Movie Watcher's Oasis Discussion Message Board Forum

Movie Discussion Boards => New Movie Release Discussion => Topic started by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 10, 2016, 09:15:51 pm

Title: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 10, 2016, 09:15:51 pm
Produced by Keanu Reeves' production company and directed by Morten Tyldum from a screenplay by executive producer Jon Spaihts, Sony's long-in-development Passengers, starring Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Andy Garcia, and Aurora Perrineau, focuses on two passengers, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) and Aurora Dunn (Jennifer Lawrence), who are on a 120-year journey on the Starship Avalon to the distant colony planet Homestead II when their hibernation pods wake them ninety years too early. Jim and Aurora are forced to unravel the mystery behind the malfunction as the ship teeters on the brink of collapse, with the lives of thousands of passengers in jeopardy. The original romantic sci-fi action thriller will be released in theaters worldwide on December 21st.

TRAILERS:
https://youtu.be/7BWWWQzTpNU
https://youtu.be/sipflRaq2vg
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 10, 2016, 10:10:41 pm
I'm getting more and more concerned about this film as time goes by. That clip they released with the gravity outage in the pool was laughable.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 10:29:49 pm
As much as I'd love for there to be a good blockbuster/sci-fi film this year, I want this film to fail with every fiber of my being. Looks like generic, committee-approved garbage with a flimsy plot that exists only to leech off the star power of two completely mismatched leads. The only reason this was made was because the studio knew that retards like Dom Cobb would ensure that it made a boatload of money. And they were right. The only thing that can stop that now is if it gets anally pounded by critics and drops 75% in its second week. So... fingers crossed for a 30% RT rating.

Also, Kashmir's right about that clip (and all the trailers, really). If this wasn't such an obviously cynical load of horseshit, it might have some cult potential as a so-bad-it's-good sort of thing.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 10, 2016, 10:32:58 pm
As much as I'd love for there to be a good blockbuster/sci-fi film this year, I want this film to fail with every fiber of my being. Looks like generic, committee-approved garbage with a flimsy plot that exists only to leech off the star power of two completely mismatched leads. The only reason this was made was because the studio knew that retards like Dom Cobb would ensure that it made a boatload of money. And they were right. The only thing that can stop that now is if it gets anally pounded by critics and drops 75% in its second week. So... fingers crossed for a 30% RT rating.

Also, Kashmir's right about that clip (and all the trailers, really). If this wasn't such an obviously cynical load of horseshit, it might have some cult potential as a so-bad-it's-good sort of thing.

A 75% second weekend drop is damn near impossible over the holidays.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 10:34:57 pm
As much as I'd love for there to be a good blockbuster/sci-fi film this year, I want this film to fail with every fiber of my being. Looks like generic, committee-approved garbage with a flimsy plot that exists only to leech off the star power of two completely mismatched leads. The only reason this was made was because the studio knew that retards like Dom Cobb would ensure that it made a boatload of money. And they were right. The only thing that can stop that now is if it gets anally pounded by critics and drops 75% in its second week. So... fingers crossed for a 30% RT rating.

Also, Kashmir's right about that clip (and all the trailers, really). If this wasn't such an obviously cynical load of horseshit, it might have some cult potential as a so-bad-it's-good sort of thing.

A 75% second weekend drop is damn near impossible over the holidays.

Let me dream, Moody.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 10:37:20 pm
This film bombs.  Calling it.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 10, 2016, 10:38:30 pm
This film bombs.  Calling it.

I think it should be a decent hit, if only cause of the two lead actors being major draws and the fact that it's releasing over the holidays.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 10, 2016, 10:42:26 pm
As much as I'd love for there to be a good blockbuster/sci-fi film this year, I want this film to fail with every fiber of my being. Looks like generic, committee-approved garbage with a flimsy plot that exists only to leech off the star power of two completely mismatched leads. The only reason this was made was because the studio knew that retards like Dom Cobb would ensure that it made a boatload of money. And they were right. The only thing that can stop that now is if it gets anally pounded by critics and drops 75% in its second week. So... fingers crossed for a 30% RT rating.

Also, Kashmir's right about that clip (and all the trailers, really). If this wasn't such an obviously cynical load of horseshit, it might have some cult potential as a so-bad-it's-good sort of thing.

A 75% second weekend drop is damn near impossible over the holidays.
However, we could hope that Rogue One's word of mouth is so good that consumers opt to see that over Passengers lest that movie get poor reviews (or at the very least less enthusiastic as those for Rogue One), even if the former would be in its second weekend.

Plus, it also has to compete with Assassin's Creed (though I wouldn't be surprised if that were to tank) and Why Him?, so the teen/adult demographics that are likely what Passengers is catering to will be heavily divided.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 10:46:08 pm
Though I should say, I had a good time with a friend of mine laughing at the trailer when we saw it in theaters before Hacksaw Ridge. The dialogue might give Bourne a run for his money. "Do you trust me?" "A year ago, everything changed." "This can't be happening!" "Something's wrong. Something big." "Every moment counts." "I have to do this." "You die, I die!" "There's something I have to tell you."

This movie looks like it has some serious bingo card potential for action movie-isms.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 10, 2016, 10:47:16 pm
As much as I'd love for there to be a good blockbuster/sci-fi film this year, I want this film to fail with every fiber of my being. Looks like generic, committee-approved garbage with a flimsy plot that exists only to leech off the star power of two completely mismatched leads. The only reason this was made was because the studio knew that retards like Dom Cobb would ensure that it made a boatload of money. And they were right. The only thing that can stop that now is if it gets anally pounded by critics and drops 75% in its second week. So... fingers crossed for a 30% RT rating.

Also, Kashmir's right about that clip (and all the trailers, really). If this wasn't such an obviously cynical load of horseshit, it might have some cult potential as a so-bad-it's-good sort of thing.

A 75% second weekend drop is damn near impossible over the holidays.
However, we could hope that Rogue One's word of mouth is so good that consumers opt to see that over Passengers lest that movie get poor reviews (or at the very least less enthusiastic as those for Rogue One), even if the former would be in its second weekend.

Plus, it also has to compete with Assassin's Creed (though I wouldn't be surprised if that were to tank) and Why Him?, so the teen/adult demographics that are likely what Passengers is catering to will be heavily divided.

Daddy's Home managed to make 150M last holiday season, despite poor reviews and TFA coming directly before it.  I think Passengers and Sing should both do well over the holiday season, with Why Him? potentially becoming a sleeper.  Assassin's Creed is gonna bomb.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 10:47:36 pm
Though I should say, I had a good time with a friend of mine laughing at the trailer when we saw it in theaters before Hacksaw Ridge. The dialogue might give Bourne a run for his money. "Do you trust me?" "A year ago, everything changed." "This can't be happening!" "Something's wrong. Something big." "Every moment counts." "I have to do this." "You die, I die!" "There's something I have to tell you."

This movie looks like it has some serious bingo card potential for action movie-isms.

How awesome would the movie be if Jennifer Lawrence just... falls off the ship...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 10, 2016, 10:49:22 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 10:50:54 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDLGSlzQUGs  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDLGSlzQUGs)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: $+/\|_|\| on December 10, 2016, 10:52:50 pm
I'm incredibly lukewarm to this.

Only interested since Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence seem to have decent chemistry.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 10:54:14 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Jim Raynor Remastered on December 10, 2016, 10:56:35 pm
4/10 incoming...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 10:58:44 pm
4/10 incoming...

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 10, 2016, 10:59:03 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
I like the two leads and the premise seems interesting enough that I think it'll be a fun time, if not necessarily great cinema.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 11:02:35 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
I like the two leads and the premise seems interesting enough that I think it'll be a fun time, if not necessarily great cinema.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/IU0tFcfE2Sxyg/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 10, 2016, 11:09:30 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*
I'll probably end up seeing it, but I can't say I'm as intrigued as I was when it was when the first trailer dropped.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 11:13:57 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
I like the two leads and the premise seems interesting enough that I think it'll be a fun time, if not necessarily great cinema.

I can understand Pratt, even if he's just a side character from a TV show who got incredibly overhyped, but Lawrence? Really? Paasche, please see the light. We need to all move past this as a species. Jennifer Lawrence has literally no appeal aside from being fairly attractive. She is not "down to earth." Her entire personality is a sham to appeal to self-conscious women who like pizza and fat dumbfucks like Dom Cobb who have been manipulated into thinking she's an icon of some sort by movies and tabloids. She makes up bullshit stories for talk shows that make her look like an idiot, and through her time in Hollywood she's developed a seriously awful personality that shows itself whenever she puts on her "relatable" act. As for her actual acting, it's never been anything but passable. She was all right in The Hunger Games, but once she became a star she ended up ruining all her movies with her drama queen crap (X-Men, anyone?). Still, they turned her into a central character because they knew it would put asses in the seats. Nowadays it's frankly quite obvious that the only reason she gets roles is because Tumblr has decided she's "quotable" and they want to see her in more stuff. At this point she could climb on top of her car, vomit, and push out a fat turd, and people would say she's "breaking down barriers."

She's two gluteal implants away from being a Kardashian.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 10, 2016, 11:38:12 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
I like the two leads and the premise seems interesting enough that I think it'll be a fun time, if not necessarily great cinema.

I can understand Pratt, even if he's just a side character from a TV show who got incredibly overhyped, but Lawrence? Really? Paasche, please see the light. We need to all move past this as a species. Jennifer Lawrence has literally no appeal aside from being fairly attractive. She is not "down to earth." Her entire personality is a sham to appeal to self-conscious women who like pizza and fat dumbfucks like Dom Cobb who have been manipulated into thinking she's an icon of some sort by movies and tabloids. She makes up bullshit stories for talk shows that make her look like an idiot, and through her time in Hollywood she's developed a seriously awful personality that shows itself whenever she puts on her "relatable" act. As for her actual acting, it's never been anything but passable. She was all right in The Hunger Games, but once she became a star she ended up ruining all her movies with her drama queen crap (X-Men, anyone?). Still, they turned her into a central character because they knew it would put asses in the seats. Nowadays it's frankly quite obvious that the only reason she gets roles is because Tumblr has decided she's "quotable" and they want to see her in more stuff. At this point she could climb on top of her car, vomit, and push out a fat turd, and people would say she's "breaking down barriers."

