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

[UTJeff]

Obviously this movie won't be a huge hit, but it's not going to be a major bomb either.

[fmpro]

3 hours ago, Blankments said:

Final predicts:

 

DOM: 68M

WW: 174M

 

You're way of here Blank.. It will fly past 68 mill next week and settle in the 100-110 mill area.

China could also be great with this and 80-100 mill are very likely. Other openings in UK and Russia have been good.

So +50% to your DOM and double your WW. Then you're in the right ballpark

[fmpro]

2 hours ago, UTJeff said:

Obviously this movie won't be a huge hit, but it's not going to be a major bomb either.

 

Agree. I doubt it will break even in theaters.. Budget and P&A alone should be 250-300 mill so there is a long way to go. 

But once TV and Home market kicks in they should make some money..

[Joel M]

3 hours ago, fmpro said:

 

Agree. I doubt it will break even in theaters.. Budget and P&A alone should be 250-300 mill so there is a long way to go. 

But once TV and Home market kicks in they should make some money..

 

I think P&A is offset by the tv, dvd revenue so there's no point bring it up. It has a 110-120m budget, if it makes close to 300m WW you can say it broke even. Not the hit that Sony hoped for, but not a money loser either.

[75Live]

finally saw it last night and it was pretty mediocre to me.  I liked the first half, then for me, it kind if went off a cliff when 

Spoiler

she found out he woke her up and really when Fishburne showed up.  It just didn't work for me after that.  I didn't care about the twist as it was given away in the trailers and I didn't read any script or spoilers.

 

I'm not sure what the critics were complaining about since I don't read reviews, but I can see why they weren't crazy about this film and why it hasn't taken off with the GA either.

 

Now, after all that being said, it's not horrible by any means, but it's not great.  It's decent and it's not a bad way to kill a couple hours.  I got to see it for free so that helped too.

 

I think the first half it was easily a B, possibly going up to B+, then for me the rails fell off and I could give it overall closer to a C+.  I may bump it up but it's my quick initial reaction.

 

Oh and Michael Sheen was easily the best part of the movie

[75Live]

double post for some reason

Edited December 30, 2016 by 75live

[baumer]

It's not often that we completely disagree on a film and I know you didn't hate it but honestly I'm a little bit surprised you didn't enjoy it a bit more @75live

[75Live]

14 minutes ago, Christmas Baumer said:

It's not often that we completely disagree on a film and I know you didn't hate it but honestly I'm a little bit surprised you didn't enjoy it a bit more @75live

 

I just couldn't get past the issues I had with the movie.  Like I was saying before, the supposed "slow" parts in the beginning, I really enjoyed, then it just turned a corner into genericness and it never got me back.  

 

Yeah I am not saying it's bad, but really there was no hook for me after one point so it just became a bit bland for me.  

 

I get why some like it and maybe I will enjoy it more when I see it again on tv.  But for right now, it just didn't grab me which I'm not entirely shocked since that is how it looked in the trailers for me.

[That One Girl]

I thought the movie was pretty damn good, but the final act kinda ruined it for me.  5/10 overall.  I enjoyed it, regardless.

[Captain H]

Finally watched it. Good enough, really. The first half is a solid A-, but the second half is B at best. Overall an enjoyable film.

 

B+(7/10)

[trifle]

11 hours ago, fmpro said:

 

Agree. I doubt it will break even in theaters.. Budget and P&A alone should be 250-300 mill so there is a long way to go. 

But once TV and Home market kicks in they should make some money..

 

Budget is $110 after tax credits, and promo was mostly putting the stars on talk shows. There was one premiere in LA and one in China (which I suspect Wanda was putting on, this movie is in the new percentage participation deal Sony and Wanda just completed.)  So there will be promo costs, but I think you are estimating them high.  If it makes three times its budget I think that is more than the typical formula for breaking even, isn't it?  Including a rough estimate of promo costs when they aren't known?

 

I'm hoping this makes some money in theatrical so its aftermarket will be gravy.  I think the aftermarket will be good. This is a light movie with charming leads, spectacular visuals, and some thought provoking circumstance, and I think is the kind of movie people will rewatch.

 

--

 

edit: having said that, from twitter reactions that seems to apply to about 3/4 of the people watching it.  The remaining 1/4 don't like romance in sci fi, or sound like 75Live, which is fair if it isn't their thing, or hate the twist and want to obliterate the movie.

