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

[baumer]

13 minutes ago, Beals said:

 

Yay! More "fuck" and "troll"! to people for disagreeing in their praise of a turd.

Why don't you stop being such a spineless, fucking pathetic pro-Jlaw troll instead?

oops...I just let out another "fuck".

Sorry, clearly that Baumer guy has no problem with that...

 

If you have not responded to my challenge. I don't think that you have seen it. Meaning I don't think you have seen the movie.

[That One Girl]

10 minutes ago, Beals said:

 

Yay! More "fuck" and "troll"! to people for disagreeing in their praise of a turd.

Why don't you stop being such a spineless, fucking pathetic pro-Jlaw troll instead?

oops...I just let out another "fuck".

Sorry, clearly that Baumer guy has no problem with that...

 

A troll is someone on the internet who aims to get a reaction out of people, which clearly seems to be your motive by going into a thread for a movie you hate and automatically dismissing all praise given to the film as "JLaw fanboys/girls."  I'm going to say "fuck" because I fucking can.

 

I'm a "spineless, pathetic pro-JLaw troll" because I think that going into a thread for Passengers and making inflammatory comments is something worthy of being called out for?  I do like JLaw, but not to the extent where I would defend every single piece of fucking work she's in.  Exhibit A: I like The Hunger Games, but I thought her performance in the later films was bordering on somewhat wooden.  Exhibit B: I did not approve of her comments about the whole Hawaiian rock incident.  It's not like my posts are trolling anyway if I'm only responding to the troll.

 

Just wanna tell you something: If you can't handle differing opinions from yours and can't resort to responding to other people's posts by calling them "JLaw stans," you more than likely don't belong on the internet .

[misafeco]

15 minutes ago, Beals said:

 

Just like Every single comment of yours for the last 10 days is praising this turd and "defending" your goddess.

Why don't you get the fuck out of my face?  

See? We are even, Jlaw stan.

Now, as I see that a mod has liked your post, I guess it's ok to say "fuck" to other posters here, because clearly they have no problem with you doing that.

 

I never praised Passengers because I haven't even seen it. Opens on Jan 12. Stop talking out of your ass. Every comment I posted here are related to box office.

 

I hate to say this but I have to. Welcome to my ignore list. Quite an accomplishment because I neved ignored anyone in my 2 years here. Congratulations.

[misafeco]

12 minutes ago, 75live said:

oooo, the extremists are fighting each other in here again

 

What extremists? I see only one. Or am I an extremist because I called out the troll?

[Mockingjay Raphael]

I never will understand how someone can hate an actor/actress based on interviews alone, Internet is a bizarre place.

[Beals]

40 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

I'm a "spineless, pathetic pro-JLaw troll"...

 Yes.

Yes you are.

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, Beals said:

 Yes.

Yes you are.

 

Thank you for cherry-picking that one aspect of the post and completely ignoring the rest.  Shows how incapable you are of forming a semi-decent rebuttal.  Maybe if you even read the rest of that one sentence, you'd see that I'm questioning your logic when you call me that.

[Beals]

23 minutes ago, Mockingjay Raphael said:

I never will understand how someone can hate an actor/actress based on interviews alone, Internet is a bizarre place.

 

I never will understand how someone can blindy love an actor/actress based on interviews, spin, PR, and heaps of marketing concocted by Hollywood public relations teams and by carefully chosen public personas (to the point of "defending" every cinematic turd they make and every immflammatory, disrespectful thing they utter),. The  Internet is indeed a bizarre place.

[XO21]

Spitting venom on someone you definitely hate including her fans it's more logical right...trolls are very bizarre

Edited December 28, 2016 by XO21

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, Beals said:

 

I never will understand how someone can blindy love an actor/actress based on interviews, spin, PR, and heaps of marketing concocted by Hollywood public relations teams and by carefully chosen public personas (to the point of "defending" every cinematic turd they make and every immflammatory, disrespectful thing they utter),. The  Internet is indeed a bizarre place.

 

Moderation:

 

You've made your point very very clearly. Why continue to post in this thread if you dislike her so much? Really, at this point you're basically just trolling. 

 

edit: After discussion among the staff, we've decided to give you a two-week thread ban. If you post in this thread during the next 14 days, you will get an automatic one-week forum-wide suspension. 

 

@Beals

[angeldelmito]

now that the mess has left the building lets talk about this beautiful ass set

Edited December 28, 2016 by angeldelmito

[dudalb]

From the reviews and WOM,if you are looking for someone to blame for Passengers underperforming is not Lawrence or Pratt.but the writers and the director. They took a very good concept and seemingly managed to mess it up.

[K1stpierre]

9 minutes ago, angeldelmito said:

now that the mess has left the building lets talk about this beautiful ass set

 

There's just too much  in these photos. 

[A District 3 Engineer]

Beautiful sets.