She's two gluteal implants away from being a Kardashian.
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 10, 2016, 11:39:00 pm
...I'm kinda looking forward to this *hides*

At the risk of sounding repetitious....... why?
I like the two leads and the premise seems interesting enough that I think it'll be a fun time, if not necessarily great cinema.

I can understand Pratt, even if he's just a side character from a TV show who got incredibly overhyped, but Lawrence? Really? Paasche, please see the light. We need to all move past this as a species. Jennifer Lawrence has literally no appeal aside from being fairly attractive. She is not "down to earth." Her entire personality is a sham to appeal to self-conscious women who like pizza and fat dumbfucks like Dom Cobb who have been manipulated into thinking she's an icon of some sort by movies and tabloids. She makes up bullshit stories for talk shows that make her look like an idiot, and through her time in Hollywood she's developed a seriously awful personality that shows itself whenever she puts on her "relatable" act. As for her actual acting, it's never been anything but passable. She was all right in The Hunger Games, but once she became a star she ended up ruining all her movies with her drama queen crap (X-Men, anyone?). Still, they turned her into a central character because they knew it would put asses in the seats. Nowadays it's frankly quite obvious that the only reason she gets roles is because Tumblr has decided she's "quotable" and they want to see her in more stuff. At this point she could climb on top of her car, vomit, and push out a fat turd, and people would say she's "breaking down barriers."

She's two gluteal implants away from being a Kardashian.
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.

And you didn't like Children of Men?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 10, 2016, 11:43:15 pm
I can understand Pratt, even if he's just a side character from a TV show who got incredibly overhyped, but Lawrence? Really? Paasche, please see the light. We need to all move past this as a species. Jennifer Lawrence has literally no appeal aside from being fairly attractive. She is not "down to earth." Her entire personality is a sham to appeal to self-conscious women who like pizza and fat dumbfucks like Dom Cobb who have been manipulated into thinking she's an icon of some sort by movies and tabloids. She makes up bullshit stories for talk shows that make her look like an idiot, and through her time in Hollywood she's developed a seriously awful personality that shows itself whenever she puts on her "relatable" act. As for her actual acting, it's never been anything but passable. She was all right in The Hunger Games, but once she became a star she ended up ruining all her movies with her drama queen crap (X-Men, anyone?). Still, they turned her into a central character because they knew it would put asses in the seats. Nowadays it's frankly quite obvious that the only reason she gets roles is because Tumblr has decided she's "quotable" and they want to see her in more stuff. At this point she could climb on top of her car, vomit, and push out a fat turd, and people would say she's "breaking down barriers."

She's two gluteal implants away from being a Kardashian.
Had to hit "disagree" on this comment.



Jennifer Lawrence is not "fairly attractive".  She looks like a ham sandwich.  I'd rather fuсk John Tyler.
Also, her acting is far from passable.  I've seen better acting in low-budget рorn.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 10, 2016, 11:54:57 pm
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.

Yeah, she's charismatic in the way Donald Trump is charismatic, I guess. She appeals to really, really stupid people and because she's rich and famous, she makes their behavior seem mainstream and socially acceptable. Plus she's just needlessly mean-spirited. Like when she made fun of that foreign reporter. Or when she made up that bogus story about the Hawaiian rocks or whatever the fuck it was. Or when she called Christian Bale "fatman" after spending a few weeks talking about women and body image. Or when she complained about her life so much that Letterman had to tell her "No whining on the yacht." I'm sorry. I do not see the appeal. Just when you think she's as shallow as it gets, she somehow manages to drain a little more water out of the pool.

Her acting is a more subjective point, I suppose, and I do think she was okay in the first two Hunger Games films and American Hustle. That's about it, though. She certainly hasn't done anything Oscar-worthy. But nowadays, any woman with a little meat on her bones is "making a statement" about body image and they get showered with awards. And yeah, subjectivity, I know... but at the same time, I really can't see the argument for giving Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar any more than I can see the argument for giving one to Leo. I guess it's just a popularity contest at this point, as it likely always has been. They should just start giving out awards for Twitter followers and end this sham of pretending that it actually has something to do with acting talent.

As for your assertion that the movie's premise looks cool... what? Dude, you don't like Alien, Blade Runner, or Children of Men. I have never thought of you as a sci-fi fan, unless you count BVS or The Dark Knight as sci-fi (which I don't). Why in God's name does this appeal to you?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 11, 2016, 12:12:02 am
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.

Yeah, she's charismatic in the way Donald Trump is charismatic, I guess. She appeals to really, really stupid people and because she's rich and famous, she makes their behavior seem mainstream and socially acceptable. Plus she's just needlessly mean-spirited. Like when she made fun of that foreign reporter. Or when she made up that bogus story about the Hawaiian rocks or whatever the fuck it was. Or when she called Christian Bale "fatman" after spending a few weeks talking about women and body image. Or when she complained about her life so much that Letterman had to tell her "No whining on the yacht." I'm sorry. I do not see the appeal. Just when you think she's as shallow as it gets, she somehow manages to drain a little more water out of the pool.

Her acting is a more subjective point, I suppose, and I do think she was okay in the first two Hunger Games films and American Hustle. That's about it, though. She certainly hasn't done anything Oscar-worthy. But nowadays, any woman with a little meat on her bones is "making a statement" about body image and they get showered with awards. And yeah, subjectivity, I know... but at the same time, I really can't see the argument for giving Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar any more than I can see the argument for giving one to Leo. I guess it's just a popularity contest at this point, as it likely always has been. They should just start giving out awards for Twitter followers and end this sham of pretending that it actually has something to do with acting talent.

As for your assertion that the movie's premise looks cool... what? Dude, you don't like Alien, Blade Runner, or Children of Men. I have never thought of you as a sci-fi fan, unless you count BVS or The Dark Knight as sci-fi (which I don't). Why in God's name does this appeal to you?
Should've cleared this up in an earlier post, but when I was talking about charisma, I meant strictly on screen. I don't really pay much attention to what actors and actresses do off screen, so I could really care less about her interviews and whatever else. I thought her performances in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were both excellent, and I don't think the Oscar she received had anything to do with her popularity, well, maybe a little but I thought the SLP performance was strong enough to win on its own merit. On an aside, even though Leo's my favorite actor, I did think his Oscar last year was a bit of a makeup for him never winning before (I thought he should've won for Wolf of Wall Street, personally).

Anyway, as for your final point, those three movies don't mean that I don't care for sci-fi. Three of my top 10 all time (Inception, Looper, Source Code) are sci-fi films. I think it's more that the sci-fi films I tend to enjoy have some sort of premise that interests me (notice that each of the three in my top 10 have a clear "hook", while Alien and Blade Runner don't really have that. Children of Men was an outlier, I think). Again, it's not like I'm counting down the days till Passengers' release, but I would say that I'm looking forward to it and expect to have a good time based on the premise and talent involved (I thought The Imitation Game was quite a good film as well).
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 11, 2016, 12:24:40 am
I thought The Imitation Game was quite a good film as well.
Could have taken this post seriously up until this last line...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 11, 2016, 12:27:32 am
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.

Yeah, she's charismatic in the way Donald Trump is charismatic, I guess. She appeals to really, really stupid people and because she's rich and famous, she makes their behavior seem mainstream and socially acceptable. Plus she's just needlessly mean-spirited. Like when she made fun of that foreign reporter. Or when she made up that bogus story about the Hawaiian rocks or whatever the fuck it was. Or when she called Christian Bale "fatman" after spending a few weeks talking about women and body image. Or when she complained about her life so much that Letterman had to tell her "No whining on the yacht." I'm sorry. I do not see the appeal. Just when you think she's as shallow as it gets, she somehow manages to drain a little more water out of the pool.

Her acting is a more subjective point, I suppose, and I do think she was okay in the first two Hunger Games films and American Hustle. That's about it, though. She certainly hasn't done anything Oscar-worthy. But nowadays, any woman with a little meat on her bones is "making a statement" about body image and they get showered with awards. And yeah, subjectivity, I know... but at the same time, I really can't see the argument for giving Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar any more than I can see the argument for giving one to Leo. I guess it's just a popularity contest at this point, as it likely always has been. They should just start giving out awards for Twitter followers and end this sham of pretending that it actually has something to do with acting talent.

As for your assertion that the movie's premise looks cool... what? Dude, you don't like Alien, Blade Runner, or Children of Men. I have never thought of you as a sci-fi fan, unless you count BVS or The Dark Knight as sci-fi (which I don't). Why in God's name does this appeal to you?
Should've cleared this up in an earlier post, but when I was talking about charisma, I meant strictly on screen. I don't really pay much attention to what actors and actresses do off screen, so I could really care less about her interviews and whatever else. I thought her performances in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were both excellent, and I don't think the Oscar she received had anything to do with her popularity, well, maybe a little but I thought the SLP performance was strong enough to win on its own merit. On an aside, even though Leo's my favorite actor, I did think his Oscar last year was a bit of a makeup for him never winning before (I thought he should've won for Wolf of Wall Street, personally).

Anyway, as for your final point, those three movies don't mean that I don't care for sci-fi. Three of my top 10 all time (Inception, Looper, Source Code) are sci-fi films. I think it's more that the sci-fi films I tend to enjoy have some sort of premise that interests me (notice that each of the three in my top 10 have a clear "hook", while Alien and Blade Runner don't really have that. Children of Men was an outlier, I think). Again, it's not like I'm counting down the days till Passengers' release, but I would say that I'm looking forward to it and expect to have a good time based on the premise and talent involved (I thought The Imitation Game was quite a good film as well).