Edited December 30, 2016 by trifle

[That One Girl]

4 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Budget is $110 after tax credits, and promo was mostly putting the stars on talk shows. There was one premiere in LA and one in China (which I suspect Wanda was putting on, this movie is in the new percentage participation deal Sony and Wanda just completed.)  So there will be promo costs, but I think you are estimating them high.  If it makes three times its budget I think that is more than the typical formula for breaking even, isn't it?  Including a rough estimate of promo costs when they aren't known?

 

I'm hoping this makes some money in theatrical so its aftermarket will be gravy.  I think the aftermarket will be good. This is a light movie with charming leads, spectacular visuals, and some thought provoking circumstance, and I think is the kind of movie people will rewatch.

 

For me, I liked the first two acts, but the third act kind of makes me question attempting to rewatch it.  It's a very clichéd, boring, ugly 3rd act IMO.

[trifle]

19 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

For me, I liked the first two acts, but the third act kind of makes me question attempting to rewatch it.  It's a very clichéd, boring, ugly 3rd act IMO.

 

I don't see the 'ugly' aspect of that but part of that 1/4 of the people who see it and don't really like it (or less from twitter reactions, but maybe they aren't tweeting) think the Hollywood Tropes which help tie up the ending quickly taint the movie.  Most who deal with that seem to feel, like I do, that they should have spent more time and less short hand on the end, but that the issue raised was to the audience about how would they act, and was not really a question of how would the characters act. That doesn't spoil the experience but just makes the ending less than it could have been.

 

Spoiler

Would she have condemned herself to Jim's original position, living forever alone?  She seemed to me to feel the horror of that as she thought about him dying.  Her forgiving him was the only chance SHE had to live a full life, imho.  Now the auto doc thing I'd have skipped.  It raises too many questions  of why only one on a ship with thousands of passengers who can expect to at minimum have hibernation sickness when they wake up, and questions of -- how will she feel a year later -- might she not rethink that?  I agree it was somewhat cliche at the end, it just doesn't destroy my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  How many movies have 'Hollywood Endings'? I really enjoyed myself, and thought it was beautiful and a great watch -- but I didn't take it too seriously.  On the other hands, movies I take seriously I sometimes have trouble rewatching.  But it's fair if your opinion is different. 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by trifle

[That One Girl]

5 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Yeah, part of that 1/4 of the people who see it and don't really like it (or less from twitter reactions, but maybe they aren't tweeting) think the Hollywood Tropes which help tie up the ending quickly taint the movie.  Most who deal with that seem to feel, like I do, that they should have spent more time and less short hand on the end, but that the issue raised was to the audience about how would they act, and was not really a question of how would the characters act. That doesn't spoil the experience but just makes the ending less than it could have been.

 

  Hide contents

Would she have condemned herself to Jim's original position, living forever alone?  She seemed to me to feel the horror of that as she thought about him dying.  Her forgiving him was the only chance SHE had to live a full life, imho.  Now the auto doc thing I'd have skipped.  It raises too many questions  of why only one on a ship with thousands of passengers who can expect to at minimum have hibernation sickness when they wake up, and questions of -- how will she feel a year later -- might she not rethink that?  I agree it was cliche at the end, it just doesn't destroy my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  How many movies have 'Hollywood Endings'? I really enjoyed myself, and thought it was beautiful and a great watch -- but I didn't take it too seriously.  On the other hands, movies I take seriously I sometimes have trouble rewatching.  But it's fair if your opinion is different. 

 

 

For me, I think it would've worked better if...

 

JLaw never forgives Pratt until he puts her to sleep so she can live and he dies alone.  In the whole spaceship malfunction scene, she uses Pratt only to help her save the ship, which helps her to forgive him a bit, but still not completely.  After that, when the whole concept of JLaw being put to sleep but Pratt dying comes up, Pratt insists it happens.  It'd be a nice way for Pratt to redeem himself.  The movie could end with JLaw waking up 88 years later and her forgiving Jim.  I think it would've made the ending a lot better.  Cause what Pratt's character did was pretty terrible. 

[The Futurist]

The fact that almost everyone judges what Pratt s character does in this film & that is is "the fatally flawed story" is probably the most predictable thing of 2016.

