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

[straggler]

55 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

Joy didn't performed fine, it flopped but that doesn't have anything to do with her star power. This type of movie was an awards play that based a lot of its box office potential to WOM and oscar buzz. JLaw opened it to similar numbers with Hustle by herself. The fact that the movie didn't have enough legs to be profitable is not her fault.

 

Also Magnificent Seven wasn't the typical Denzel vehicle even if it performed like one. Unlike other recent over-budgetet Denzel flops who seemed like they were getting dumped even before they opened (123Pelham, Unstoppable), M7 had buzz and a big marketing blitz and Pratt as a second "big name" and it still dissapointed. It may indicates that he added nothing BO-wise but it still wasn't Pratt's movie.

 

That said, if Passengers goes even lower than the tracking suggests and barely break 100m it will be a knock against their pressumed BO power. The movie got a 100m+ budget because it stars JLaw and Pratt. The same script with Emily Blunt and Jake Gyllenhal would get a 50m budget. If the movie fails to break even they will get some blame even if their performances were fine and it was the director who botched the execution of a catchy concept.

Well I define a flop differently. A film that makes money is not a flop. And a film that makes money despite being an awards type film that does not get critical approval is an achievement.  

 

Star power can only do so much. That is what the Joy example shows. That had star power, a great lead performance that got an Oscar nomination, but the critics were lukewarm and the audience, who did not really like American Hustle, tired of the collaboration. Passengers may have been botched. But star power to me is the right person in the right film. We will have to see if it is also the right persons in the wrong film. Sony's idea was that they would add two big stars to a good film. Instead we may have two big stars in a bad one.  

 

 

[misafeco]

Just now, straggler said:

Well I define a flop differently. A film that makes money is not a flop. And a film that makes money despite being an awards type film that does not get critical approval is an achievement.  

 

Star power can only do so much. That is what the Joy example shows. That had star power, a great lead performance that got an Oscar nomination, but the critics were lukewarm and the audience, who did not really like American Hustle, tired of the collaboration. Passengers may have been botched. But star power to me is the right person in the right film. We will have to see if it is also the right persons in the wrong film. Sony's idea was that they would add two big stars to a good film. Instead we may have two big stars in a bad one.  

 

 

When a film fails to make twice the production budget it's considered a flop.

[trifle]

37 minutes ago, amelin said:

 

I know, which is why I think they should have included it in the marketing, since it isn't a twist so much as the actual plot.

 

Initially they did. It was in the plot summary until this summer.  Anyone who is a professional critic and didn't know that wasn't paying attention.

 

Regardless, there is a -for lack of a better word- SJW attack aspect to a lot of the negative reviews where they seem to want to blot the entire idea off the face of the earth.  It is almost as if someone might copy that plot point tomorrow, were this movie to lead them astray.  Which isn't even possible.  

 

Some of them seem to be frothing at the mouth and tying themselves into knots trying to criticize it on every front.  I doubt having the plot point in the trailer would have changed that. They are calling this sexist to the point where they even criticize Aurora being willing to have sex 'so much', as if it were unseemly and only in guys' fantasies do girls like sex.  I thought that was a pretty archaic and sexist attitude itself, actually.

 

We'll see what this level of attack does to the box office, but nothing I've seen makes me think I won't like the movie.  There are critics I respect who didn't like it but they also say why, and that plot point isn't going to kill this for me.  In fact it is what makes the story more interesting and thought provoking, to my mind.  Those same critics praise the chemistry and acting and the visuals.

 

In other news, Passengers is one of 10 movies which are advancing in the visual effects race:

 

Quote

“Arrival”
“The BFG”
“Captain America: Civil War”
“Deepwater Horizon”
“Doctor Strange”
“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”
“The Jungle Book”
“Kubo and the Two Strings”
“Passengers”
“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/in-contention/oscars-2017-visual-effects-1201944426/

Edited December 19, 2016 by trifle

[XO21]

29 minutes ago, misafeco said:

Still not the worst reviewed Christmas release. 

people that saw SW will go see this  

[amelin]

16 minutes ago, trifle said:

Some of them seem to be frothing at the mouth and tying themselves into knots trying to criticize it on every front.  I doubt having the plot point in the trailer would have changed that.