Believe me, I have no trouble dissociating someone's public life from their art. Clint Eastwood's a senile old geezer and I still love his movies. But that requires there to be something there artistically. Eastwood is a success because regardless of what he supports politically, he'll still be able to make quality films. People like him despite his public life, not because of it. Do you see the difference? Lawrence isn't getting these roles because of her acting talent; she's getting them because people quote her on Facebook and "retweet" her, which in turn is only because she starred in a bunch of shitty YA films with a built-in audience. The Hunger Games would have been a success with or without the presence of Ms. Lawrence onscreen, I promise you that. If Shailene Woodley or Kristen Stewart had played Katniss, I guarantee that they'd be the ones starring in Passengers now.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reasoning behind Lawrence's popularity is her usage in memes and her regular appearance on rag magazine covers-- not her acting ability, which as Braden noted, is hardly anything to heap praise upon. So while I try to separate the person from their art and judge the art independently, I really don't see anything "artistic" about this woman's performances. They're passable. She fills space. She says the lines. She vaguely resembles the character from the book. That's about it.

Anyway, not sure what you mean by the bolded part, but I'd argue that this movie looks like it has more in common with Transformers than it does with any of those films you listed (two of which I like a lot). Nothing about this seems "high-concept" to me, at least from what I've gleaned from the trailers. It's just a dumb action movie in a sci-fi setting. I dunno, it doesn't seem like your kind of thing.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 11, 2016, 12:31:38 am
Jennifer Lawrence is not "fairly attractive".  She looks like a ham sandwich.  I'd rather fuсk John Tyler.

She's no Audrey Hepburn, that's for sure. If I ran into her at a convenience store, I'd probably find her to be attractive. But I dunno... there's something about her face that's always seemed off to me. Like it's too round or something.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 11, 2016, 12:40:28 am
Jennifer Lawrence is not "fairly attractive".  She looks like a ham sandwich.  I'd rather fuсk John Tyler.

She's no Audrey Hepburn, that's for sure. If I ran into her at a convenience store, I'd probably find her to be attractive. But I dunno... there's something about her face that's always seemed off to me. Like it's too round or something.
She's very sweaty looking.  Very musty smelling looking.  Too shiny. 
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Dom Cobb on December 11, 2016, 12:42:19 am
Jennifer Lawrence is not "fairly attractive".  She looks like a ham sandwich.  I'd rather fuсk John Tyler.

She's no Audrey Hepburn, that's for sure. If I ran into her at a convenience store, I'd probably find her to be attractive. But I dunno... there's something about her face that's always seemed off to me. Like it's too round or something.
She's very sweaty looking.  Very musty smelling looking.  Too shiny.

H  I  P  S  T  E  R  !  !  !
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 11, 2016, 11:51:25 am
I mean, Lawrence may be overhyped a bit at this point but that doesn't change the fact that she's charismatic and capable of an incredible performance. She was absolutely deserving of her Oscar and honestly I thought she should've won for American Hustle the next year. Sure it's a bit annoying that Mystique is now kind of the central character in the X-Men franchise but I can't blame her for the studio wanting to capitalize on her popularity. Fact is, I think she's a very good actress and I can see her and Pratt having good chemistry and making for a strong leading pair.

Yeah, she's charismatic in the way Donald Trump is charismatic, I guess. She appeals to really, really stupid people and because she's rich and famous, she makes their behavior seem mainstream and socially acceptable. Plus she's just needlessly mean-spirited. Like when she made fun of that foreign reporter. Or when she made up that bogus story about the Hawaiian rocks or whatever the fuck it was. Or when she called Christian Bale "fatman" after spending a few weeks talking about women and body image. Or when she complained about her life so much that Letterman had to tell her "No whining on the yacht." I'm sorry. I do not see the appeal. Just when you think she's as shallow as it gets, she somehow manages to drain a little more water out of the pool.

Her acting is a more subjective point, I suppose, and I do think she was okay in the first two Hunger Games films and American Hustle. That's about it, though. She certainly hasn't done anything Oscar-worthy. But nowadays, any woman with a little meat on her bones is "making a statement" about body image and they get showered with awards. And yeah, subjectivity, I know... but at the same time, I really can't see the argument for giving Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar any more than I can see the argument for giving one to Leo. I guess it's just a popularity contest at this point, as it likely always has been. They should just start giving out awards for Twitter followers and end this sham of pretending that it actually has something to do with acting talent.

As for your assertion that the movie's premise looks cool... what? Dude, you don't like Alien, Blade Runner, or Children of Men. I have never thought of you as a sci-fi fan, unless you count BVS or The Dark Knight as sci-fi (which I don't). Why in God's name does this appeal to you?
Should've cleared this up in an earlier post, but when I was talking about charisma, I meant strictly on screen. I don't really pay much attention to what actors and actresses do off screen, so I could really care less about her interviews and whatever else. I thought her performances in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were both excellent, and I don't think the Oscar she received had anything to do with her popularity, well, maybe a little but I thought the SLP performance was strong enough to win on its own merit. On an aside, even though Leo's my favorite actor, I did think his Oscar last year was a bit of a makeup for him never winning before (I thought he should've won for Wolf of Wall Street, personally).

Anyway, as for your final point, those three movies don't mean that I don't care for sci-fi. Three of my top 10 all time (Inception, Looper, Source Code) are sci-fi films. I think it's more that the sci-fi films I tend to enjoy have some sort of premise that interests me (notice that each of the three in my top 10 have a clear "hook", while Alien and Blade Runner don't really have that. Children of Men was an outlier, I think). Again, it's not like I'm counting down the days till Passengers' release, but I would say that I'm looking forward to it and expect to have a good time based on the premise and talent involved (I thought The Imitation Game was quite a good film as well).

Believe me, I have no trouble dissociating someone's public life from their art. Clint Eastwood's a senile old geezer and I still love his movies. But that requires there to be something there artistically. Eastwood is a success because regardless of what he supports politically, he'll still be able to make quality films. People like him despite his public life, not because of it. Do you see the difference? Lawrence isn't getting these roles because of her acting talent; she's getting them because people quote her on Facebook and "retweet" her, which in turn is only because she starred in a bunch of shitty YA films with a built-in audience. The Hunger Games would have been a success with or without the presence of Ms. Lawrence onscreen, I promise you that. If Shailene Woodley or Kristen Stewart had played Katniss, I guarantee that they'd be the ones starring in Passengers now.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reasoning behind Lawrence's popularity is her usage in memes and her regular appearance on rag magazine covers-- not her acting ability, which as Braden noted, is hardly anything to heap praise upon. So while I try to separate the person from their art and judge the art independently, I really don't see anything "artistic" about this woman's performances. They're passable. She fills space. She says the lines. She vaguely resembles the character from the book. That's about it.

Anyway, not sure what you mean by the bolded part, but I'd argue that this movie looks like it has more in common with Transformers than it does with any of those films you listed (two of which I like a lot). Nothing about this seems "high-concept" to me, at least from what I've gleaned from the trailers. It's just a dumb action movie in a sci-fi setting. I dunno, it doesn't seem like your kind of thing.
I won't deny that Lawrence's public persona has certainly gained her both fans and fame. It just has nothing to do with why I like her. You can say she's an average actress and that's fine, but personally, I think she's capable of turning in very strong performances when given good material to work with. Whether this movie will supply said material I have no idea (only trailer I saw was whichever one played before my showing of Arrival). However, that doesn't change the fact that her presence in the film does enhance my desire to see it. I mean, if it gets a 30 on RT or whatever then there's little chance I'm going to the theater for it. If it gets a 70 or something though, I'd probably check it out given my relative interest in the premise and talent involved.

I'm gonna explain the bolded piece here, because I know it was confusing. In my opinion, the coolest premise I've ever seen is from In Time, a little seen Andrew Niccol sci-fi piece about a world where time is literally money, meaning the poor die young and the rich can live for as long as they want (trailer at the bottom of my post if you're interested). That kind of premise can basically be summed up in a sentence or two and instantly catches my attention. Similarly, Looper's about a future where time travel is possible and used to assassinate people (with Joe having to escape from himself), Source Code is about the existence of a machine that can be used to replay a moment over and over, Inception about the ability to enter someone's mind and plant an idea. Do you see how those have a sort of "one liner" premise that's instantly intriguing? I guess I just like it when sci-fi puts an interesting spin on the future.

Now, compare that to Alien. I'm not saying it's a death sentence for a film or anything like that, but what's the interesting spin of Alien? People get trapped on a ship with an alien who wants to kill them? Just doesn't excite me, as a look into an alternative future, in the same way. The reason I'm not that excited for Passengers is that it kind of looks to be between the two, not grasping for a really original perspective but also supplying some intrigue in that regard. Hope that made some sense.

In Time trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 11, 2016, 12:02:42 pm
I'm gonna explain the bolded piece here, because I know it was confusing. In my opinion, the coolest premise I've ever seen is from In Time, a little seen Andrew Niccol sci-fi piece about a world where time is literally money, meaning the poor die young and the rich can live for as long as they want (trailer at the bottom of my post if you're interested). That kind of premise can basically be summed up in a sentence or two and instantly catches my attention. Similarly, Looper's about a future where time travel is possible and used to assassinate people (with Joe having to escape from himself), Source Code is about the existence of a machine that can be used to replay a moment over and over, Inception about the ability to enter someone's mind and plant an idea. Do you see how those have a sort of "one liner" premise that's instantly intriguing? I guess I just like it when sci-fi puts an interesting spin on the future.
So you prefer high-concept films.  Then just say that.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 11, 2016, 12:07:20 pm
The Long and Troubled History of This Film
Once upon a time, there was a script called Shadow 19, an original sci-fi/action-thriller screenplay written by Jon Spaihts. The project was picked up by Warner Bros. with Keanu Reeves set to star. However, for whatever reason, the film ended up not happening. Reeves, however, liked Spaihts' script so much that when he read his script for Passengers, he not only wanted to star in the film as Jim Preston but also produce it. Brian Kirk was originally attached to direct and the film had a budget of around $35 million. Emily Blunt and Reese Witherspoon were both attached to play Aurora Dunn at different points in time. Then, the film entered development hell for a very long time, less than a decade to be specific, until Sony won an auction to pick up rights to the film in 2014. Reeves was still onboard as a producer through his production company, Company Films, but he was uncredited. Fast & Furious' Neal H. Moritz also came onboard as producer, Morten Tyldum was hired to replace Kirk as director, Lawrence & Pratt were cast, and Passengers was finally made.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Robert Neville on December 11, 2016, 12:58:43 pm
I'm gonna explain the bolded piece here, because I know it was confusing. In my opinion, the coolest premise I've ever seen is from In Time, a little seen Andrew Niccol sci-fi piece about a world where time is literally money, meaning the poor die young and the rich can live for as long as they want (trailer at the bottom of my post if you're interested). That kind of premise can basically be summed up in a sentence or two and instantly catches my attention. Similarly, Looper's about a future where time travel is possible and used to assassinate people (with Joe having to escape from himself), Source Code is about the existence of a machine that can be used to replay a moment over and over, Inception about the ability to enter someone's mind and plant an idea. Do you see how those have a sort of "one liner" premise that's instantly intriguing? I guess I just like it when sci-fi puts an interesting spin on the future.
So you prefer high-concept films.  Then just say that.

