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

[marveldcfox]

13 hours ago, trifle said:

 

 

No, it was originally a $120M budget then Rothman came on board at Sony and tried to cut it to $90M and only partly succeeded.  And now it is being reported as $100M after tax credits, which is consistent with what was being said for a year, with extra added in for the VFX issue.  This isn't last minute scrambling.

 

And actually @shayhiri you said you had decided to like it.  Fickle!

Very sure earlier you said 110M. Now it is 100M. LOOOOOL

 

Jennifer fans...plz...stop trying to make the movie what it isn't. It is an expensive movie so if it flops just take it on the chin and move on.

[straggler]

1 hour ago, marveldcfox said:

Very sure earlier you said 110M. Now it is 100M. LOOOOOL

 

Jennifer fans...plz...stop trying to make the movie what it isn't. It is an expensive movie so if it flops just take it on the chin and move on.

But the exact same goes for trying to make the film more expensive than it is while rooting for it to flop. Initially the budget was supposed to be $90 million. I would say $100-110 million is a fair assessment. If you have any facts to show it isn't, provide them. Just don't pretend that people actively rooting for the movie to flop are being objective. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by straggler

[Cochofles]

1 hour ago, marveldcfox said:

Very sure earlier you said 110M. Now it is 100M. LOOOOOL

 

Jennifer fans...plz...stop trying to make the movie what it isn't. It is an expensive movie so if it flops just take it on the chin and move on.

 

LOL

JLAW stans: "Passengers is super cheap and the studio has not spent barely any money promoting it; besides, they may have paid 32 million between the two biggest stars in the world and spent over 100 million dollars in the movie (not counting marketing) and released it in the lucrative holiday season, but that does not mean that they expect/want blockbuster numbers, man."

 

Stans (of any fandom and any franchise) are so amusing.

 

 

 

[trifle]

9 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

Very sure earlier you said 110M. Now it is 100M. LOOOOOL

 

Jennifer fans...plz...stop trying to make the movie what it isn't. It is an expensive movie so if it flops just take it on the chin and move on.

 

Very sure I didn't.  I adopted what someone else said they saw as the $110 budget, despite having seen it officially given twice as $100Mafter tax credits for the sake of giving leniency in the case of proposing a bet, where 'making money' would be defined as triple that, or $330M world wide.

 

7 hours ago, Cochofles said:

 

LOL

JLAW stans: "Passengers is super cheap and the studio has not spent barely any money promoting it; besides, they may have paid 32 million between the two biggest stars in the world and spent over 100 million dollars in the movie (not counting marketing) and released it in the lucrative holiday season, but that does not mean that they expect/want blockbuster numbers, man."

 

Stans (of any fandom and any franchise) are so amusing.

 

 

 

 

So you are taking me up on that bet, or no?

8 hours ago, straggler said:

But the exact same goes for trying to make the film more expensive than it is while rooting for it to flop. Initially the budget was supposed to be $90 million. I would say $100-110 million is a fair assessment. If you have any facts to show it isn't, provide them. Just don't pretend that people actively rooting for the movie to flop are being objective. 

 

 

btw here's box office mojo citing it as $110M, which, as I said, I am ready to adopt.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passengers2016.htm

[misafeco]

16 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Very sure I didn't.  I adopted what someone else said they saw as the $110 budget, despite having seen it officially given twice as $100Mafter tax credits for the sake of giving leniency in the case of proposing a bet, where 'making money' would be defined as triple that, or $330M world wide.

It doesn't need 3x the budget to break even. 2-2.5 is enough unless it makes most of the money OS. 330M+ would be profitable without a doubt.

[Cochofles]

23 minutes ago, misafeco said:

It doesn't need 3x the budget to break even. 2-2.5 is enough unless it makes most of the money OS. 330M+ would be profitable without a doubt.

 

I am sure that if it only grossed 100 million it would be insanely profitable. I hear that Jlaw and Pratt gave back their salaries (marketing for the film cost them zero dolars).

I also read that the actual budget was 40 million dollars.

Yep...I heard it on some website. Jlaw4ver.com or something.

I think.

[misafeco]

16 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

 

I am sure that if it only grossed 100 million it would be insanely profitable. I hear that Jlaw and Pratt gave back their salaries (marketing for the film cost them zero dolars).

I also read that the actual budget was 40 million dollars.

Yep...I heard it on some website. Jlaw4ver.com or something.

I think.

You're basically trolling right now.

[Nova]

The budget is $110M. They've spent all of this time promoting it. They've got arguably two of the biggest movie stars right now starring in it. If this film was being well received by critics there's no way any of you guys would be fine with $300M WW. But because it's gotten terrible reviews, suddenly $300M is okay. You're crazy if you think when Sony green lit this film, with Jen and Chris in it, and gave it a holiday release date that their expectations were $300M. 

 

I said this before and I'll say it again. They were most likely expecting numbers that were similar to The Martians. They didn't pay Jen and Chris all that money so they can barely get a return on the film. 

 

Unfortunately it seems the film isn't that good. It's not the first time or the last time Sony or any studio will have had this issue. It's also not the first time Jen or Chris have starred in films that weren't well received or that didn't make their studio a ton of money. It happens. It's not a big deal. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Nova

[filmlover]

Both stars will be fine lol. They just won't get those kind of salaries again.

[trifle]

34 minutes ago, Nova said:

The budget is $110M. They've spent all of this time promoting it. They've got arguably two of the biggest movie stars right now starring in it. If this film was being well received by critics there's no way any of you guys would be fine with $300M WW. But because it's gotten terrible reviews, suddenly $300M is okay. You're crazy if you think when Sony green lit this film, with Jen and Chris in it, and gave it a holiday release date that their expectations were $300M. 

