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

[JennaJ]

http://i.imgur.com/J8CDeVn.gifv

 

LOL, Wish I knew how to embed that.

 

 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, The Stingray said:

I think Tele was expecting a $150m version of The Europa Report. 

 

I wasn't expecting anything. I've tried to stay well clear of anything related to it... because I was interested in it.

 

What the trailer presents makes no internal sense. If I'm being harsh, it's SF being presented by people who don't much care about SF and any sense of visual world-building that makes sense.

 

The story may be great. It may well overcome my frustration with how it's presented. But given what's been shown so far, it looks like a classic SF concept presented in the dumbest possible way, with few (if any) of the inherent interesting ramifications of the concept.

 

It's just a trailer. I realize it's just a marketing tool to get butts in seats. I hope the movie is much different than what's been shown. 

[The Futurist]

Cheer up Tele, plenty of Marvel & DC movies for you in years to come if this movie doesn't tickle your fancy.

 

 

[Chewy]

Just now, Nutella of Arabia said:

 

I wasn't expecting anything. I've tried to stay well clear of anything related to it... because I was interested in it.

 

What the trailer presents makes no internal sense. If I'm being harsh, it's SF being presented by people who don't much care about SF and any sense of visual world-building that makes sense.

 

The story may be great. It may well overcome my frustration with how it's presented. But given what's been shown so far, it looks like a classic SF concept presented in the dumbest possible way, with few (if any) of the inherent interesting ramifications of the concept.

 

It's just a trailer. I realize it's just a marketing tool to get butts in seats. I hope the movie is much different than what's been shown. 

 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Chewy said:

 

 

I know, I used the word "sense" way too much there. Wish I'd proofread instead of hitting post.  

[babz06]

I think the trailer look good. It's not beating Rogue One, no matter how down some people are on that film. However, if should find an audience who doesn't care for Star Wars at all. Probably not 200m, because i think Sing will be the only other film this Christmas crossing that mark after Rogue One, but 170-180m is attainable. 

 

[JennaJ]

The two criticisms I see popping up are:

1. The trailer gives away the entire movie.

2. It looks generic/derivative/cliche.

 

Now regarding the first, I really don't think that's true. I try to avoid spoilers as much as I can but even I know a major plot point that isn't anywhere in the trailer. I think it reveals basically what the synopsis does - they wake up early, they fall in love, bad shit happens to the ship. IDK how that's "ruining" the movie, that's just the basic plot. I don't know if they survive, if they make it to their destination, what they actually do to try and solve the problem. Anything really besides "there's trouble".

 

Regarding the second point - I think, without reading the script, that this trailer tries to sell the movie as more straightforward than it actually is. I think that comes from knowing that as an original project, the audience is more likely to embrace it if they feel a sense of familiarity. That means stressing some recognizable tropes.

 

Anyway, I love this trailer. I think this movie is going to be a lot more critically embraced than some assume.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by JennaJ

[Chewy]

Big budget romance and Tele isn't sold, everyone make sure to take the over

[MikeQ]

I'm hyped. The trailer isn't the best edited, but what I see, I love, and I trust with the director and actors on board that this will be a good one. I'm also a huge sucker for space movies. Love Gravity, love The Martian. So I say keep bringing the awardsy space movies! 'Arrival' looks great too - I'm also a sucker for intelligent alien movies. So, this Fall season of movies has me a happy camper.

 

Peace,

Mike

[dashrendar44]

9 hours ago, Nutella of Arabia said:

 

Not to mention building this gargantuan ship with so much wasted space when you could build it much smaller and have the trip take 30 years. Or less.

 

This is where James Cameron's genius shines in terms of prospective future. In Avatar, people get shipped on Pandora in stacked coffins piled up to avoid wasting any space and keep most of the energy to propel the ship forward. There's no artificial gravity and no fancy interior furnitures inside. It looked like a believable thing NASA would design and build for interplanetary travel. Everything is designed to avoid waste of energy and space to be cost efficient. That's what hard scifi concept design is all about.

Edited September 20, 2016 by dashrendar44

[babz06]

4 hours ago, robertman2 said:

I'd say about 250DOM, 450WW is the max.

Although Sing and Assassin's Creed will probably hurt it a bit

Assassin's Creed is going to come out the big loser during Christmas. It'll do a little better than Warcraft with Christmas legs but not by much. Im predicting 70 DOM.

Edited September 20, 2016 by babz06

[The Futurist]

8 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

The two criticisms I see popping up are:

1. The trailer gives away the entire movie.

2. It looks generic/derivative/cliche.

 

Now regarding the first, I really don't think that's true. I try to avoid spoilers as much as I can but even I know a major plot point that isn't anywhere in the trailer. I think it reveals basically what the synopsis does - they wake up early, they fall in love, bad shit happens to the ship. IDK how that's "ruining" the movie, that's just the basic plot. I don't know if they survive, if they make it to their destination, what they actually do to try and solve the problem. Anything really besides "there's trouble".