At the risk of pulverising a dead horse... Caleb sounds like he should be more excited to have a high-concept president whose campaign could be summed up in a sentence or two and who'll put an interesting spin on the immediate future.

And really, "one liner" premises do not, as a rule, "put an interesting spin of the future", so much as they end up dumbing down a particular conflict in the present. That is the reason I still haven't seen In Time in spite of loving Gattaca: the latter still felt grounded, while IT's future glances over so many intermediate obstacles on its way that it's basically unmoored from reality, all in order to crystallise an already well-known and circulated set of messages into something even simpler than the debates you can already read on the subject.

That is also the reason why I don't care much for seeing The Lobster, why I am generally indifferent to many post-apocalyptic premises in films or games, why books like The Circle or The City and the City (and 1984, for that matter) bore me with their premises, etc. The creators simply try to make a point (that usually, many others have already stated before them), and then they immediately plunge the setting from modern-day to a certain point in time, to make it easier for them to convey it by making the world contort around their idea. (Indeed, much like a certain person skipped past many details to go from "third-world-country" to "great again" in his speeches, exaggerating reality to make it fit his message.)

 If you want to do more to prevent fellow citizens from being taken in by such overarching political narratives, it might be helpful to recognise that the same high-concept techniques in speculative narratives are often storytelling crutches, rather than deep insights. The truly challenging future to write is one where a few things have gone forward a lot, some more went backward a lot, but most of the changes have been treacly mediocre and didn't move the needle all that much (at least relative to stuff from the films above), and they were all tied up together, evolving and mutating all along. However, it is also the future we are most likely to end up with, so it's probably high time for fiction to step up.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 11, 2016, 01:25:31 pm
I won't deny that Lawrence's public persona has certainly gained her both fans and fame. It just has nothing to do with why I like her. You can say she's an average actress and that's fine, but personally, I think she's capable of turning in very strong performances when given good material to work with. Whether this movie will supply said material I have no idea (only trailer I saw was whichever one played before my showing of Arrival). However, that doesn't change the fact that her presence in the film does enhance my desire to see it. I mean, if it gets a 30 on RT or whatever then there's little chance I'm going to the theater for it. If it gets a 70 or something though, I'd probably check it out given my relative interest in the premise and talent involved.

I'm gonna explain the bolded piece here, because I know it was confusing. In my opinion, the coolest premise I've ever seen is from In Time, a little seen Andrew Niccol sci-fi piece about a world where time is literally money, meaning the poor die young and the rich can live for as long as they want (trailer at the bottom of my post if you're interested). That kind of premise can basically be summed up in a sentence or two and instantly catches my attention. Similarly, Looper's about a future where time travel is possible and used to assassinate people (with Joe having to escape from himself), Source Code is about the existence of a machine that can be used to replay a moment over and over, Inception about the ability to enter someone's mind and plant an idea. Do you see how those have a sort of "one liner" premise that's instantly intriguing? I guess I just like it when sci-fi puts an interesting spin on the future.

Now, compare that to Alien. I'm not saying it's a death sentence for a film or anything like that, but what's the interesting spin of Alien? People get trapped on a ship with an alien who wants to kill them? Just doesn't excite me, as a look into an alternative future, in the same way. The reason I'm not that excited for Passengers is that it kind of looks to be between the two, not grasping for a really original perspective but also supplying some intrigue in that regard. Hope that made some sense.

Yeah, I've seen In Time, and I liked it fine. But as Neville said, it and movies like it rely on obvious exaggerations of present-day social issues in order to squeeze through their "social commentary," and their scope is limited to only one subject. Alien, meanwhile, has some underlying themes of man vs nature, but it also has an anti-corporate side to it (which I thought you would have enjoyed). Honestly, both it and Blade Runner are more "high-concept" than Passengers seems to be, and they cover a lot more ground than In Time does (or Inception, for that matter). To be fair, I haven't seen Passengers yet, but from what I can gather it's just an action/romance in space. Even if it does try to squeeze a message in, it's entirely possible that it'll be so hamfisted and obvious that it'll threaten to ruin the entire movie even for its target audience. This does not seem high-concept to me at all. Just a star vehicle for Lawrence and Pratt because they're popular this year. I would honestly say that Passengers has less in common with Inception, In Time, Source Code, or Blade Runner than it has with any typical Michael Bay film.

I'll take this opportunity to put in a plug for Star Trek: TOS, a show that not only features a range of well-developed characters, but also tackles multiple social and political issues while still preserving the show's artistic integrity. Honestly, if it can be pitched in one sentence, it might not be that good of a film.

Also, I find it worth noting that Lawrence's character is named "Aurora," which might be worse than "Cypher Raige," "Cade Yeager," and "unobtainium" all put together. Just an observation...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 11, 2016, 01:31:21 pm
Also, I find it worth noting that Lawrence's character is named "Aurora," which might be worse than "Cypher Raige," "Cade Yeager," and "unobtainium" all put together. Just an observation...
Except Aurora has been used before for characters in other works (Sleeping Beauty, Terms of Endearment) and is an actual real name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(given_name)).
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 11, 2016, 01:43:50 pm
Also, I find it worth noting that Lawrence's character is named "Aurora," which might be worse than "Cypher Raige," "Cade Yeager," and "unobtainium" all put together. Just an observation...
Except Aurora has been used before for characters in other works (Sleeping Beauty, Terms of Endearment) and is an actual real name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(given_name)).

Yeah, but given that an aurora is a light display in the night sky caused by solar wind, I think the context of sci-fi makes this a lot more cringeworthy. Not as bad as Jupiter Jones though, I guess.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 11, 2016, 02:08:37 pm
Except Aurora has been used before for characters in other works (Sleeping Beauty, Terms of Endearment) and is an actual real name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(given_name)).
(https://i.imgflip.com/1frv32.jpg)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 15, 2016, 10:57:53 am
22% on the Tomatometer so far. Ouch.

And according to the review snippets, the reasons for Jennifer Lawrence's character waking up and Chris Pratt being in love with her are actually very creepy.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 15, 2016, 12:11:04 pm
22% on the Tomatometer so far. Ouch.

I think pretty much anyone with a brain saw this coming.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 15, 2016, 01:17:24 pm
22% on the Tomatometer so far. Ouch.

And according to the review snippets, the reasons for Jennifer Lawrence's character waking up and Chris Pratt being in love with her are actually very creepy.

(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/54881369.jpg)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 15, 2016, 05:51:14 pm
Really though, this should not come as a surprise.

This movie should've had a built-in audience from day one, but for some reason they felt the need to advertise constantly and release a lot of scenes online. I've seen like seven movies in theaters over the past month or so, and at least five of them had a Passengers trailer before them. Makes no sense. The only explanation was that the studio knew it would get bad reviews and were saturating everyone's brains with marketing material to try and offset the damage. Ghostbusters remake did the same thing. And I'm starting to think that 20th Century Women is doing it too. I've seen a trailer for that at every movie I've been to for the past two months. Not conclusive evidence, of course... but I'm still suspicious.

Anyway, I looked up the spoilers for this movie, so if you're like me and you don't care enough to see the film (but are still curious about the negative reaction), click below.

Spoiler (hover to show)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 15, 2016, 06:58:15 pm
Really though, this should not come as a surprise.

This movie should've had a built-in audience from day one, but for some reason they felt the need to advertise constantly and release a lot of scenes online. I've seen like seven movies in theaters over the past month or so, and at least five of them had a Passengers trailer before them. Makes no sense. The only explanation was that the studio knew it would get bad reviews and were saturating everyone's brains with marketing material to try and offset the damage. Ghostbusters remake did the same thing. And I'm starting to think that 20th Century Women is doing it too. I've seen a trailer for that at every movie I've been to for the past two months. Not conclusive evidence, of course... but I'm still suspicious.

Anyway, I looked up the spoilers for this movie, so if you're like me and you don't care enough to see the film (but are still curious about the negative reaction), click below.

Spoiler (hover to show)

I think the trailer issue has to do with the trailer being released so late, and the fact that the film can be attached to multiple different genres of movies (action, adult dramas, sci-fi, family movies, etc.).  Plus, I'm pretty sure every studio attaches the trailer for at least one movie to every wide release.  Ever since this trailer was released, Sony's other films they had to advertise were Inferno and Billy Lynn.  Inferno had little appeal outside of overseas and could really only be attached to action and adult drama films, and Billy Lynn could really only be attached to adult dramas.  So outside of Passengers having a wide variety of the type of films it could be attached to, it also wasn't going up against much competition from Sony itself.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 15, 2016, 07:07:16 pm
Really though, this should not come as a surprise.

