Kvikk Lunsj Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 1 hour ago, RichWS said: Pratt's hairline.....I'm sorry. He looks so freaking hot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 1 minute ago, ddddeeee said: Holy crap. The idea that some people have to fill in their hairlines is amusing to me. Wish someone would do that for me. Watch all the Die Hard films. How Nicolas Cage survived so long without natural hair tho ? Always felt like he is a part of a secret NASA science project regarding hair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 This has got my interest for sure. I don't get into box office rivalries, so it would be amazing if Rogue One, this, and Sing all went over $300 mill domestic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 3 hours ago, RichWS said: Lab Rats got there first! 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said: Lab Rats got there first! Give it up already, old man river. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertman2 Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said: Lab Rats got there first! Ugh that show was so fucking bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, robertman2 said: Ugh that show was so fucking bad wait... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wild Eric Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, robertman2 said: Ugh that show was so fucking bad And with that, Tele just banned you. Nice knowin' ya man! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertman2 Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said: wait... Did I say bad? I meant okay! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxOfficeFangrl Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 (edited) Hair transplants fly under the radar, as far as celebrity cosmetic procedures go, only the really egregious/bad cases get called out, like Piven being less bald than he was in the 90s, or Travolta. Clooney's hairline completely shifts downward, Neeson's hair thickens up again, and they're just "aging gracefully". With Pratt, the focus has all been on his weight loss, so you don't realize right away that it's not the only thing that's changed. Edited August 15, 2016 by BoxOfficeChica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said: wait... #TeamMichelleMonaghan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 36 minutes ago, robertman2 said: Did I say bad? I meant okay! Nice try but you are marked forever now. Do you know he works on the damn show lol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertman2 Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 14 minutes ago, CJohn said: Nice try but you are marked forever now. Do you know he works on the damn show lol? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingo Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Just now, Tele the Jet Baller said: Lab Rats got there first! Pfft yeah right. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I saw the Lost in Space movie in theaters. 18 years later, I still want my money back. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trifle Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Well, to confirm that the movie is on for December and that the EW article wasn't just already in the works (not that that was likely) here is something actually from Sony on the date: Take a first look at #PassengersMovie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt, at Cinemas December 21. pic.twitter.com/5qB2T5Z9Z0— Sony Pictures UK (@SonyPicturesUK) August 16, 2016 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamb1993 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 2 hours ago, trifle said: Well, to confirm that the movie is on for December and that the EW article wasn't just already in the works (not that that was likely) here is something actually from Sony on the date: So Sony actually remembered this exists? Maybe they'll remember to put the trailer out soon too... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeQ Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 This conversation around the trailer release for 'Passengers', and other conversations I've seen about marketing, has me curious why the general wisdom seems to be that a trailer always needs to be released well before a film opens. I'm just thinking out loud: what is wrong with releasing a trailer a few months before a movie opens instead of 6 months to a year beforehand? For example wouldn't the release of a really effective trailer a few months before a movie opens generate awesome buzz leading up the movie's release? With most movies that release a trailer so early, it feels as if they are obligated to release another one in order to drum up buzz again, so what's the point, except perhaps in the case of huge, fan-driven movies? And for me personally, I don't usually want to see a lot of material from a film, I just want to see a little something that makes me think, "Wow, this looks good". Peace, Mike 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antovolk Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, MikeQ said: This conversation around the trailer release for 'Passengers', and other conversations I've seen about marketing, has me curious why the general wisdom seems to be that a trailer always needs to be released well before a film opens. I'm just thinking out loud: what is wrong with releasing a trailer a few months before a movie opens instead of 6 months to a year beforehand? For example wouldn't the release of a really effective trailer a few months before a movie opens generate awesome buzz leading up the movie's release? With most movies that release a trailer so early, it feels as if they are obligated to release another one in order to drum up buzz again, so what's the point, except perhaps in the case of huge, fan-driven movies? And for me personally, I don't usually want to see a lot of material from a film, I just want to see a little something that makes me think, "Wow, this looks good". Peace, Mike For something like, say, Arrival - that's absolutely fine. Just one trailer, a few months before opening. The expectations for Passengers are different because it is a big budget tentpole film and Sony's biggest release of the year. And the thing with these sorts of films - they don't just want one trailer generating awesome buzz - they want multiple trailers over a longer period of time generating lots of buzz. And for big tentpoles like Passengers releasing at this time - it needs to compete with buzz from Rogue One and Assassin's Creed....everyone knows a new Star Wars is coming this December, but how many know about an original sci-fi with JLaw and Pratt? Edited August 17, 2016 by antovolk 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 I followed the production of this at all - is the current narrative that it's garbage and Sony has no idea how to market and/or is borderline dumping it? No trailer this late into the game is definitely weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...