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

[trifle]

On 6/28/2016 at 8:51 PM, kayumanggi said:

 

STX has moved one of their films to this weekend. I thought maybe the studio knew something about this moving or getting delayed.

 

Yeah, I wondered why that little film would affirmatively want to take on Passengers.

 

How depressing.  This is by far my most anticipated film this year. 

 

 

[trifle]

2 hours ago, shayhiri said:

She herself complained she got much less than her male co-stars. LOL, are all LAWtards this oblivious??

 

 

Pratt is getting $12 million, and Jen is getting $20 million against 30% of profits for Passengers.  And has top billing, if the poster can be believed.

[Dementeleus]

3 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

 

Pratt is getting $12 million, and Jen is getting $20 million against 30% of profits for Passengers.  And has top billing, if the poster can be believed.

 

If that's true, this means she's getting $20m.  

[trifle]

On 6/28/2016 at 8:36 PM, WrathOfHan said:

I don't see how this movie would need that.

 

Well, one scene that got a lot of positive response at CinemaCon was where

Spoiler

the gravity fails on the ship while Jen is swimming in an on-ship pool, so she is caught floating in a floating blob of water and has to try to struggle out without the benefit of gravity.  According to the tweeted results and write ups, that 'despite having unfinished effects, was breathtaking'.

3 hours ago, Free State of Tele said:

It probably depends a great deal on how substantial the scenes (or sequences) are. I assume they're fairly important, otherwise Sony/DD wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. 

Yeah. 

3 hours ago, JennaJ said:

Can they appeal to make an exception, considering their movie is virtually finished?

 

Such a crappy thing to happen. I don't want them to cut anything due to legal issues, but I can't see them delaying the movie if that's the only choice they have.

 

I think there is a very good argument to be made for these films particularly given the money already spent and the promotion (CinemaCon etc) already done and the importance of opening as advertised.  Particularly since the judge exempted completed films.  These are clearly too far along to change their method of effects.

 

But I'm surprised this hasn't been determined already.

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, Free State of Tele said:

 

If that's true, this means she's getting $20m.  

 

I think that will depend on whether they are allowed to finish it and get it out on time.

[angeldelmito]

2 hours ago, shayhiri said:

quit talkin mad shit about jlaw

[kayumanggi]

3 hours ago, trifle said:

 

Yeah, I wondered why that little film would affirmatively want to take on Passengers.

 

How depressing.  This is by far my most anticipated film this year. 

 

 

 

If this was getting delayed, what could possibly be the cause?

[trifle]

10 hours ago, kayumanggi said:

 

If this was getting delayed, what could possibly be the cause?

 

If by 'this' you mean Passengers, the link above indicates there is an intellectual property suit where a judge has issued an injunction for using certain special effects technology until the ownership of the technology has been determined.  Given that no trailer, even a teaser trailer for Passengers has come out, and one of the descriptions of harm to come if the technology can't be used is regarding a film with an academy award winning actress coming out in December, and that Passengers is a sci fi movie, and given that Rothman last week said a trailer would come out 'hopefully soon but we have to finish the special effects', it seems Passengers may be caught up in this.  I think this is a classic case where damage exceeds potential gain in refusing to let the film be finished and I expect it is just a matter of court hearings before they are allowed to proceed.  If any remaining payments for licensing the technology are due they could always be paid into a trust account to be held and paid out to whomever wins the lawsuit.  The Judge DID let films already completed go forward. 

 

However, meanwhile there is no trailer, and if it were to drag on too long, it might possibly impact opening dates.  I really doubt it will drag on, though.  Between distribution contracts and industry standards of needed promotion (already started) and money already sunk into the film, I am pretty sure it is just a matter of Sony making a particular case for this particular movie, to the judge.

 

---

 

edit, which makes me wonder if Rothman responding to the fan email about the lack of a trailer might be in aid of demonstrating damage from lack of use of the technology and the time sensitive nature meaning they need it right now.  All his attorneys would have to do is introduce the twitter stream found at #Passengers trailer https://twitter.com/search?q=passengers trailer&src=typd to highlight that a trailer should be coming out.

 

 

(OK, just as I typed that and added the link Sully's trailer release hit twitter.  It is about a pilot saving all passengers aboard a plane.   This is somewhat, but not fully, messing up my argument.)

Edited June 30, 2016 by trifle

[straggler]

8 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

If by 'this' you mean Passengers, the link above indicates there is an intellectual property suit where a judge has issued an injunction for using certain special effects technology until the ownership of the technology has been determined.  Given that no trailer, even a teaser trailer for Passengers has come out, and one of the descriptions of harm to come if the technology can't be used is regarding a film with an academy award winning actress coming out in December, and that Passengers is a sci fi movie, and given that Rothman last week said a trailer would come out 'hopefully soon but we have to finish the special effects', it seems Passengers may be caught up in this.  I think this is a classic case where damage exceeds potential gain in refusing to let the film be finished and I expect it is just a matter of court hearings before they are allowed to proceed.  If any remaining payments for licensing the technology are due they could always be paid into a trust account to be held and paid out to whomever wins the lawsuit.  The Judge DID let films already completed go forward. 