 

Maybe not, but at least there would have been some distance between the backlash and the release of the movie.

 

16 minutes ago, trifle said:

They are calling this sexist to the point where they even criticize Aurora being willing to have sex 'so much', as if it were unseemly and only in guys' fantasies do girls like sex.  I thought that was a pretty archaic and sexist attitude itself, actually.

 

Lol, what the hell? I completely agree, I'm surprised they went there.

 

I was also surprised that there were so many critics who didn't seem to know about the synopsis from like a year ago, they must have been living under a rock.

Edited December 19, 2016 by amelin

[Joel M]

39 minutes ago, straggler said:

Well I define a flop differently. A film that makes money is not a flop. And a film that makes money despite being an awards type film that does not get critical approval is an achievement.  

 

Star power can only do so much. That is what the Joy example shows. That had star power, a great lead performance that got an Oscar nomination, but the critics were lukewarm and the audience, who did not really like American Hustle, tired of the collaboration. Passengers may have been botched. But star power to me is the right person in the right film. We will have to see if it is also the right persons in the wrong film. Sony's idea was that they would add two big stars to a good film. Instead we may have two big stars in a bad one.  

 

 

 

I don't disagree that JLaw helped Joy open bigger than it would have, but the movie is still a flop. The people who paid for it expected Joy to make at least their budget back from the theatrical release and maybe get some serious oscar love. Movie failed to do any of those things, so I don't get how it's not a flop.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Joel M

[MikeQ]

There is no doubt that the critics' reception is very poor. But as someone who is interested in box office prognostication and using information and intuition to figure out how a film will do exactly, I'm interested in seeing how Passengers pans out. The one thing the film does have going for it are Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, and even the reviews thus far largely bear that out, highlighting their chemistry and talent as positives of the film. A top critic review (positive) recently added says: "The film rises and falls on the talents of Pratt and Lawrence, and they are considerable."

 

When we take a look at a film like The Tourist, which is logically being cited as a comparison, the reviews for that film largely singled out the lack of chemistry and sizzle that Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie had together in the film. For example: "Depp and Jolie together create a chemical black hole. They couldn't produce sparks with dry hair and a comb." This lack of chemistry is highlighted in the films "critics consensus" description.

 

I think the signs are fairly clear that Passengers won't be a blockbuster success, which is likely what Sony wanted. But I could still see it potentially doing around $130-150 million domestic, and more overseas, for a profitable worldwide gross on a $110 million budget. Of course, it could also flop too, and that wouldn't be very surprising given the reviews. I just wonder if because Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence do seem to be very good together in this film, that this may prove to be good for general audience reception (to be, at least, not as poor as critics' reception). At the least, I think an argument can be made that hiring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence was probably the best thing they did in making this movie and maximizing its potential box office gross.

 

One critic says in their RT snippet, "What's a rather intriguing premise, replete with meaty themes to chew on, eschews all that to focus on sexy space fun times." Thus, to put it another way, it could be that general audiences are more apt to overlook this problematic aspect of the film to simply enjoy the "sexy space fun times" it provides them. This could prove to be entirely wrong, but it is something to consider when predicting its overall box office prospects. 

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited December 19, 2016 by MikeQ
I frequently use "it's" when it should be "its"

[UTJeff]

I think the movie is flawed, but I did enjoy it, and I enjoyed Pratt and Lawrence in it as well.  I would recommend giving it a look at least once via a Redbox rental or Netflix viewing.  

 

I thought Morten Tyldum's direction was generally good as well.  

[Talkie]

1 hour ago, Hatebox said:

Why did Joy have a budget of 60m? I haven't seen it, but going by the trailer it looked like it should have cost half of that.