 

Take a look at these ones, they are my favorites:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by A District 3 Engineer

[trifle]

15 minutes ago, angeldelmito said:

now that the mess has left the building lets talk about this beautiful ass set

 

The visuals are spectacular! 

 

And almost all of it was physically built. For example, only the very top of the Grand Concourse was greenscreen, they had to knock a wall out between two soundstages to build it.

 

 

and I love the art deco style of the bar - and other places

 

 

I just saw it again yesterday at an IPIC, and still enjoyed it the third time.  Next time I won't try more than one course of food at a theater though. The fuss of service and clearing detracts.

[trifle]

6 hours ago, Christmas Baumer said:

 

Absolutely not. I saw it twice now and I absolutely love it. And it's getting good word-of-mouth from a lot of people that I know that has seen it. If you go on to the imdb.com and check out the reviews there's a lot of really good reviews about it as well. So you should check it out.

[amelin]

18 hours ago, trifle said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The ending was changed from the original, where all the other pods are sucked out into space in one of the malfunctions.   Since Jen's also would have been sucked into space (and was, only empty) I guess they didn't feel the need for an autodoc option.  She didn't have an option except whether to forgive or live solitary forever, and they had both risked their lives for eachother at that point. Even in this version, Aurora felt the horror of what it would be like if she herself had to be the only one awake, if Jim had died.  I think forgiving him gives HER a better life, not just him.  He doesn't 'deserve' forgiveness, but she has the capacity to forgive an unforgivable act that can't be taken back by someone who at that point wished he could take it back.  As a 'Hollywood Ending' I can live with it.

 

 

Late to the party, but I agree (surprise!). Don't wanna miss another chance to defend the ending.

 

Spoiler

I think her forgiving him was inevitable. She did it for the same reason he woke her up: because she needed to. 

 

I won't repeat everything I said a few pages ago, but I actually think she wound up happier on that ship than she would have been if she'd continued down the road she was on, always chasing the next accomplishment and never allowing the people in her life to become as important to her as her work. By the time she makes her decision, she's fallen in love. She's grown closer to Jim than she's probably ever been to anyone in her life and even said that when she was with him, for the first time in her life, she didn't feel lonely. I think Jim's offer to put her back to sleep was a crucial moment not only because it allowed him to redeem himself to a certain extent, but also because she was again given the choice of whether or not to continue chasing the next big thing and give up what human connection she had in her life. I think the loss of him would have been a big sacrifice. Maybe you need to be a bit of a romantic to buy this, but I am.

 

Again, I think this needed to be more established at some point in the third act, but it's all there in the character the movie shows us.

 

(To be clear, I don't mean to say that she should be grateful that he woke her up or anything -- just that it made sense to me that she stayed with him, although I agree the ending felt rushed.)

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by amelin

[K1stpierre]

The photo of the bar reminds me of The Shinning

[trifle]

8 minutes ago, amelin said:

 

Late to the party, but I agree (surprise!). Don't wanna miss another chance to defend the ending.

 

  Hide contents

I think her forgiving him was inevitable. She did it for the same reason he woke her up: because she needed to. 

 

I won't repeat everything I said a few pages ago, but I actually think that in a sense she wound up happier on that ship than she would have been if she'd continued on the road she was on, always chasing the next accomplishment and never allowing the people in her life to become as important to her as her work. And by the time she makes her decision, she's fallen in love. She's grown closer to Jim than she's probably ever been to anyone in her life and even said that when she was with him, for the first time in her life, she didn't feel lonely. I think Jim's offer to put her back to sleep was a crucial moment not only because it allowed him to redeem himself to a certain extent, but also because she was again given the choice of whether or not to continue chasing the next big thing and give up what human connection she has in her life. I think the loss of him would have been a big sacrifice. Maybe you need to be a bit of a romantic to buy this, but I am.

 

Again, I think this needed to be more established at some point in the third act, but it's all there in the character the movie shows us.

 

(To be clear, I don't mean to say that she should be grateful that he woke her up or anything -- just that it made sense to me that she stayed with him, although I agree the ending felt rushed.)

 

 

 

 

I agree.  I saw it again with two people who were seeing it for the first time.  They both liked it, but their consensus was that the movie should have been 20 minutes longer, in order to give the depth to the end that was given to the first 2 acts.

Spoiler

Also, there are scenes in promo stuff that weren't in the movie. It looks like the ending might have been longer at one point.  I am hoping for a director's cut (or writer's cut   ) on the steel book.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by trifle

[amelin]

10 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Also, there are scenes in promo stuff that weren't in the movie. It looks like the ending might have been longer at one point.  I am hoping for a director's cut (or writer's cut   ) on the steel book.

 

 

 

I hadn't noticed that about the ending! I'm really hoping for a director's cut too. Right now I'd love to read the shooting script to see what didn't make it through post.

 

Also, I feel like we've neglected to mention what is clearly the most important issue: how crazy hot they were together. That table makeout practically had me screaming internally.

 

The fact that the actual sex scene was so short, though.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by amelin