This movie should've had a built-in audience from day one, but for some reason they felt the need to advertise constantly and release a lot of scenes online. I've seen like seven movies in theaters over the past month or so, and at least five of them had a Passengers trailer before them. Makes no sense. The only explanation was that the studio knew it would get bad reviews and were saturating everyone's brains with marketing material to try and offset the damage. Ghostbusters remake did the same thing. And I'm starting to think that 20th Century Women is doing it too. I've seen a trailer for that at every movie I've been to for the past two months. Not conclusive evidence, of course... but I'm still suspicious.

Anyway, I looked up the spoilers for this movie, so if you're like me and you don't care enough to see the film (but are still curious about the negative reaction), click below.

Spoiler (hover to show)

I think the trailer issue has to do with the trailer being released so late, and the fact that the film can be attached to multiple different genres of movies (action, adult dramas, sci-fi, family movies, etc.).  Plus, I'm pretty sure every studio attaches the trailer for at least one movie to every wide release.  Ever since this trailer was released, Sony's other films they had to advertise were Inferno and Billy Lynn.  Inferno had little appeal outside of overseas and could really only be attached to action and adult drama films, and Billy Lynn could really only be attached to adult dramas.  So outside of Passengers having a wide variety of the type of films it could be attached to, it also wasn't going up against much competition from Sony itself.

If this is true, I didn't know that. But it's not just in-theater advertising I'm talking about. Press circuits, scenes released online, advertisements on sites... I've seen more promotional material for this than Rogue One. The difference, I guess, is that Rogue One belongs to a franchise so powerful it doesn't really need to advertise... but that's still saying a lot.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 15, 2016, 07:13:01 pm
Really though, this should not come as a surprise.

This movie should've had a built-in audience from day one, but for some reason they felt the need to advertise constantly and release a lot of scenes online. I've seen like seven movies in theaters over the past month or so, and at least five of them had a Passengers trailer before them. Makes no sense. The only explanation was that the studio knew it would get bad reviews and were saturating everyone's brains with marketing material to try and offset the damage. Ghostbusters remake did the same thing. And I'm starting to think that 20th Century Women is doing it too. I've seen a trailer for that at every movie I've been to for the past two months. Not conclusive evidence, of course... but I'm still suspicious.

Anyway, I looked up the spoilers for this movie, so if you're like me and you don't care enough to see the film (but are still curious about the negative reaction), click below.

Spoiler (hover to show)

I think the trailer issue has to do with the trailer being released so late, and the fact that the film can be attached to multiple different genres of movies (action, adult dramas, sci-fi, family movies, etc.).  Plus, I'm pretty sure every studio attaches the trailer for at least one movie to every wide release.  Ever since this trailer was released, Sony's other films they had to advertise were Inferno and Billy Lynn.  Inferno had little appeal outside of overseas and could really only be attached to action and adult drama films, and Billy Lynn could really only be attached to adult dramas.  So outside of Passengers having a wide variety of the type of films it could be attached to, it also wasn't going up against much competition from Sony itself.

If this is true, I didn't know that. But it's not just in-theater advertising I'm talking about. Press circuits, scenes released online, advertisements on sites... I've seen more promotional material for this than Rogue One. The difference, I guess, is that Rogue One belongs to a franchise so powerful it doesn't really need to advertise... but that's still saying a lot.

Well, there's this site. (http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/)  Basically, it shows what trailer can be played with a certain movie.  For example, the trailers eligible to be played with Rogue One are Pirates of the Caribbean 5, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Cars 3, Free Fire, Valerian, A Monster Calls, Logan, War for the Planet of the Apes, Power Rangers, Transformers 5, Case for Christ, Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Red Turtle, Space Between Us, The Fate of the Furious, The Mummy, Dunkirk, Kong: Skull Island, and Wonder Woman.  Of course, this doesn't mean you'll be getting all these trailers when you see it.  The theater decides what trailers actually play.  For Passengers, I've seen its name pop up on the trailer drives very often, so oversaturation is definitely a major factor.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Rupert Pupkin on December 15, 2016, 10:36:52 pm
I did not see this trailer at Rogue One. I saw Spider Man Homecoming, Kong Skull Island, Transformers 5, Pirates 5, Cars 3, And the Fate of the Furious.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 19, 2016, 08:21:56 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 19, 2016, 08:26:03 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
This movie stars the most marketable actor in the world and the most marketable actress in the world.  It could be about two people taking massive shіts as they watch paint dry, and it would still make money.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 19, 2016, 08:36:41 pm
the most marketable actress in the world

What's so marketable about a cheese danish?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 19, 2016, 08:41:35 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
This movie stars the most marketable actor in the world and the most marketable actress in the world.  It could be about two people taking massive shіts as they watch paint dry, and it would still make money.

Yeah, but I was hoping for a budget closer to $200 mil that would at least put a dent in the profits and discourage them from making more films like this. Although the marketing budget for this movie is probably unusually bloated, I'm sure that despite major competition from Rogue One, negative word-of-mouth, and angry social justice bloggers whining about it, it'll succeed solely on Lawrence and Pratt's combined star power.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: $+/\|_|\| on December 19, 2016, 09:13:22 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
This movie stars the most marketable actor in the world and the most marketable actress in the world.  It could be about two people taking massive shіts as they watch paint dry, and it would still make money.

Yeah, but I was hoping for a budget closer to $200 mil that would at least put a dent in the profits and discourage them from making more films like this. Although the marketing budget for this movie is probably unusually bloated, I'm sure that despite major competition from Rogue One, negative word-of-mouth, and angry social justice bloggers whining about it, it'll succeed solely on Lawrence and Pratt's combined star power.
Oh please, even if it did bomb, they'd still continue to make movies like this. It's why this exists in the first place.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 19, 2016, 09:28:57 pm
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 19, 2016, 10:33:48 pm
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.

I feel like the demographic appeal is pretty different with those two movies...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 19, 2016, 10:42:10 pm
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.

I feel like the demographic appeal is pretty different with those two movies...

Maybe so, but it shows that big stars doesn't always automatically translate into box office success.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 19, 2016, 11:13:10 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
I dunno, I still can't shake the feeling that it'll be good based on the trailers even though I know it'll most likely be terrible. Plus, my dad wants to see Sing (it's retarded, but he's a huge music fan and enjoys most films with music in them, even if he knows the movie's bad) so I might just go with him to the theater and see Passengers. If it's not my money it may be worth it just to satiate my curiosity, even if it is bad as it probably will be.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 19, 2016, 11:13:41 pm
 Dommy is having a crisis of character, torn between his neckbeard condition and the final vestige of his humanity. (http://forum-origin.rottentomatoes.com/topic/show/1996251#post_33211015)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 19, 2016, 11:15:10 pm
Dommy is having a crisis of character, torn between his neckbeard condition and the final vestige of his humanity. (http://forum-origin.rottentomatoes.com/topic/show/1996251#post_33211015)
I laughed too hard at Diego's comment.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 19, 2016, 11:21:22 pm
Yo, Cutler.  Paaschengers.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 19, 2016, 11:25:20 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
I dunno, I still can't shake the feeling that it'll be good based on the trailers even though I know it'll most likely be terrible. Plus, my dad wants to see Sing (it's retarded, but he's a huge music fan and enjoys most films with music in them, even if he knows the movie's bad) so I might just go with him to the theater and see Passengers. If it's not my money it may be worth it just to satiate my curiosity, even if it is bad as it probably will be.

Buy a ticket for Sing and sneak into Passengers. Dawson Joyce style.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Jed Groff on December 19, 2016, 11:36:50 pm
Anyone else sick of sci-fi film titles distorting their E to look like three horizontal prongs? That seems to be a repeating trend.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 19, 2016, 11:38:36 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
I dunno, I still can't shake the feeling that it'll be good based on the trailers even though I know it'll most likely be terrible. Plus, my dad wants to see Sing (it's retarded, but he's a huge music fan and enjoys most films with music in them, even if he knows the movie's bad) so I might just go with him to the theater and see Passengers. If it's not my money it may be worth it just to satiate my curiosity, even if it is bad as it probably will be.

Buy a ticket for Sing and sneak into Passengers. Dawson Joyce style.
Honestly I think Sing looks so bad that I'd rather just buy the Passengers ticket. Or maybe buy Machester by the Sea and sneak into Passengers, that one definitely deserves the money.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 19, 2016, 11:45:53 pm
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
I dunno, I still can't shake the feeling that it'll be good based on the trailers even though I know it'll most likely be terrible. Plus, my dad wants to see Sing (it's retarded, but he's a huge music fan and enjoys most films with music in them, even if he knows the movie's bad) so I might just go with him to the theater and see Passengers. If it's not my money it may be worth it just to satiate my curiosity, even if it is bad as it probably will be.

Buy a ticket for Sing and sneak into Passengers. Dawson Joyce style.
Honestly I think Sing looks so bad that I'd rather just buy the Passengers ticket. Or maybe buy Machester by the Sea and sneak into Passengers, that one definitely deserves the money.

Just so long as you sign this pledge, we're good. You can see the film through that method if you so desire.

(https://i.imgur.com/2fjtLeH.png)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tho Master Fie on December 19, 2016, 11:49:46 pm
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:21:01 am
Consensus is up. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) Sadly, I doubt that this will be a significant commercial disappointment. It might not make the kind of money it was expected to due to Tumblr folk protesting it as sexist (which is certainly possible from what I've heard of the plot). But apparently its budget is $110 million, and even after factoring in marketing and theater shares, there's virtually no way it won't break even. Such a shame.

You still seeing this in theaters, Caleb? I'll give you a Christmas present if you swear not to.
I dunno, I still can't shake the feeling that it'll be good based on the trailers even though I know it'll most likely be terrible. Plus, my dad wants to see Sing (it's retarded, but he's a huge music fan and enjoys most films with music in them, even if he knows the movie's bad) so I might just go with him to the theater and see Passengers. If it's not my money it may be worth it just to satiate my curiosity, even if it is bad as it probably will be.

