 300m WW. The last major place left to open is Japan in March. 

Its performance so far reminds me of Elysium and Oblivion, other original star driven sci-fi that were modest performers. 

 

 

Did they get awful reviews, too?

[JennaJ]

Yeah it's holding on a lot better than I feared considering the theater drop. Hope this will help it keep the screens it has for a little while longer.

 

So if it's over 90m as of Sunday, That should mean it'll be comfortably above 95m by the end of next weekend, right? I just hope it doesn't have to crawl over the 100m goal post.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by JennaJ

[babz06]

17 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

Yeah it's holding on a lot better than I feared considering the theater drop. Hope this will help it keep the screens it has for a little while longer.

 

So if it's over 90m as of Sunday, That should mean it'll be comfortably above 95m by the end of next weekend, right? I just hope it doesn't have to crawl over the 100m goal post.

 

Yes it should be at 94-95m by the end of next week. After that it just depends on holds. There are lots of new releases taking up space even though most will probably bomb.

[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
Sat	2,29	2,64	86,45
Sun	1,82	2,08	87,28
Gross to date	90,00	87,84	102,46
Legs (5 day)	4,06	4,15	97,62
Final gross*	102,81	102,5158	100,29
*if Passengers holds the last day's %   It's possible that Sun is a little lower though. 90M is a nice round number. TGWTDT made 7M in 1 week after this day. Passengers should do at least 5M so 95M total after next week.

[mredman]

1 hour ago, babz06 said:

So it looks like this is gonna make over 300m WW. The last major place left to open is Japan in March. 

Its performance so far reminds me of Elysium and Oblivion, other original star driven sci-fi that were modest performers. 

 

nope it will not do over 60 million more even with Japan

[JennaJ]

53 minutes ago, mredman said:

nope it will not do over 60 million more even with Japan

 

~10-12m in the U.S. 

~15-18m in China

It had a 33m week OS minus China, so let's say it still has around 20m from all existing OS territories. At least.

 

Thats already 45-55m.

Does 60m really seem that far fetched?

 

 

[Moviesareawesomegirl]

Is a global 300 million gross on a 110 million budget good as far as the studio and the investors go? I am sure that the studio does not get 100 % of those 300 million (plus the marketing expenses need to be factored in).

Seem to me like this movie won't be remembered as a gigantic commercial flop, but the profit margin will not be anything to write home about; let's just say this: no investors will be ponying up 100 million dollars for a sci-fi film starring Pratt and Lawrence again (unless that film had "Star Wars" in its title or were directed by James Cameron).

Edited January 15, 2017 by Moviesareawesomegirl

[JennaJ]

40 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

Is a global 300 million gross on a 110 million budget good as far as the studio and the investors go? I am sure that the studio does not get 100 % of those 300 million (plus the marketing expenses need to be factored in).

 

Getting a slight feeling of déjà vu here.

 

On 14 בינואר 2017 at 9:14 PM, 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.

 

I get it, it's more fun to have a clear "flop" or "hit" narrative, and this is neither. It's a critically panned movie that isn't gonna lose money, but won't make as much as the studio hoped for either.

 

40 minutes ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

let's just say this: no investors will be ponying up 100 million dollars for a sci-fi film starring Pratt and Lawrence again (unless that film had "Star Wars" in its title or were directed by James Cameron).

 

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to make that bet. unless you forgot "original" in there, which is the key factor. Pratt already has two movies lined up with a much higher budget than 110m. None of them are directed by Cameron or titled Star Wars. They are however franchise fares.

And that's where the gist of the thing really is - this movie's performance will not give studios more confidence in approving high budget original content. 

That, to me, is the real shame here. Pratt and Lawrence are gonna be just fine. Original sci-fi tentpoles however, are a risk many studios would rather not take.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by JennaJ

[shayhiri]

6 hours ago, Frozen said:

Why would people think Jlaw was self-entitled or bitchy? She comes across as a really funny and down to earth person. 

 

Maybe. But:

1. I don't watch TV, so I don't know how she looks and behaves outside of her movies.

2. That's her goddamn business anyway, not mine.

3. She can be really irritating in most of her movies.

4. That's what I'm paying her for. To amuse me - not to irritate me.

 

But Aurora was OK. Definitely her best role ever - by a big margin. Good for Chris Pratt for bringing out the best in her.

Edited January 16, 2017 by shayhiri

[trifle]

2 hours ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

Is a global 300 million gross on a 110 million budget good as far as the studio and the investors go? I am sure that the studio does not get 100 % of those 300 million (plus the marketing expenses need to be factored in).

Seem to me like this movie won't be remembered as a gigantic commercial flop, but the profit margin will not be anything to write home about; let's just say this: no investors will be ponying up 100 million dollars for a sci-fi film starring Pratt and Lawrence again (unless that film had "Star Wars" in its title or were directed by James Cameron).

 

2 hours ago, JennaJ said:

 

Getting a slight feeling of déjà vu here.

 

 

I get it, it's more fun to have a clear "flop" or "hit" narrative, and this is neither. It's a critically panned movie that isn't gonna lose money, but won't make as much as the studio hoped for either.

 

 

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to make that bet. unless you forgot "original" in there, which is the key factor. Pratt already has two movies lined up with a much higher budget than 110m. None of them are directed by Cameron or titled Star Wars. They are however franchise fares.

And that's where the gist of the thing really is - this movie's performance will not give studios more confidence in approving high budget original content. 

That, to me, is the real shame here. Pratt and Lawrence are gonna be just fine. Original sci-fi tentpoles however, are a risk many studios would rather not take.

 

 

I think without Pratt and Jen this flops completely given the reviews.  I think Sony is thanking its lucky stars it made sure they were on board before greenlighting an original, mixed genre $100M+ film, and knows that they are what is getting it as good a reception as it is getting.  Original properties are always hard to get funded with a big budget, and, yeah, I'm afraid this won't help original properties to get big budgets in the future. 

[UTJeff]

This isn't a total bomb or failure.  I'm sure they were hoping it would've done better with two big name leads.  I don't know what kind of split Sony gets for overseas money, but chances are the film will eventually break even with TV rights, home video and all that.  Unless Lawrence and Pratt are taking home serious money off the top.  The director probably isn't getting paid like them.  You got to figure, expectations for this movie weren't that huge especially right before it came out.  And then it got terrible reviews.  Despite all that, it's still going to finish over $100 million.  Keep in mind, this isn't some sort of franchise picture either.  

 

Oblivion and Elysium did slightly better with reviews, but still not as bad as Passengers.  

 

Passengers I believe was getting misunderstood by a lot of reviewers.  Do I think it's a great movie?  No.  But I think it's a solid, original sci-fi story with two charismatic lead actors.  

[trifle]

 

[therana]

7 hours ago, Moviesareawesomegirl said:

Is a global 300 million gross on a 110 million budget good as far as the studio and the investors go? I am sure that the studio does not get 100 % of those 300 million (plus the marketing expenses need to be factored in).

Seem to me like this movie won't be remembered as a gigantic commercial flop, but the profit margin will not be anything to write home about; let's just say this: no investors will be ponying up 100 million dollars for a sci-fi film starring Pratt and Lawrence again (unless that film had "Star Wars" in its title or were directed by James Cameron).

Or unless it is directed by Nolan. Nolan can do risky original movies with big budgets and doesn't need either Pratt or JLaw for it to succeed.