 

Regarding the second point - I think, without reading the script, that this trailer tires to sell the movie as more straightforward than it actually is. I think that comes from knowing that as an original project, the audience is more likely to embrace it if they feel a sense of familiarity. That means stressing some recognizable tropes.

 

Anyway, I love this trailer. I think this movie is going to be a lot more critically embraced than some assume.

 

 

2. Ah, the derivative/generic argument is so fucking rich I can't even, in a sea of franchises & sequels, the movie that comes a bit out of nowhere is accused of being generic and derivative while people flock to movies that are nothing but derivative & more of the same and number 8 of decades old franchises.

 

Not sure I can spell Irony anymore.

 

"Originality" is such a loose concept that is truly in the eye of the beholder.

Edited September 20, 2016 by The Futurist

[The Futurist]

17 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

 

This is where James Cameron's genius shines in terms of prospective future. In Avatar, people get shipped on Pandora in stacked coffins piled up to avoid wasting any space and keep most of the energy to propel the ship forward. There's no artificial gravity and no fancy interior furnitures inside. It looked like a believable thing NASA would design and build for interplanetary travel. Everything is designed to avoid waste of energy and space to be cost efficient. That's what hard scifi concept design is all about.

 

But, can't we wait to see the movie so we ll know if the nature of the space ship is given a bit of a context first ?

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by The Futurist

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

I'm hyped. The trailer isn't the best edited, but what I see, I love, and I trust with the director and actors on board that this will be a good one. I'm also a huge sucker for space movies. Love Gravity, love The Martian. So I say keep bringing the awardsy space movies! 'Arrival' looks great too - I'm also a sucker for intelligent alien movies. So, this Fall season of movies has me a happy camper.

 

Peace,

Mike

This clearly isn't being positioned as an awards contender. Probably best for everyone to nip those expectations in the bud.

[lab276]

9 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

2. Ah, the derivative/generic argument is so fucking rich I can't even, in a sea of franchises & sequels, the movie that comes a bit out of nowhere is accused of being generic and derivative while people flock to movies that are nothing but derivative & more of the same and number 8 of decades old franchises.

 

Not sure I can spell Irony anymore.

 

"Originality" is such a loose concept that is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

Strongly agree. Stranger Things is a total rip off of E.T, but it's also the best piece of media I've seen all year, and a breath of fresh air from all the superhero/sequels/whatever we get all the time.

Edited September 20, 2016 by lab276

[NCsoft]

13 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

 

This is where James Cameron's genius shines in terms of prospective future. In Avatar, people get shipped on Pandora in stacked coffins piled up to avoid wasting any space and keep most of the energy to propel the ship forward. There's no artificial gravity and no fancy interior furnitures inside. It looked like a believable thing NASA would design and build for interplanetary travel. Everything is designed to avoid waste of energy and space to be cost efficient. That's what hard scifi concept design is all about.

 

But if the entirety of Avatar pretty much happens on that ship, with that kind of "dull" production design we wouldn't have the highest grossing film of all time would we?

 

[4815162342]

38 minutes ago, Nutella of Arabia said:

 

I guess? Maybe you can set it up in a way that makes sense to me?

 

It's a ship going to another star system, with a bunch of humans in stasis for the long journey. But it's a luxury ship with every indulgence... for when? Its designers have the ability to construct a synthetic bartender indistinguishable from a human... but only the top half? With the bottom half being crude metal legs? It's a ship built with these cavernous lounges and an incredible amount of materials and weight, and yet it's trying to go through interstellar space? If you want to emphasize the incredible opulence and embrace the space opera-ness, what's the point of even adhering to the logic of traveling in stasis? Once you've set up such incredible leaps of physical design (and taken the whole concept well into the softest of SF), using a hard SF concept (one that's used to fit theoretical space travel into our physical reality) seems terribly forced and awkward.

 

If you're gonna go FIFTH ELEMENT, go FIFTH ELEMENT! But trying to square FIFTH ELEMENT with GRAVITY? 

 

On mobile at work, so I'll just say for now I think you're really overthinking it IMO. It feels fine to me with no thematic dissonance.

[ban1o]

why are some people acitng (The Futurist) like this is the first non sequel franchise movie ever released. Like wtf. What is the logic behind the assertion. 

 

It looks like sci fi for people who don't like sci fi. It might do well but I doubt it will get good reviews. 

[tonytr87]

3 minutes ago, ban1o said:

why are some people acitng (The Futurist) like this is the first non sequel franchise movie ever released. Like wtf. What is the logic behind the assertion. 

 

It looks like sci fi for people who don't like sci fi. It might do well but I doubt it will get good reviews. 

 

You might be wrong about that. 

[The Futurist]

2 minutes ago, ban1o said:

why are some people acitng (The Futurist) like this is the first non sequel franchise movie ever released. Like wtf. What is the logic behind the assertion. 

 

It looks like sci fi for people who don't like sci fi. It might do well but I doubt it will get good reviews. 

 

Not saying that, just saying that these type of movies are very rare these days, a somewhat expensive film (100-120m isn) that rely more on its stars than the brand or the franchise, that s all.