Buy a ticket for Sing and sneak into Passengers. Dawson Joyce style.
Honestly I think Sing looks so bad that I'd rather just buy the Passengers ticket. Or maybe buy Machester by the Sea and sneak into Passengers, that one definitely deserves the money.

Just so long as you sign this pledge, we're good. You can see the film through that method if you so desire.

(https://i.imgur.com/2fjtLeH.png)
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:21:40 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 20, 2016, 12:26:00 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:26:41 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
True, but that's a masterpiece in the making so it's hardly fair to compare them.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 20, 2016, 12:28:32 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
True, but that's a masterpiece in the making so it's hardly fair to compare them.

Do you think such great lines as "The monster is in the truck" will go on AFI's next 100 Years...100 Quotes list?
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 20, 2016, 12:45:20 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:46:07 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
True, but that's a masterpiece in the making so it's hardly fair to compare them.

Do you think such great lines as "The monster is in the truck" will go on AFI's next 100 Years...100 Quotes list?
If Monster Trucks doesn't have at least one appearance on that list, I'm gonna start a Change.org campaign to make them re-do it.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:49:07 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Yeah, I can't really argue that point at all honestly. The dialogue did seem incredibly cliched and recycled, just hoping Pratt/Lawrence can sell the scenes anyway. Jason Bourne had some of that too though and I enjoyed that movie so who knows. I'm still interested by the plot and hopefully they can take the mystery and everything somewhere interesting. Even in the face of poor odds, hope springs eternal, as they say.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 20, 2016, 12:51:25 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Yeah, I can't really argue that point at all honestly. The dialogue did seem incredibly cliched and recycled, just hoping Pratt/Lawrence can sell the scenes anyway. Jason Bourne had some of that too though and I enjoyed that movie so who knows. I'm still interested by the plot and hopefully they can take the mystery and everything somewhere interesting. Even in the face of poor odds, hope springs eternal, as they say.

Considering you're a sociopath, I think you'll like the plot.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 20, 2016, 12:54:36 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
True, but that's a masterpiece in the making so it's hardly fair to compare them.

Do you think such great lines as "The monster is in the truck" will go on AFI's next 100 Years...100 Quotes list?
If Monster Trucks doesn't have at least one appearance on that list, I'm gonna start a Change.org campaign to make them re-do it.

It should've received a qualifying run in December for the Oscars.  I was hoping Lucas Till could take home Best Actor.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 20, 2016, 12:56:52 am
Wait...PAasche, you actually think this piece of shіt looks better than Sing?
Didn't you say that Sing was going to be the greatest filmmaking travesty of the 21st century or something like that?

Monster Trucks will be better anyway.
True, but that's a masterpiece in the making so it's hardly fair to compare them.

Do you think such great lines as "The monster is in the truck" will go on AFI's next 100 Years...100 Quotes list?
If Monster Trucks doesn't have at least one appearance on that list, I'm gonna start a Change.org campaign to make them re-do it.

It should've received a qualifying run in December for the Oscars.  I was hoping Lucas Till could take home Best Actor.

Feliz cumpleanos frank!
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 20, 2016, 12:59:11 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Yeah, I can't really argue that point at all honestly. The dialogue did seem incredibly cliched and recycled, just hoping Pratt/Lawrence can sell the scenes anyway. Jason Bourne had some of that too though and I enjoyed that movie so who knows. I'm still interested by the plot and hopefully they can take the mystery and everything somewhere interesting. Even in the face of poor odds, hope springs eternal, as they say.

Considering you're a sociopath, I think you'll like the plot.
Ironic coming from you. Actually though, part of the intrigue is seeing what people are talking about with the whole creepiness thing, since I've stayed very spoiler free.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 20, 2016, 01:02:16 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Yeah, I can't really argue that point at all honestly. The dialogue did seem incredibly cliched and recycled, just hoping Pratt/Lawrence can sell the scenes anyway. Jason Bourne had some of that too though and I enjoyed that movie so who knows. I'm still interested by the plot and hopefully they can take the mystery and everything somewhere interesting. Even in the face of poor odds, hope springs eternal, as they say.

Considering you're a sociopath, I think you'll like the plot.
Ironic coming from you. Actually though, part of the intrigue is seeing what people are talking about with the whole creepiness thing, since I've stayed very spoiler free.

You should watch Rikki Oh The Story of Ricky
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 20, 2016, 01:08:52 am
As amusing as this is, I'm confused why you find this particular film so objectionable (other than disliking Lawrence).

Lawrence is honestly not even my major complaint with the film. My anger with it stems from the dialogue in the trailers. I am so sick of hearing these same fucking lines in every single movie. It's almost comical. The trailer made it seem like this movie was written using a computer-generated script (CGS? I bet that'll be the next step in the surgical removal of Hollywood's soul). It just reinforces my belief that screenwriters are becoming obsolete in the film industry, and that all they need these days is someone with a moderate understanding of the English language and the ability to piece random action scenes together with a flimsy plot.
Yeah, I can't really argue that point at all honestly. The dialogue did seem incredibly cliched and recycled, just hoping Pratt/Lawrence can sell the scenes anyway. Jason Bourne had some of that too though and I enjoyed that movie so who knows. I'm still interested by the plot and hopefully they can take the mystery and everything somewhere interesting. Even in the face of poor odds, hope springs eternal, as they say.

Speaking as someone who's read the plot, trust me, it's not worth it. I'd feel bad spoiling it for you since you want to see it, but honestly... I'd probably be doing you a favor if I did. Let's just say it's an eye-rolling "twist" that is not worth nine dollars and two hours of your time.

As for the dialogue issues... at some point, I think we've all got to just say no to these films on basic principle. I don't care how well Pratt and Lawrence (two people who I don't care about anyway) can sell this awful script and awful premise. The people behind this film deserve to lose money for what they've done here. It's gotta be the most cynical and blatant money-grubbing scam movie since... well, I don't even know what. So I've decided that, even though I like seeing bad movies for fun, I will not be paying to see this. They've fooled me enough. It's time to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Robert Neville on December 20, 2016, 03:15:23 am
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.

I feel like the demographic appeal is pretty different with those two movies...

How about examples from last year then? Bradley Cooper was supposed to have climbed higher than ever after Paasche's favorite 2014 movie earned a ton of money and got all those nominations and awards.  Then, both Aloha and Burnt were terrible and flopped, even though they were very cheap and didn't have quite as much competition.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 20, 2016, 03:33:31 am
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.

I feel like the demographic appeal is pretty different with those two movies...

How about examples from last year then? Bradley Cooper was supposed to have climbed higher than ever after Paasche's favorite 2014 movie earned a ton of money and got all those nominations and awards.  Then, both Aloha and Burnt were terrible and flopped, even though they were very cheap and didn't have quite as much competition.

Again, the fact that this is a big-budget sci-fi film sets it apart from those, I think. Burnt was about a chef. Aloha... I still don't know what Aloha was about. But Passengers is a big dumb action movie that has gotten so much publicity I can't imagine it legitimately bombing.

But hey, I'm an eternal pessimist, so maybe I'm wrong. Here's hoping it fails.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 20, 2016, 01:23:53 pm
Wouldn't discount it bombing quite yet.  Depp and Jolie were both huge in 2010, yet The Tourist was a disappointment.  It still broke even, but only by barely, and most of that came from international gross, where studios often don't receive as high of a percentage for the grosses made there.  Also cost 10M less dollars to make than Passengers.

I feel like the demographic appeal is pretty different with those two movies...

How about examples from last year then? Bradley Cooper was supposed to have climbed higher than ever after Paasche's favorite 2014 movie earned a ton of money and got all those nominations and awards.  Then, both Aloha and Burnt were terrible and flopped, even though they were very cheap and didn't have quite as much competition.

Again, the fact that this is a big-budget sci-fi film sets it apart from those, I think. Burnt was about a chef. Aloha... I still don't know what Aloha was about. But Passengers is a big dumb action movie that has gotten so much publicity I can't imagine it legitimately bombing.

But hey, I'm an eternal pessimist, so maybe I'm wrong. Here's hoping it fails.

It hasn't shown up on MovieTickets despite previews beginning in 6 hours (I use their trending tickets section to help determine box office results).  Sing, on the other hand, is at #2 with 8% of tickets coming from the site.  The only one ahead is Rogue One, which is a given considering how huge it is right now.  Passengers (and Assassin's Creed) are behind those two, Moana, La La Land, and Office Christmas Party.  Maybe this is slightly hindered by some people still in school, but then why would Sing be on there?

Fandango Pulse is probably more reliable, since more people buy from Fandango than from MovieTickets, but you can only access that from downloading the mobile app, on an iPad only.  I don't have an iPad, so if anyone has one, they can check it if they want.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: $+/\|_|\| on December 20, 2016, 07:47:19 pm
Diego, and Cutler, how does this make you feel?
https://youtu.be/z0a9k1gSMsw
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 20, 2016, 07:54:12 pm
Diego, and Cutler, how does this make you feel?
https://youtu.be/z0a9k1gSMsw

Like most modern music, it makes me feel absolutely nothing at all.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Robert Neville on December 21, 2016, 02:31:34 am
Diego, and Cutler, how does this make you feel?
https://youtu.be/z0a9k1gSMsw

After listening to this, it's honestly kinda amazing that people were once claiming ID were better than Linkin Park.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Robert Neville on December 21, 2016, 09:57:38 am
Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 21, 2016, 12:50:17 pm
Diego, and Cutler, how does this make you feel?
https://youtu.be/z0a9k1gSMsw

After listening to this, it's honestly kinda amazing that people were once claiming ID were better than Linkin Park.

They've been consistently "meh" in my book, but this song is unforgivable. 
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 21, 2016, 01:00:11 pm
Diego, and Cutler, how does this make you feel?
https://youtu.be/z0a9k1gSMsw
This song is unbelievably bad... and this is coming from an Imagine Dragons fan.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 21, 2016, 01:44:55 pm
They're predicting a $40 million domestic box office for the first six days (http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-20161220-story.html) for this film. Seeing as the break-even point is likely around $275 mil, can someone who's better with box office stuff tell us what this means for the movie's chances? It might end up relying heavily on foreign markets, but I don't know if Pratt and Lawrence are as popular outside of the US as they are in it.

