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

[DAJK]

I honestly have no clue what to predict for this at the box office. Anywhere from Jupiter Ascending to The Martian.

[JennaJ]

1 minute ago, A District 3 Engineer said:

He's very involved in the production, and really happy for that.

 

This is an awesome tidbit! Thank you! 

[trifle]

11 minutes ago, A District 3 Engineer said:

He's very involved in the production, and really happy for that.

 

 

Thank you!!!  I'm so glad it wasn't disturbed much!  Watching 'if you die, I die' come out of Jen's mouth was unsettling.

 

....In other news, apparently they've cleansed the internet of the copies of the screenplay that have been circulating for years.  Good idea, but kind of late for all but the GA, and the GA is at the mercy of spoiler trolls, unfortunately.

Edited September 21, 2016 by trifle

[A District 3 Engineer]

It's a pleasure 

[JennaJ]

24 minutes ago, trifle said:

....In other news, apparently they've cleansed the internet of the copies of the screenplay that have been circulating for years.  Good idea, but kind of late for all but the GA, and the GA is at the mercy of spoiler trolls, unfortunately.

 

Ugh, I didn't download it but I do want to read it after the movie comes out, to see what was changed.

Please, if anyone has a hard copy saved or knows how to get one, DM me? 

 

ETA: Nevermind, I found it. They didn't cleanse very hard.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by JennaJ

[The Futurist]

Let s hope this will be Sony s biggest film of 2016, though Inferno could do good business, wonder if people aren't over Dan Brown or not.

[trifle]

52 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

 

Ugh, I didn't download it but I do want to read it after the movie comes out, to see what was changed.

Please, if anyone has a hard copy saved or knows how to get one, DM me? 

 

ETA: Nevermind, I found it. They didn't cleanse very hard.

 

 

 

LOL!  I was going to tell you I had one, but nvm

[BadAtGender]

Seems okay, but I don't feel that excited. I think if it was a sci-fi novel that I'd probably enjoy it a lot, but I don't know if a movie is doing the story concept the best justice. Invariably, a movie, especially in this market, requires a big, explodey climax, and that doesn't seem to be the way to go if you're doing an introspective character piece or a mystery.

[The Futurist]

18 minutes ago, DamienRoc said:

Seems okay, but I don't feel that excited. I think if it was a sci-fi novel that I'd probably enjoy it a lot, but I don't know if a movie is doing the story concept the best justice. Invariably, a movie, especially in this market, requires a big, explodey climax, and that doesn't seem to be the way to go if you're doing an introspective character piece or a mystery.

 

There s a difference between the movie you have in your head with that premise and the movie the fillmmakers wanted to make.

 

Who says they wanted to make an introspective character piece or a mystery ?

 

You.

And Tele.

[Water Bottle]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

There s a difference between the movie you have in your head with that premise and the movie the fillmmakers wanted to make.

 

Who says they wanted to make an introspective character piece or a mystery ?

 

You.

And Tele.

 

Okay? So? I'd agree with you if these were reviews. A review of a movie should definitely only take into account the movie the filmmakers wanted to make.

 

But when discussing whether you want to see a movie or not and you see the filmmakers have made a different film, it's perfectly legit not to be excited in said different film.

[BadAtGender]

2 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

There s a difference between the movie you have in your head with that premise and the movie the fillmmakers wanted to make.

 

Who says they wanted to make an introspective character piece or a mystery ?

 

You.

And Tele.

 

It doesn't matter what they want?

 

Like, this might be exactly the thing that they wanted to make, but that doesn't mean it will be a good thing. There are some great science fictional concepts here, but many of them not only don't need a movie screen to be realized, but are served in a lesser way because of them.

 

The past... forty or so years has warped the perception of science fiction as being this grand scale thing that requires the cutting edge special effects to be made, and while that's nice and all, by doing so it ties the beats of the story directly to the technology that can be used, because the needs to pay off the massive budget come by doing these crowd-pleasing gestures. The only way to get around that is to go indie. And doing that comes at the expense of doing the other thing that sci-fi does besides grand scope, which is being the genre of just picking hard into an idea. The latter can be equally exciting, but it isn't necessarily cinematic, which is why many, many sci-fi films don't work as well with concepts the way something on the page would.

 

None of this means that Passengers isn't going to be good, it's just that with the ideas they're apparently pushing, I can't help but think it'd be a better novel than a movie.

[shayhiri]

3 hours ago, DAJK said:

I honestly have no clue what to predict for this at the box office. Anywhere from Jupiter Ascending to The Martian.

 

Just listen to the Shay, as usual, people. This has "big hit" written all over it.