 

 

Joy took a Lifetime (TV) Movie concept and tried to turn it into a theatrical dramedy. (God, I hate that word!) It was a JLaw star vehicle built to bait Oscars. Will the Academy ever tire of swallowing the same wretched bait every year, no matter how shoddily churned out? 

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, Talkie said:

 

Joy took a Lifetime (TV) Movie concept and tried to turn it into a theatrical dramedy. (God, I hate that word!) It was a JLaw star vehicle built to bait Oscars. Will the Academy ever tire of swallowing the same wretched bait every year, no matter how shoddily churned out? 

Joy got a sole nomination for JLaw. They didn't care for it.

[4815162342]

1 hour ago, misafeco said:

When a film fails to make twice the production budget it's considered a flop.

 

No. Simply losing money on theatrical release isn't really a flop.

 

Losing a lot of money is.

 

And then you graduate to straight-up bomb territory.

[Cochofles]

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/passengers-2016

1 1/2 star out of 5

"[This movie's] direction is even more dutiful and personality-free than that of the Alan Turing biopic. Despite their individual charms as performers, Pratt and Lawrence have very questionable chemistry. The movie’s production design is polished to the point of looking chintzy, and the special effects—well, let’s just say as elaborate as the movie’s zero-gravity sequence is, it reminded me of how much better “2001” did it. "

[Goffe]

I'm just here to say Joy was pretty great. Top 10 of 2015 for sure.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Goffe

[ddddeeee]

I loved Joy.

[amelin]

1 hour ago, MikeQ said:

I just wonder if because Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence do seem to be very good together in this film, that this may prove to be good for general audience reception (to be, at least, not as poor as critics' reception). At the least, I think an argument can be made that hiring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence was probably the best thing they did in making this movie and maximizing its potential box office gross.

 

One critic says in their RT snippet, "What's a rather intriguing premise, replete with meaty themes to chew on, eschews all that to focus on sexy space fun times." Thus, to put it another way, it could be that general audiences are more apt to overlook this problematic aspect of the film to simply enjoy the "sexy space fun times" it provides them. This could prove to be entirely wrong, but it is something to consider when predicting its overall box office prospects. 

 

For what it's worth, Chris and Jen's promo tour has been getting a lot of attention on social media (and they've been hyped as a pairing ever since the announcement of the movie, of course). I don't know if that will translate into ticket sales, but it might to an extent.

[trifle]

15 minutes ago, Goffe said:

I'm just here to say Joy was pretty great. Top 10 of 2015 for sure.

 

14 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

I loved Joy.

 

I loved a lot of parts of Joy, and Jen's acting was some of my favorite from her, ever.  I didn't think the soap opera theme worked the way it was played, and a couple of other things, though, in the overall movie.

 

People are posting bad reviews and I am tempted to post some of the good ones, deadline, Forbes etc.  Or even the reasoning from critics I respect that didn't like it because of the now well publicized spoiler, but still praised the acting, visuals and on screen charisma and chemistry.  But I won't. I am going to see it for the first time either tomorrow evening or Wednesday, early, and I'll have a definite opinion at that time.

Edited December 19, 2016 by trifle

[Nova]

I actually liked Joy. Watched it on vacay. I don't know if I would have paid to watch it in theaters but I didn't think it was bad or anything. 

[Mojoguy]

Screw the critics! RT can go die in a hole.

I'm watching this because I like Sci Fi!

[Dementeleus]

2 hours ago, misafeco said:

When a film fails to make twice the production budget it's considered a flop.

 

No no no, don't define it by BOT's definition, that's insane.  

[The Futurist]

"Whenever one buys tickets on its partner Fandango’s site, there’s a film’s Rotten Tomatoes rating staring you straight in the face. Why haven’t the majors taken umbrage with that?"

 

I didn't know that, I am starting to understand better the new found power of the tomato and how such a nothing, appalling movie like Manchester by the Sea can have people going to see it in droves.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by The Futurist