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

[trifle]

26 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

@trifle

 

Was Tyldum present at the premiere or at other events during the promotion in December ?

 

He was at least at the premiere and a few of the press events.

 

20 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Do you understand why critics talk about a fatally flawed story ?

 

Do you see where they are coming from or are they over-reacting over something trivial ?

 

They don't like a plot twist.  You probably know it from before it became a spoiler.  You will love it.

 

and isn't that the point of having controversial events in a plot?

 

I'm going to address it in the review thread when I get my thoughts together, but there will be spoilers. 

[The Futurist]

I know nothing of the plot besides the premise so we ll se.

 

 

[A District 3 Engineer]

What the hell was sony thinking when they kept that silly poster in the US?

 

It wasn't enough with the taiwanese one I showed you yesterday, now we have these character posters from France:

 

 

[trifle]

57 minutes ago, A District 3 Engineer said:

What the hell was sony thinking when they kept that silly poster in the US?

 

It wasn't enough with the taiwanese one I showed you yesterday, now we have these character posters from France:

 

 

 

I've formed the opinion that Rothman is penny wise and pound foolish.  Other partners have taken a bunch of the movie's cost and a percentage of performance overseas and they are protecting their investment much better in my opinion.

 

--

edit: more that is not from the US

 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by trifle

[MovieMan89]

In spite of the reviews, I feel like this had a fantastic trailer that looked very appealing and who should, in theory, be two of the bigger current draws. If it tanks on opening, then it kind of confirms that star power is pretty much dead. Either that or RT's influence over the GA is becoming pretty enormous. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by MovieMan89

[trifle]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

In spite of the reviews, I feel like this had a fantastic trailer that looked very appealing and who should, in theory, be two of the bigger current draws. If it tanks on opening, then it kind of confirms that star power is pretty much dead. Either that or RT's influence over the GA is becoming pretty enormous. 

 

The reviews were pretty vitrolic from a certain crowd.  I don't think star power ever meant getting box office gold from a film panned by critics.

 

But I think the movie is actually good, so I am hoping that WOM will lift it once everyone has seen Rogue One once.

 

More marketing not from Sony USA:

 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by trifle

[MovieMan89]

Just now, trifle said:

 

The reviews were pretty vitrolic from a certain crowd.  I don't think star power ever meant getting box office gold from a film panned by critics.

 

But I think the movie is actually good, so I am hoping that WOM will lift it once everyone has seen Rogue One once.

There really is zero excuse though if a movie starring both of them with a very wide appealing looking trailer opens poorly. 

[Jandrew]

The recent resurgence of space movies is my favorite. Martian, Gravity, Interstellar, the genre's been on a role. But Passengers...it never stuck with me and still hasn't.

 

I don't know what it is. Maybe the annoying Pratt/J-Law mania. Or the reviews, which I did and didn't expect. I don't know. All I know is I should be headed to the theater right now to see this, but just have no desire.

[trifle]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

There really is zero excuse though if a movie starring both of them with a very wide appealing looking trailer opens poorly. 

 

If you don't consider the reviews trashing it a reason.

 

This whole conversation about whether stars mean anything to box office just goes around and around and no one is ever convinced.

[ban1o]

Reviews definitely have an effect on boxoffice lol. Like I know so many people who check a movies RT score before going to see it. But I do agree Pratt and JLaw should have made it open to decent numbers. 

 

I do think most of the reviews focus so much on a specific part which I don't think the General audience would care as much about which might make it have good legs. 

[AniNate]

I would necessarily say starpower is dead. It's likely the reason any casual moviegoer has an interest whatsoever in seeing this. This would probably be relegated to a tenth of the budget and be distributed by someone like Radius if they went with more obscure names for the cast.

[straggler]

29 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

There really is zero excuse though if a movie starring both of them with a very wide appealing looking trailer opens poorly. 

I just do not understand the magic pixie dust theory of star power. A poorly reviewed film, especially one getting sniped at like this one, is going to struggle no matter who is in it. There are very few critic proof movies. 

[MovieMan89]

30 minutes ago, jandrew said:

The recent resurgence of space movies is my favorite. Martian, Gravity, Interstellar, the genre's been on a role. But Passengers...it never stuck with me and still hasn't.

 

I don't know what it is. Maybe the annoying Pratt/J-Law mania. Or the reviews, which I did and didn't expect. I don't know. All I know is I should be headed to the theater right now to see this, but just have no desire.

Maybe it should've went with the October release slot of Martian/Gravity. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by MovieMan89

[MovieMan89]

4 minutes ago, straggler said:

I just do not understand the magic pixie dust theory of star power. A poorly reviewed film, especially one getting sniped at like this one, is going to struggle no matter who is in it. There are very few critic proof movies. 

Well up until very recent years you would see most people argue that reviews only mattered to a niche internet subset and the public didn't care what the critics think. Clearly that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, though I've been arguing that since the end of last decade. 

[Alli]

Studios definitely think star power is valuable, or else they wouldn't have paid Lawrence 20M.,   I think studios know better than us. they probably have data/statistics.

[Hermia]

2 minutes ago, straggler said:

I just do not understand the magic pixie dust theory of star power. A poorly reviewed film, especially one getting sniped at like this one, is going to struggle no matter who is in it. There are very few critic proof movies. 

 

What star power gives IMO is more publicity. This is a film sold only on Pratt and Jlaw, it's their face and name on everything. No story or director or effects,this is a test for both of them.

If there is a film we can talk about star power, it's Passengers. 

Affleck did well with the The Accountant despite bad reviews, boring trailer and boring story.

[straggler]

2 minutes ago, Alli said:

Studios definitely think star power is valuable, or else they wouldn't have paid Lawrence 20M.,   I think studios know better than us. they probably have data/statistics.

A well received, well reviewed movie with a big star in it is valuable. They did not agree to pay her that amount because they thought the critics would trash the movie however. A big star is a safety net, but only to a degree. Unless it is the type of film that traditionally does not need critics, stars will not magically overcome a major critical lashing. The difference today also is that now we have sites like RT that give us a big, dumb shining number and an oversimplified "fresh" or "rotten" just by googling a film.

 

Why this argument never ends is because there is a school of thought on this board that believes that stars will magically overcome anything, that stars are supposed to guarantee box office. It just does not work that way and has not since the 80s if it ever did at all.   

[Nova]

1 minute ago, straggler said:

A well received, well reviewed movie with a big star in it is valuable. They did not agree to pay her that amount because they thought the critics would trash the movie however. A big star is a safety net, but only to a degree. Unless it is the type of film that traditionally does not need critics, stars will not magically overcome a major critical lashing. The difference today also is that now we have sites like RT that give us a big, dumb shining number and an oversimplified "fresh" or "rotten" just by googling a film.

 

Why this argument never ends is because there is a school of thought on this board that believes that stars will magically overcome anything, that stars are supposed to guarantee box office. It just does not work that way and has not since the 80s if it ever did at all.   

There have been plenty of poorly received films with stars in it that have done good at the box office. 

 

All this proves is that Jlaw isn't the draw everyone thinks she is (although she has some box office clout but not as much as was thought) and that Pratt is a franchise star. 

[John Marston]

JLaw has been fading ever since the Hunger Games fad ended 

[Jandrew]

Okay, maybe blaming my lack of interest on the JLaw/Pratt mania isn't fair. I enjoy them both, and I haven't been online enough to get bombarded by all the "stanning." But still, this just doesn't have that "thing." Even before the reviews, I just couldn't get excited.

 

Keep the space movies coming anyway. I'm still having a good time.