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

[straggler]

22 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.

Given how high profile the stars are you just have to accept you are going to get some automatic criticism from haters. None of it matters. If the film is good it will be a hit. 

[trifle]

I don't think this is much of a spoiler (there are some) but I will put it in a spoiler tag anyhow.  But regarding why does the ship have those amenities

Spoiler

the are supposed to be woken a ways out from the planet they are targeting, in order to get physically and mentally oriented.  Also, how could they sell tickets at multiples of others if they didn't have a luxury class?

 

But I'm also fine with the comment someone made above about if the main story took place in a stripped down vessel, it wouldn't be as visually amazing a film.  I think the ship structure and other elements should appeal to hard sci fi crowd, but that isn't to say there won't be any with a purest view that makes them uncomfortable with it.  I think you have to suspend disbelief in most futuristic movies, to some extent, to enjoy them.

 

On the cliche point, I agree with @JennaJ there is at least one plot point hidden from the trailer (but with some slight hints for those afraid it might have been written out of the movie.)  I think there is going to be more plot to this movie than people would conclude from the trailer.  But if they showed that, it would spoil the story.

 

But I am really excited for this movie, and the trailer increased that, instead of letting me down, so I am a happy camper.

Edited September 20, 2016 by trifle

[Dementeleus]

12 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

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.

 

I guess we're just of different minds on this. This was a gut reaction for me initially, it might only feel like overthinking because I tried to explain it out.  

[DAR]

It looks interesting, which these days counts for something.

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, trifle said:

I think the ship structure and other elements should appeal to hard sci fi crowd...

 

...why, out of curiosity?

 

It's sort of like saying you think pilots would like FLIGHT because it's about flying a plane.

[trifle]

Just now, Nutella of Arabia said:

 

...why, out of curiosity?

 

It's sort of like saying you think pilots would like FLIGHT because it's about flying a plane.

 

It's because I have a bit of that in me as well, I like a lot of sci fi genres, and I am intrigued when I hear the ship being described as the third star of the movie, and when the director speaks of it as if it were as well.  So I don't have 'evidence' of that, it is something I am looking forward to.

[robertman2]

If this movie bombs, would it be safe to say star power alone can't sell a movie?

 

[filmlover]

I'm thinking this will do $175M+. Sing will be the biggest non-Rogue One movie of the holidays (I'm thinking $300M+ there), but this will also be a great alternative (especially since Assassin's Creed reeks of flop).

[trifle]

Just now, robertman2 said:

If this movie bombs, would it be safe to say star power alone can't sell a movie?

 

 

I guess it would depend on why it bombed.  But I doubt it will.  What number does it need so you don't define it as a bomb?

[JennaJ]

6 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

If this movie bombs, would it be safe to say star power alone can't sell a movie?

 

 

Star power alone can't sell a movie. The movie has to actually by good, have appeal, and then if you combine that with star power you have a winning combination.

 

This movie is probably the purest test of star power we've had in recent years, so I'm sure a lot of virtual ink would be dedicated to that (Scott Mendelson from Forbes already wrote about it today), but it'd have to also have terrible reviews to be a pure test of JUST star power.

Personally I hope that doesn't happen.

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by JennaJ

[MikeQ]

21 minutes ago, filmlover said:

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

 

Well, we don't really know, do we? The Martian wasn't considered a surefire awards contender, outside Matt Damon, but it ended up being great and well-reviewed, so it was. Gravity ended up with rave reviews, and likewise became an awards contender. Passengers is directed by Morten Tyldum, who directed The Imitation Game a couple years ago (which was nominated for a slew of big Oscars), and stars Jennifer Lawrence, a critical darling. So, yeah, we don't really know - if it ends up with raves from critics, then there could be another space movie at the Oscars. 

 

Peace,

Mike

[robertman2]

5 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I guess it would depend on why it bombed.  But I doubt it will.  What number does it need so you don't define it as a bomb?

250WW.

[The Futurist]

Outside of the DiCaprio oddity and comedic actors, being a draw on yourself is VERY difficult in this day & age.

 

Everything changed with Potter & Lord of the Rings & the superhero craze at the beginning of the 2000's.

 

People wonder why the Ben-Hur remake  was greenlit but if you greenlight a 100M movie with no brand, you ll be branded as a bad executive in the Hills circa 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NCsoft]

3 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

 

Well, we don't really know, do we? The Martian wasn't considered a surefire awards contender, outside Matt Damon, but it ended up being great and well-reviewed, so it was. Gravity ended up with rave reviews, and likewise became an awards contender. Passengers is directed by Morten Tyldum, who directed The Imitation Game a couple years ago (which was nominated for a slew of big Oscars), and stars Jennifer Lawrence, a critical darling. So, yeah, we don't really know - if it ends up with raves from critics, then there could be another space movie at the Oscars. 

 

Peace,

Mike

Yes, and Mad Max FR won 6 Oscars and it was definitely not designed to be an awards contender from the start.

[ban1o]

18 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

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.

 

 

The martian

Interstellar

Gravity

[JennaJ]

1 minute ago, ban1o said:

The martian

Interstellar

Gravity

 

Interstellar relied on its star director more than it did any particular actor's star power, IMHO.

 

[4815162342]

2 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

Yes, and Mad Max FR won 6 Oscars and it was definitely not designed to be an awards contender from the start.

 

Tech Oscars are different. They go to blockbuster/non-baity films all the time.

[lab276]

1 minute ago, ban1o said:

The martian

Interstellar

Gravity

 

Once a year isn't rare?

[babz06]

The studio is expecting Martian/Gravity/interstellar type numbers. Anything less than that is gonna be seen as underwhleming. 

 

[Klingo]

 

Trailer was awesome!  They both look together.  And JLaw's sooo beautiful!!  Her eyes especially! I'm tempted to read the script but that just destroys the surprises.  The ship looks awesome, just imagine the scale and size because of so much room they show but there is lots of open space in the interior of the ship.  Like the pencil looking fuselage in the middle could be hundreds of meters in diameter!

 

Watched the trailer multiple times to get every scene in my memory.