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 21, 2016, 02:08:46 pm

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.
While I certainly think the subject is relevant, I still don't think you can compare Lawrence to the Kardashians at all. First, Lawrence is actually talented, at least in the minds of many (a Best Actress Oscar is a serious achievement), and second, she doesn't dominate the media in at all the same way. I see stories about the Kardashians every single day, and usually multiple stories a day, whether it's on Facebook, Snapchat or the covers of magazines at the supermarket. Lawrence is certainly in the mainstream when she has a movie out or something, but she's not always there in the same way.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Robert Neville on December 21, 2016, 03:28:03 pm

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.
While I certainly think the subject is relevant, I still don't think you can compare Lawrence to the Kardashians at all. First, Lawrence is actually talented, at least in the minds of many (a Best Actress Oscar is a serious achievement), and second, she doesn't dominate the media in at all the same way. I see stories about the Kardashians every single day, and usually multiple stories a day, whether it's on Facebook, Snapchat or the covers of magazines at the supermarket. Lawrence is certainly in the mainstream when she has a movie out or something, but she's not always there in the same way.

The bolded part makes me really glad to

a) Not have lived in America

b)Not having used those platforms in any representative fashion (last time I logged onto Facebook was more than a month ago, and that was to get in touch with an indie developer. (I should try it again, actually.)

Either way, you're missing the point. The key point in the article was the shift in the nature of celebrity from the directors, actors and even scientists to actors, from the people who have visions towards the people who are used to convey visions. Moreover, the fewer ideas of your own you have, the easier it becomes to reach the top and stay there, as then people of all stripes won't have a fundamental difficulty in associating with you, and it becomes truly effortless for every commenter under the sun to name-drop you into whatever screed they desire. YouTube probably provides the clearest, brightest example: there's an almost perfect inverse correlation between the number of one's subscribers and the intelligence quotient of what they put out.

Given the "enlightened" thoughts we've heard from her so far, she certainly isn't an exception to the rule. In fact, it makes me wonder whether Shailene Woodley now being almost completely forgotten relative to two years' back, (when, lest we forget, it was seriously assumed she could overtake Lawrence), is not merely due to the terrible Divergent franchise dragging her down, but also because she actually seemed to have basic stances going relatively deeper than a typical upstart, which might've made producers more reluctant to employ her vs. say, Kristen Stewart or Cara Delevigne with their similarly terrible records. In the world of celebrity, it seems you might need to upgrade to Gwyneth Paltrow/Leo DiCaprio level before it being sure it won't impact your career.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 21, 2016, 03:40:00 pm
They're predicting a $40 million domestic box office for the first six days (http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-20161220-story.html) for this film. Seeing as the break-even point is likely around $275 mil, can someone who's better with box office stuff tell us what this means for the movie's chances? It might end up relying heavily on foreign markets, but I don't know if Pratt and Lawrence are as popular outside of the US as they are in it.

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.

That's pretty good for Passengers and its box office.  With that number, 100M+ domestically is confirmed.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 21, 2016, 03:45:25 pm

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.
While I certainly think the subject is relevant, I still don't think you can compare Lawrence to the Kardashians at all. First, Lawrence is actually talented, at least in the minds of many (a Best Actress Oscar is a serious achievement), and second, she doesn't dominate the media in at all the same way. I see stories about the Kardashians every single day, and usually multiple stories a day, whether it's on Facebook, Snapchat or the covers of magazines at the supermarket. Lawrence is certainly in the mainstream when she has a movie out or something, but she's not always there in the same way.

Neville laid it out pretty well. Also, to use the dreaded word, that bolded part is utterly subjective. I personally don't think what Lawrence does really qualifies as "acting." More like just showing up and saying the lines. There's a difference between the two, and I know that given the rise of Tom Hiddleston, Emilia Clarke, and Benedict Cumberbatch, everyone's forgotten that, but it's true. Acting is about conveying inner emotions, not just shallow, surface-level script reading. It's not about saying "badass" lines like "I work alone." They could've cast a house plant in The Hunger Games and it wouldn't have made any difference.

That's pretty good for Passengers and its box office.  With that number, 100M+ domestically is confirmed.

Well, the audience on RT is giving it 65%, which is low for the initial release of the film (hell, even Assassin's Creed started out at 80%). Negative word of mouth might still play a factor. Still... it's not looking good.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 21, 2016, 03:53:50 pm

Considering the direction this thread has been going in, here's something I believe Diego will find especially relevant. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/celebrity-corporate-machine-fame-big-business-donald-trump-kim-kardashian)

This is essentially the subject of the next installment in my "Why Marvel is Destroying America" series. I may have to edit it somewhat now. Still, I think the fact still stands that there is a very real correlation between the rise of Trump and the media saturation of Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lawrence.
While I certainly think the subject is relevant, I still don't think you can compare Lawrence to the Kardashians at all. First, Lawrence is actually talented, at least in the minds of many (a Best Actress Oscar is a serious achievement), and second, she doesn't dominate the media in at all the same way. I see stories about the Kardashians every single day, and usually multiple stories a day, whether it's on Facebook, Snapchat or the covers of magazines at the supermarket. Lawrence is certainly in the mainstream when she has a movie out or something, but she's not always there in the same way.

Neville laid it out pretty well. Also, to use the dreaded word, that bolded part is utterly subjective. I personally don't think what Lawrence does really qualifies as "acting." More like just showing up and saying the lines. There's a difference between the two, and I know that given the rise of Tom Hiddleston, Emilia Clarke, and Benedict Cumberbatch, everyone's forgotten that, but it's true. Acting is about conveying inner emotions, not just shallow, surface-level script reading. It's not about saying "badass" lines like "I work alone." They could've cast a house plant in The Hunger Games and it wouldn't have made any difference.

That's pretty good for Passengers and its box office.  With that number, 100M+ domestically is confirmed.

Well, the audience on RT is giving it 65%, which is low for the initial release of the film (hell, even Assassin's Creed started out at 80%). Negative word of mouth might still play a factor. Still... it's not looking good.

Assassin's Creed initial score was heavily boosted by fans.  Not to mention, holiday legs pretty much guarantee it should pass 100M.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 21, 2016, 11:57:32 pm
This movie was not that bad. I'll write some more complete thoughts later, but I have a doctors appointment in the morning so I'm gonna go to bed soon.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 22, 2016, 12:09:49 am
This movie was not that bad. I'll write some more complete thoughts later, but I have a doctors appointment in the morning so I'm gonna go to bed soon.

Dead to me.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 12:11:20 am
This movie was not that bad. I'll write some more complete thoughts later, but I have a doctors appointment in the morning so I'm gonna go to bed soon.

Dead to me.
But I thought we were friends cause of Rogue One :'(.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 22, 2016, 12:46:04 am
This movie was not that bad. I'll write some more complete thoughts later, but I have a doctors appointment in the morning so I'm gonna go to bed soon.

Dead to me.
But I thought we were friends cause of Rogue One :'(.

How dare you speak to me.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 22, 2016, 12:51:14 am
Projected at around 25M for the 6-day now.  If that holds, 100M would be out of the question.  Of course, these are very early estimates, so take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 12:06:56 pm
Okay, here are some more complete thoughts on Passengers, as promised:

First, while this movie is not as bad as Diego has been saying it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't kinda bad. My 5/10 was probably a bit generous. (I'm going into some minor spoilers here, but they're only spoilers because of the marketing- this all comes up in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. Be warned though). Basically, this film is comprised of four parts, Pratt alone on the ship, them together enjoying everything, (spoiler upcoming) Lawrence hating Pratt after she realized he woke her up and them saving the ship together. One thing I did like about this movie is the moral dilemma proposed at the beginning concerning whether Pratt should wake up another passenger. While that was hidden in the marketing, it's a pretty interesting "what would you do?" question, the power of which is somewhat diluted by the fact that the audience (obviously) knows what he's going to do, but that's rather unavoidable I suppose.

The problem here is the pacing: there are basically four acts and the first and third of those can be pretty dull. The second works because of the actors; it's fun to spend time with these two characters when they're together and interacting with one another, and the fourth works because it's actually pretty good, although it's rushed for sure.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Also, this is kind of random, but there's no resolution as to why Lawrence forgives Pratt for what he did. One minute she hates him and the next they're fine. I get that they have to work together to save the ship, but we could've used one line about how she's just working with him to save everyone at least (and then something else at the end obviously). Yeah, maybe 5/10 was a little high...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 22, 2016, 12:33:16 pm
Okay, here are some more complete thoughts on Passengers, as promised:

First, while this movie is not as bad as Diego has been saying it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't kinda bad. My 5/10 was probably a bit generous. (I'm going into some minor spoilers here, but they're only spoilers because of the marketing- this all comes up in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. Be warned though). Basically, this film is comprised of four parts, Pratt alone on the ship, them together enjoying everything, (spoiler upcoming) Lawrence hating Pratt after she realized he woke her up and them saving the ship together. One thing I did like about this movie is the moral dilemma proposed at the beginning concerning whether Pratt should wake up another passenger. While that was hidden in the marketing, it's a pretty interesting "what would you do?" question, the power of which is somewhat diluted by the fact that the audience (obviously) knows what he's going to do, but that's rather unavoidable I suppose.

