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

[Noctis]

Entertaining film, but it could have been SO much better and the character turn in the third act was horrible. 

[amelin]

4 hours ago, Noctis said:

Entertaining film, but it could have been SO much better and the character turn in the third act was horrible. 

 

5 hours ago, straggler said:

The fixes to this film were so blatantly obvious that I am almost convinced that what happened here is an example of studio meddling. Sony does not exactly have a good track record, and desperation is a bad mindset when releasing a film. I will reserve judgment until I read the original script. But it was right there. Open the movie with the selection interviews pre-flight. Especially set up Aurora as a restless soul who is searching for meaning so acutely that she is willing to abandon her life, her family and her friends. And then add a scene where she starts to reconcile and where she recognizes how her own choices and restlessness helped bring her to this point, like fate. So then when her emotions change at the end and when she makes her final decision, it would resonate strongly. Was there an earlier cut of this film and did someone see it?    

Jennifer Lawrence said at some point that she doesn't think Aurora could have ever found happiness or fallen in love unless she were in these circumstances, because she would always be running somewhere, chasing the next thing to achieve. I thought that was very on the nose and it's why I don't consider what happens in the third act to be a character turn at all. She's always tried to infuse her writing and her life with meaning by going on the most outlandish adventures (like her dad) to the point where the people in her life are thrown aside. She's avoided having to look inward to find that meaning. (That's also discussed in this interview with Tyldum which I found pretty interesting -- it's by one of the critics who hated the movie, so the questions are pretty tough )

That being said, I think the movie should have worked a little harder to cement that idea. Showing excerpts from those passenger profiles at the beginning like straggler suggested probably would have been a good idea, as well as adding a scene in the third act where she begins to come to terms with her new world and realize that she's found something in herself (and in someone else) that she never would have found if she had continued living the way she was.

[trifle]

9 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

  Hide contents

Honestly I think it would have worked better as just a straight up romance where the main drama is in figuring out how to repair the malfunctioning ship. That's what the movie felt like anyways, except with an added moral dilemma tacked on to give it some kind of edge. But the execution of that plot point was sloppy and predictable. If they want to make a film that exists mainly as a date night vehicle for two A listers, then they should've just straight up done that. Wouldn't have been original at all, but probably would have worked out better in the end. Because the moral dilemma still didn't make the film original due to its cliche execution. 

 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

I get what you are saying, but I disagree. I think the moral dilemma did add an interesting depth.  I don't think it was tied up perfectly at the end; the end felt rushed.  But I think they thoroughly examined the question, and that the point was to make the audience wonder what they would do given those sets of choices, and those experiences.  How it actually ended in the film wasn't the main point of the question, imho.

 

 

[Mockingjay Raphael]

It increased the estimates to $30m+, may reach $100m DOM. And it's off to a good start in both UK & Russia, it may end generating some profits after all.

[ddddeeee]

Seeing this and Rogue One back-to-back tomorrow.

[MrPink]

1 minute ago, ddddeeee said:

Seeing this and Rogue One back-to-back tomorrow.

 

[ddddeeee]

4 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

I love him and I love the whole squad. 

[MrPink]

7 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

I love him and I love the whole squad. 

 

My underrated MVP was Bodhi (R1 spoilers to follow)

 

Spoiler

I've already termed getting blown up by an out of reach grenade as getting Bodhi'd (happens all the time in Battlefield 1). Audience member next to me yesterday gasped 'Oh no!' 

 

Chirrut still king tho!

Edited December 26, 2016 by MrPink

[XO21]

Should I see it in 3-D?

[Noctis]

1 hour ago, ddddeeee said:

Seeing this and Rogue One back-to-back tomorrow.

 

Score is great in Passengers. 

[ddddeeee]

Surely if this does make it to $100M then it's a sign that J-Law/Pratt are draws to a certain extent? How many original and panned movies make that much?

[misafeco]

	Passengers	TGWTDT	%
Wed	4,11	5,07	81,07
Thu	3,22	3,31	97,21
Fri	4,50	4,63	97,19
Sat	2,85	2,51	113,56
Sun	7,50	5,63	133,24
5 day	22,18	21,15	104,87
Mon	8,25	6,72	122,69
Gross to date	30,43	27,87	109,17
Legs (5 day)	1,37	1,32	104,10
Final gross*	122,01	102,5158	119,02
*if Passengers holds the last day's %   Very good increases Sun+Mon. 100M is back to the table. I don't expect the hold being this great in January, but if the movie grosses 20-30% more than TGWTDT in December, it'll be already 70M+ after 2.5 weeks. I hope the estimates hold.

[misafeco]

2 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

Surely if this does make it to $100M then it's a sign that J-Law/Pratt are draws to a certain extent? How many original and panned movies make that much?

This year it's the only "rotten" original movie with a chance to 100M DOM. Unless we consider The Legend of Tarzan original. It's generally a shitty year for original movies, only animation over 130M.

[Beals]

Wasn't this supposed to gross 55-60 million on its first 6 days?

30 million (less than the stars combined salaries) is quite underwhelming, especially for such big stars and such a large budget.

[trifle]

6 minutes ago, Beals said:

Wasn't this supposed to gross 55-60 million on its first 6 days?

30 million (less than the stars combined salaries) is quite underwhelming, especially for such big stars and such a large budget.

 

No one is saying it is what was hoped for originally, but neither was being panned by critics.  Given that it was panned, this result is better than many hoped.

[amelin]

5 hours ago, XO21 said:

Should I see it in 3-D?

 

If you like 3D I'd say it's worth it, the action sequences (not to mention the sets) are pretty cool. I personally didn't think 3D added much, but I'm the kind of person who stops noticing it after five minutes. (Luckily for me, Pratt's shower scene takes place within the first five minutes )

[trifle]

I liked the 3 D for the space shots.

[Beals]

http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/

Box office report: Rogue One Reigns Again, Passengers Stumbles 

“Passengers scored $14.9 million across the three-day weekend ($30.4 million since its Wednesday bow), heading for an estimated $23.1 million when Monday’s numbers are finalized. The film’s three-day gross marks the second lowest wide-release in Lawrence’s filmography to date, unadjusted for inflation, surpassing only the $12.3 million weekend gross of the 2012 horror flick House at the End of the Street.”

Edited December 27, 2016 by Beals

[trifle]

Jen never did a film called "Last House On the Left"

[kowhite]

9 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

Surely if this does make it to $100M then it's a sign that J-Law/Pratt are draws to a certain extent? How many original and panned movies make that much?

 

To a certain extent yes, it does.  Worth their paychecks?  That's a different question.