 

It must be so great to have the moral high ground on every aspect of your life.

 

I wish I shat buttlerflies & teddy bears just like you too & that everything I say or do is pristine, pure & devoided or any survival instinct.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by The Futurist

[That One Girl]

8 hours ago, The Futurist said:

The fact that almost everyone judges what Pratt s character in this film & that is is "the fatally flawed story" is probably the most predictable thing of 2016.

 

It must be so great to have the moral high ground on every aspect of life.

 

I wish I shat buttlerflies & teddy bears just like you too & that every thing I say or do is pristine, pure & devoted or any survival instinct.

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, I don't think what Pratt's character did in the movie was morally right.  I don't have an issue with it being a plot point of the movie, but it should've been resolved in a better way IMO.  Why do you feel the need to shit on everyone about basic shit like this.

[misafeco]

Poor Beals is banned now? Damn I missed it.

[fmpro]

25 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Budget is $110 after tax credits, and promo was mostly putting the stars on talk shows. There was one premiere in LA and one in China (which I suspect Wanda was putting on, this movie is in the new percentage participation deal Sony and Wanda just completed.)  So there will be promo costs, but I think you are estimating them high.  If it makes three times its budget I think that is more than the typical formula for breaking even, isn't it?  Including a rough estimate of promo costs when they aren't known?

 

I'm hoping this makes some money in theatrical so its aftermarket will be gravy.  I think the aftermarket will be good. This is a light movie with charming leads, spectacular visuals, and some thought provoking circumstance, and I think is the kind of movie people will rewatch.

 

--

 

edit: having said that, from twitter reactions that seems to apply to about 3/4 of the people watching it.  The remaining 1/4 don't like romance in sci fi, or sound like 75Live, which is fair if it isn't their thing, or hate the twist and want to obliterate the movie.

 

Knowing a little about the REAL budgets in general and how much money it takes to promote a movie like this you can bet your first born that the budget is not under 250 mill combined if the "Official" production budget is 110 mill. This is promoted to the max.. And 25%+ of the WW gross will come from China were kickback is 25%..

I'm thinking it needs 120 mill DOM, 100 mill from China and 300 mill from the rest to break even in theaters.. And that does'ent seem very likely at this point. 

But its doing okay and its far from being a BOMB.

[trifle]

27 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I don't see the 'ugly' aspect of that but part of that 1/4 of the people who see it and don't really like it (or less from twitter reactions, but maybe they aren't tweeting) think

Spoiler

the Hollywood Tropes which help tie up the ending quickly taint the movie.  Most who deal with that seem to feel, like I do, that they should have spent more time and less short hand on the end, but that the issue raised was to the audience about how would they act, and was not really a question of how would the characters act. That doesn't spoil the experience but just makes the ending less than it could have been.

 

  Hide contents

Would she have condemned herself to Jim's original position, living forever alone?  She seemed to me to feel the horror of that as she thought about him dying.  Her forgiving him was the only chance SHE had to live a full life, imho.  Now the auto doc thing I'd have skipped.  It raises too many questions  of why only one on a ship with thousands of passengers who can expect to at minimum have hibernation sickness when they wake up, and questions of -- how will she feel a year later -- might she not rethink that?  I agree it was somewhat cliche at the end, it just doesn't destroy my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  How many movies have 'Hollywood Endings'? I really enjoyed myself, and thought it was beautiful and a great watch -- but I didn't take it too seriously.  On the other hands, movies I take seriously I sometimes have trouble rewatching.  But it's fair if your opinion is different. 

 

 

[The Futurist]

10 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Jesus Christ, I don't think what Pratt's character did in the movie was morally right.  I don't have an issue with it being a plot point of the movie, but it should've been resolved in a better way IMO.  Why do you feel the need to shit on everyone about basic shit like this.

 

Because most people don't have an issue with how the plot point is resolved but with the plot point and the decision itself, it is pretty obvious that is why the movie was rejected & trashed so vehemently.

 

Try to argue with me that the irrational hate this movie got does not come from THAT plot point, it  s totally about that.

 

Critics are judging the decision and thus are telling me this movie is worse than 15 Adam Sandler comedies.

 

Of course, that makes perfect sense.

 

Adam Sandler does great work most of the time and you should see 10 of his films before Passengers which is a morally corrupt film.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by The Futurist