The problem here is the pacing: there are basically four acts and the first and third of those can be pretty dull. The second works because of the actors; it's fun to spend time with these two characters when they're together and interacting with one another, and the fourth works because it's actually pretty good, although it's rushed for sure.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Also, this is kind of random, but there's no resolution as to why Lawrence forgives Pratt for what he did. One minute she hates him and the next they're fine. I get that they have to work together to save the ship, but we could've used one line about how she's just working with him to save everyone at least (and then something else at the end obviously). Yeah, maybe 5/10 was a little high...
I think a better idea than Pratt intentionally waking up Lawrence so he won't die alone is him waking her up entirely by accident, that way we can actually, you know, feel sympathy for the character.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 12:53:29 pm
Okay, here are some more complete thoughts on Passengers, as promised:

First, while this movie is not as bad as Diego has been saying it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't kinda bad. My 5/10 was probably a bit generous. (I'm going into some minor spoilers here, but they're only spoilers because of the marketing- this all comes up in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. Be warned though). Basically, this film is comprised of four parts, Pratt alone on the ship, them together enjoying everything, (spoiler upcoming) Lawrence hating Pratt after she realized he woke her up and them saving the ship together. One thing I did like about this movie is the moral dilemma proposed at the beginning concerning whether Pratt should wake up another passenger. While that was hidden in the marketing, it's a pretty interesting "what would you do?" question, the power of which is somewhat diluted by the fact that the audience (obviously) knows what he's going to do, but that's rather unavoidable I suppose.

The problem here is the pacing: there are basically four acts and the first and third of those can be pretty dull. The second works because of the actors; it's fun to spend time with these two characters when they're together and interacting with one another, and the fourth works because it's actually pretty good, although it's rushed for sure.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Also, this is kind of random, but there's no resolution as to why Lawrence forgives Pratt for what he did. One minute she hates him and the next they're fine. I get that they have to work together to save the ship, but we could've used one line about how she's just working with him to save everyone at least (and then something else at the end obviously). Yeah, maybe 5/10 was a little high...
I think a better idea than Pratt intentionally waking up Lawrence so he won't die alone is him waking her up entirely by accident, that way we can actually, you know, feel sympathy for the character.
Nah, that would ruin it imo. The intrigue of that idea is predicated on his struggle on whether or not to do it, which is honestly relatable. Could you imagine being stuck alone for that long while having the option of companionship? While everyone would want to say they wouldn't wake up a fellow passenger, I think many of us would do what he did if put in that situation. Characters don't have to embody human perfection to garner sympathy from the viewer.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 22, 2016, 01:05:07 pm
Okay, here are some more complete thoughts on Passengers, as promised:

First, while this movie is not as bad as Diego has been saying it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't kinda bad. My 5/10 was probably a bit generous. (I'm going into some minor spoilers here, but they're only spoilers because of the marketing- this all comes up in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. Be warned though). Basically, this film is comprised of four parts, Pratt alone on the ship, them together enjoying everything, (spoiler upcoming) Lawrence hating Pratt after she realized he woke her up and them saving the ship together. One thing I did like about this movie is the moral dilemma proposed at the beginning concerning whether Pratt should wake up another passenger. While that was hidden in the marketing, it's a pretty interesting "what would you do?" question, the power of which is somewhat diluted by the fact that the audience (obviously) knows what he's going to do, but that's rather unavoidable I suppose.

The problem here is the pacing: there are basically four acts and the first and third of those can be pretty dull. The second works because of the actors; it's fun to spend time with these two characters when they're together and interacting with one another, and the fourth works because it's actually pretty good, although it's rushed for sure.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Also, this is kind of random, but there's no resolution as to why Lawrence forgives Pratt for what he did. One minute she hates him and the next they're fine. I get that they have to work together to save the ship, but we could've used one line about how she's just working with him to save everyone at least (and then something else at the end obviously). Yeah, maybe 5/10 was a little high...
I think a better idea than Pratt intentionally waking up Lawrence so he won't die alone is him waking her up entirely by accident, that way we can actually, you know, feel sympathy for the character.
Nah, that would ruin it imo. The intrigue of that idea is predicated on his struggle on whether or not to do it, which is honestly relatable. Could you imagine being stuck alone for that long while having the option of companionship? While everyone would want to say they wouldn't wake up a fellow passenger, I think many of us would do what he did if put in that situation. Characters don't have to embody human perfection to garner sympathy from the viewer.
I'm not saying he should embody human perfection. I just think the way it's handled in the finished product (granted I haven't seen it) ends up making him honestly rather creepy.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 01:21:51 pm
Okay, here are some more complete thoughts on Passengers, as promised:

First, while this movie is not as bad as Diego has been saying it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't kinda bad. My 5/10 was probably a bit generous. (I'm going into some minor spoilers here, but they're only spoilers because of the marketing- this all comes up in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. Be warned though). Basically, this film is comprised of four parts, Pratt alone on the ship, them together enjoying everything, (spoiler upcoming) Lawrence hating Pratt after she realized he woke her up and them saving the ship together. One thing I did like about this movie is the moral dilemma proposed at the beginning concerning whether Pratt should wake up another passenger. While that was hidden in the marketing, it's a pretty interesting "what would you do?" question, the power of which is somewhat diluted by the fact that the audience (obviously) knows what he's going to do, but that's rather unavoidable I suppose.

The problem here is the pacing: there are basically four acts and the first and third of those can be pretty dull. The second works because of the actors; it's fun to spend time with these two characters when they're together and interacting with one another, and the fourth works because it's actually pretty good, although it's rushed for sure.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Also, this is kind of random, but there's no resolution as to why Lawrence forgives Pratt for what he did. One minute she hates him and the next they're fine. I get that they have to work together to save the ship, but we could've used one line about how she's just working with him to save everyone at least (and then something else at the end obviously). Yeah, maybe 5/10 was a little high...
I think a better idea than Pratt intentionally waking up Lawrence so he won't die alone is him waking her up entirely by accident, that way we can actually, you know, feel sympathy for the character.
Nah, that would ruin it imo. The intrigue of that idea is predicated on his struggle on whether or not to do it, which is honestly relatable. Could you imagine being stuck alone for that long while having the option of companionship? While everyone would want to say they wouldn't wake up a fellow passenger, I think many of us would do what he did if put in that situation. Characters don't have to embody human perfection to garner sympathy from the viewer.
I just think the way it's handled in the finished product (granted I haven't seen it) ends up making him honestly rather creepy.
I didn't really find this to be true. I mean, maybe a little bit, but given he's alone for over a year, I don't think it's unreasonable to long for human companionship.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 22, 2016, 01:22:50 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on December 22, 2016, 01:25:10 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
When Keanu Reeves was still attached, the original female lead choices were Reese Witherspoon, Rachel McAdams, and Emily Blunt, all better than JLaw tbh.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 01:32:20 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
When Keanu Reeves was still attached, the original female lead choices were Reese Witherspoon, Rachel McAdams, and Emily Blunt, all better than JLaw tbh.
Nah, no way.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 22, 2016, 01:35:48 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
When Keanu Reeves was still attached, the original female lead choices were Reese Witherspoon, Rachel McAdams, and Emily Blunt, all better than JLaw tbh.
Nah, no way.

Emily Blunt is hotter than a cheese danish, though...
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Kale Pasta on December 22, 2016, 01:37:08 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
When Keanu Reeves was still attached, the original female lead choices were Reese Witherspoon, Rachel McAdams, and Emily Blunt, all better than JLaw tbh.
Nah, no way.

Emily Blunt is hotter than a cheese danish, though...
Not if the cheese danish is J-Law
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 22, 2016, 01:41:18 pm
So was Pratt just snooping around to find the hottest woman on the ship to wake up? It doesn't say much for humanity's future that the best he could do was Jennifer Lawrence...
When Keanu Reeves was still attached, the original female lead choices were Reese Witherspoon, Rachel McAdams, and Emily Blunt, all better than JLaw tbh.
Nah, no way.

Emily Blunt is hotter than a cheese danish, though...
Not if the cheese danish is J-Law

You like women that eat cum don't you... I know you saw that pic of her with all that toaster strudel sauce on her face.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 27, 2016, 08:31:38 pm
Flop imminent. Abandon ship. (http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: cupcake on December 27, 2016, 08:41:28 pm
Flop imminent. Abandon ship. (http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/)

With my expert analysis, I can boldly claim that I called it first (http://trollfightersoasis.createaforum.com/specific-new-release-discussions/passengers/msg110545/#msg110545)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 27, 2016, 09:25:34 pm
Flop imminent. Abandon ship. (http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/)

With my expert analysis, I can boldly claim that I called it first (http://trollfightersoasis.createaforum.com/specific-new-release-discussions/passengers/msg110545/#msg110545)

Being the pessimist I am, I didn't want to make that prediction and jinx it. Still though, hats off to you for having the balls to make the call. I had my fingers crossed for this. Very pleased about it.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 27, 2016, 10:12:49 pm
Flop imminent. Abandon ship. (http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/)

Slightly above what Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was 5 years ago.  It has a chance at missing 100M at this point, although kind of like a 60% chance it misses and a 40% chance it makes it.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 27, 2016, 10:20:09 pm
Flop imminent. Abandon ship. (http://ew.com/movies/2016/12/26/box-office-report-rogue-one-reigns-again-passengers-flops/)
It brings me a degree of amusement to see a movie with that Kardashian reject bomb, I'm mildly concerned that studios will interpret its underperforming to be the result of audience aversion to originality rather than low quality (or some other stupid reason), and will expedite more franchise fodder. Yeah, that was happening already, but I would prefer that it not accelerate.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Jed Groff on December 30, 2016, 03:39:34 pm
Most underrated film of the year.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Tut on December 30, 2016, 03:42:17 pm
Most underrated film of the year.

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ill_kill_you_office.gif)
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 30, 2016, 06:52:37 pm
Most underrated film of the year.

I'd be saying this if it weren't for the final act.  Goddamn...it was bad.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Jed Groff on December 30, 2016, 09:24:35 pm
Most underrated film of the year.

I'd be saying this if it weren't for the final act.  Goddamn...it was bad.
I didn't exactly think the final act was bad, just a bit too by-the-numbers. I was expecting a twist.
Title: Re: Passengers
Post by: Jed Groff on December 30, 2016, 09:27:06 pm
One other small issue with this movie: if their ship was moving at half the speed of light, wouldn't they age at half the rate of earth time? If so, they would have only been in their 70s or 80s by the time the others woke up.