 

At least 3Xthe budget WW, maybe 4.

Edited September 22, 2016 by shayhiri

[BadAtGender]

Also did Tele really have the same reaction as me? I haven't read the thread, so it's amusing if we came to that independently. 

[MikeQ]

Yeah, the more I think about the trailer, and the more I see the trailer views shoot up (7.5 million views on youtube in just 42 hours), the more I'm intuiting that this will be quite a hit. I'm not certain; like DAJK, I could see it bombing or doing huge numbers. But the trailer does strike me as being very appealing to general audiences. If you aren't someone who has been following or anticipating it closely, I would have to think the trailer is pretty impressive/dazzling, especially with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt headlining. It's just a gut feeling, but that's often what I have to do in attempting to predict box office runs. If the movie can get 80+% on rotten tomatoes, I think it should be poised to do well. 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by MikeQ

[Dementeleus]

46 minutes ago, DamienRoc said:

 

It doesn't matter what they want?

 

Like, this might be exactly the thing that they wanted to make, but that doesn't mean it will be a good thing. There are some great science fictional concepts here, but many of them not only don't need a movie screen to be realized, but are served in a lesser way because of them.

 

The past... forty or so years has warped the perception of science fiction as being this grand scale thing that requires the cutting edge special effects to be made, and while that's nice and all, by doing so it ties the beats of the story directly to the technology that can be used, because the needs to pay off the massive budget come by doing these crowd-pleasing gestures. The only way to get around that is to go indie. And doing that comes at the expense of doing the other thing that sci-fi does besides grand scope, which is being the genre of just picking hard into an idea. The latter can be equally exciting, but it isn't necessarily cinematic, which is why many, many sci-fi films don't work as well with concepts the way something on the page would.

 

None of this means that Passengers isn't going to be good, it's just that with the ideas they're apparently pushing, I can't help but think it'd be a better novel than a movie.

 

There have been plenty of great SF stories written about colony ships and colonizing (from short stories to novels). I think it's perfectly possible to do justice to this specific concept with a movie... but not with a movie that feels like it's taking baby steps and is a good 40, 50, 60 years behind written SF. (Again, just judging from the trailer.)

 

And yes, we did have similar reactions, though I spent most of my time ranting that the visual production design is lousy and counter-productive to the story.  

[Krissykins]

I think this looks good. 

 

I'm willing to forget all about how awful Joy was if this is good. 

[trifle]

14 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

There s a difference between the movie you have in your head with that premise and the movie the fillmmakers wanted to make.

 

Who says they wanted to make an introspective character piece or a mystery ?

 

You.

And Tele.

 

Well, and the director who said it was about, amongst other things, what you need to live a full life, and about the human condition, and forgiveness as well as being a love story and a thriller.

 

14 hours ago, MikeQ said:

Yeah, the more I think about the trailer, and the more I see the trailer views shoot up (7.5 million views on youtube in just 42 hours), the more I'm intuiting that this will be quite a hit. I'm not certain; like DAJK, I could see it bombing or doing huge numbers. But the trailer does strike me as being very appealing to general audiences. If you aren't someone who has been following or anticipating it closely, I would have to think the trailer is pretty impressive/dazzling, especially with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt headlining. It's just a gut feeling, but that's often what I have to do in attempting to predict box office runs. If the movie can get 80+% on rotten tomatoes, I think it should be poised to do well. 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

 

 

There's another 6.2 mill on her facebook page and whatever is on the official facebook page as well.  @A District 3 Engineer pointed out that that was more than the Mockingjay 2 trailer had at a similar time.  

 

 

[Joel M]

18 hours ago, DAJK said:

I honestly have no clue what to predict for this at the box office. Anywhere from Jupiter Ascending to The Martian.

 

I think even the disaster scenario for this is gonna be much higher than Jupiter Ascending. Passengers is a big budget spectacle, it's gonna have a big marketing push, two of the buzziest stars to promote it everywhere and 2 weeks of holidays.

[Lordmandeep]

I think the film will do quite well but I am unsure whether the film will be better served being a SCI-FI film like Martian/ Interstellar or a more Romance in space.

 

 

[dashrendar44]

Romance in space seems like total jackpot compared to Martian, Interstellar and Gravity. This is not sold as a slow metaphysical meditation on human condition and melancholic love transcending time and space tissue a la Solaris/The Fountain. This is sold like a 4 quadrant epic blockbuster full on romance, mystery and thrill but not whacky like Jupiter Ascending. Add to that 2 hot Hollywood commodities and Christmas holidays, this could be the Sherlock Holmes to Rogue One's Avatar.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by dashrendar44