 

However, meanwhile there is no trailer, and if it were to drag on too long, it might possibly impact opening dates.  I really doubt it will drag on, though.  Between distribution contracts and industry standards of needed promotion (already started) and money already sunk into the film, I am pretty sure it is just a matter of Sony making a particular case for this particular movie, to the judge.

If Passengers is caught up in this dispute and if there is no other reasonable means to finish the effects Sony's lawyers can make an emergency application to the judge or to the appeals court to modify the injunction. 

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, straggler said:

If Passengers is caught up in this dispute and if there is no other reasonable means to finish the effects Sony's lawyers can make an emergency application to the judge or to the appeals court to modify the injunction. 

 

Yeah.  I expect that is what is happening as we speak.

[Otakusai]

17 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

Meh.

 

Lol

[kowhite]

23 hours ago, Free State of Tele said:

 

If that's true, this means she's getting $20m.  

 

Ha yes it would.

 

But, usually they don't put those type of salaries against "profits", they put it against gross deals.  In which case...30% yeah possible.  But shit 30% gross is huge, but...I did read Rothman wasn't too pleased with her salary.  I sure wouldn't be if it's that.  But gross deals are also becoming much rarer these days so I dunno.

[The Futurist]

15 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

Ha yes it would.

 

But, usually they don't put those type of salaries against "profits", they put it against gross deals.  In which case...30% yeah possible.  But shit 30% gross is huge, but...I did read Rothman wasn't too pleased with her salary.  I sure wouldn't be if it's that.  But gross deals are also becoming much rarer these days so I dunno.

 

Living in the Hills costs a lot of money, I wouldn't want Jlaw to have to sell her newly acquired villa (which belonged to Ellen DeGeneres and Hulk Hogan before her).

 

 

Go Jlaw, pillage Sony, avenge all the PS network subscribers.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by The Futurist

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

Ha yes it would.

 

But, usually they don't put those type of salaries against "profits", they put it against gross deals.  In which case...30% yeah possible.  But shit 30% gross is huge, but...I did read Rothman wasn't too pleased with her salary.  I sure wouldn't be if it's that.  But gross deals are also becoming much rarer these days so I dunno.

 

Quote

Pratt's fee has jumped from $10 million to $12 million while Lawrence is getting an exceptional $20 million against 30 percent of the profit after the movie breaks even, say sources.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jennifer-lawrence-chris-pratts-sci-802876

 

I actually think this movie could really break out, but I restricted my club to > $200M DOM.  I could possibly be biased, of course.

[kowhite]

4 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jennifer-lawrence-chris-pratts-sci-802876

 

I actually think this movie could really break out, but I restricted my club to > $200M DOM.  I could possibly be biased, of course.

 

Well, there you go.  Then it's not too bad.  Great upfront, not as great backend.  Ok well, compared to the other mega stars.

Edited July 1, 2016 by kowhite

[The Futurist]

The articles about Jlaw's salary on Passengers had so much rampant sexism it was appalling.

 

You could read between the lines they all thought it was too much.

 

Meanwhile, male superstars get 15m-20m for shit projects and nobody says anything.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by The Futurist

[Otakusai]

17 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

Ha yes it would.

 

But, usually they don't put those type of salaries against "profits", they put it against gross deals.  In which case...30% yeah possible.  But shit 30% gross is huge, but...I did read Rothman wasn't too pleased with her salary.  I sure wouldn't be if it's that.  But gross deals are also becoming much rarer these days so I dunno.

 

 

Rothman's shtick is living up a stereotype. It's what gave him longevity at FOX and exactly how he was able to make the vertical move from one building's top floor to another building's top floor in the blink of an eye.  

[trifle]

Quote

8 Upcoming Movies That Will Save 2016 From Being A Disaster

Passengers

Release Date: 12/21/16

What do you get when you mix a script from the infamous Black List with a pair of hot and talented stars that have never worked together before? Well, in this case, we're getting Passengers, which will show Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt falling in love, in a place where gravity only exists if the power's working. And from the initial reports of footage screen during this year's CinemaCon, it sounds like there are as many harrowing moments of survival as there are moments of romance for our two leads. The sooner an official trailer can be released, the better, as this spaceship-bound love story is one of the unknown quantities that's driven up a serious amount of buzz.

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1528389/8-upcoming-movies-that-will-save-2016-from-being-a-disaster?story_page=8

[kowhite]

3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

The articles about Jlaw's salary on Passengers had so much rampant sexism it was appalling.

 

You could read between the lines they all thought it was too much.

 

Meanwhile, male superstars get 15m-20m for shit projects and nobody says anything.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, these days...if you're getting 20m...yeah, you're top of the heap.  If you're getting 20m for a movie that isn't already a set in the stone franchise?  You're really fucking killing it.. JLaw did well, and earned it.  But this isn't really very common for anyone these days.

 

Not to diminish your very real and accurate point, but this is someone bucking that trend.

[4815162342]

7 hours ago, kowhite said:

 

Ha yes it would.

 

But, usually they don't put those type of salaries against "profits", they put it against gross deals.  In which case...30% yeah possible.  But shit 30% gross is huge, but...I did read Rothman wasn't too pleased with her salary.  I sure wouldn't be if it's that.  But gross deals are also becoming much rarer these days so I dunno.

 

Yeah if you're getting points against the gross you're definitely not going to be given a 30% share. Unless you're RDJ as Tony Stark.

Edited July 1, 2016 by 4815162342