 

I said this before and I'll say it again. They were most likely expecting numbers that were similar to The Martians. They didn't pay Jen and Chris all that money so they can barely get a return on the film. 

 

Unfortunately it seems the film isn't that good. It's not the first time or the last time Sony or any studio will have had this issue. It's also not the first time Jen or Chris have starred in films that weren't well received or that didn't make their studio a ton of money. It happens. It's not a big deal. 

 

I never said $300M was what Sony was hoping for when they green lit it. However, as I understand it it didn't get green lit until Jen signed on, and she was seen as an insurance policy of sorts, as I am sure Pratt was.   Insurance that the studio wouldn't lose its shirts if the premise turned out to be unpopular, as it seems to be, with critics at least.  If they got good reviews, I'm sure their star power would have added more.  However, if even with bad reviews the film makes money world wide, it would seem that their 'insurance policy' approach to hiring these actors worked.  What else would lead a film that is trashed by critics and is not a franchise to break even?

 

Obviously, counting on good reviews, I expected this movie to make more, until it didn't get those reviews. But the reviews aren't against the acting, and some criticism seems to be directed at it not being deep fare, rather than at it not being a good movie: such as where Variety say as an insult that 'it might almost be a very special Star Trek' which seems like a non sequitur to me, since I like Star Trek.

[UTJeff]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016/

 

Film is getting pretty abysmal reviews so far.  I saw the movie and enjoyed it.  I think some people are overly fixated on the wrong things or over-exaggerating them.

[Cochofles]

5 hours ago, Nova said:

They've got arguably two of the biggest movie stars right now starring in it. If this film was being well received by critics there's no way any of you guys would be fine with $300M WW. But because it's gotten terrible reviews, suddenly $300M is okay. 

 

 

Well said.

Although, I think that, with the particulars of this plot, the film will not even reach 300 million (I can certainly sense an epic second-week drop in all markets).

This is going to be a fascinating box office run to watch [closely].

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Cochofles

[UTJeff]

Why are people getting so touchy about a movie they haven't even seen?  A lot of big stars are in movies and they don't always land.  It happens.  We'll see what happens here.

[straggler]

6 hours ago, filmlover said:

Both stars will be fine lol. They just won't get those kind of salaries again.

Why not? The issue isn't them. The critics are upset with the script and direction. If the film makes money anyway then they more than earned their paychecks. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by straggler

[UTJeff]

Sure they can get salaries like that again.  Jennifer Lawrence is still a big star and has an Academy Award.  Pratt still has Jurassic World sequel and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and The LEGO Movie.

Edited December 19, 2016 by UTJeff

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, straggler said:

Why not? The issue isn't them. The critics are upset with the script and direction. If the film makes money anyway then they more than earned their paychecks. 

The film's financial prospects are looking more questionable by the day and both stars are already coming off of underperformers (Joy and The Magnificent Seven, respectively).

 

2 minutes ago, UTJeff said:

Sure they can get salaries like that again.  Jennifer Lawrence is still a big star and has an Academy Award.  Pratt still has Jurassic World sequel and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and The LEGO Movie.

I don't think Pratt's getting paid much more for Guardians of the Galaxy 2 because he's making the movie as part of a multi-movie deal he signed with Marvel years ago most likely for a relatively cheap price. JLaw didn't get paid much more for the latter two X-Men movies she was in because they were part of a three-movie deal she signed when she agreed to make First Class and those came after The Hunger Games/Silver Linings Playbook/her Oscar glory.

[angeldelmito]

yeesh, and not even a pun in the title for the RT score...

Edited December 19, 2016 by angeldelmito

[Beals]

They got paid too much for the studio to expect this crapfest to simply break even.

Anyone who thinks that studios spend 160 million dollars in a film just so they can break even must be dreaming.

[straggler]

3 hours ago, UTJeff said:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016/

 

Film is getting pretty abysmal reviews so far.  I saw the movie and enjoyed it.  I think some people are overly fixated on the wrong things or over-exaggerating them.

The reviews are very frustrating. They are fixing on the moral set up, which I don't think they are appreciating properly (think a lifeboat scenario) and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

[straggler]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

The film's financial prospects are looking more questionable by the day and both stars are already coming off of underperformers (Joy and The Magnificent Seven, respectively).

 

I don't think Pratt's getting paid much more for Guardians of the Galaxy 2 because he's making the movie as part of a multi-movie deal he signed with Marvel years ago most likely for a relatively cheap price. JLaw didn't get paid much more for the latter two X-Men movies she was in because they were part of a three-movie deal she signed when she agreed to make First Class and those came after The Hunger Games/Silver Linings Playbook/her Oscar glory.

Joy performed fine. And the only reason that movie made twice its budget was Jlaw. She got a nomination out of a film that the critics did not regard too well. It is easy to draw when everything goes well. It is when it goes sideways that we see what the term means. Take her out of it and you get Our Brand Is In Crisis or Jane Got Her Gun. Someone with her stature is getting paid. And if it all comes together you have a huge hit like SLP or AH. Likely her next Oscar nomination is going to be the upcoming Aronsky film. Hopefully.   

 

MS perfromed like a standard Denzel Washington film.

 

What I am getting from the reviews is that Pratt and Lawrence come off fine. The critics are fixating on the script and how it resolves a moral issue. But if the film still makes money, then they should be credited for it.   

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by straggler