Passengers

[Ghost X]

Looks mildly interesting.

 

[Tetsujin]

I'm intrigued.

 

[Shademp]

I didn't expect Starlord to hook up with Mystique, but here we are.

 

[ForceStealer]

I swear I saw a trailer for this before, like months ago. Maybe as a movie preview? Or some sort of extended preview with the actors talking about it?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I didn't expect Starlord to hook up with Mystique, but here we are.

Well, Rocket Raccoon already has, so why not?

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Oh man, I am 100% onboard for this.




X

 

[Ghost X]

Going by reviews, this movie should apparently come with a trigger warning . What were they thinking?

Spoiler

Pratt's character wakes up too early, and then wakes up Lawrence's character -- without her consent -- after researching her for quite some time. Stalker fantasy much? Apparently this was brushed under the rug in the movie like it was not really a major issue .

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I guess the guys who wrote the script thought that scenario sounded 'romantic'? Ugh. Judging by the trailer, him waking her up early saves her life, so see how it was the right thing to do?

 

[Ghost X]

I don't like deceptive marketing .

 

[Cthulhu]

I guess the guys who wrote the script thought that scenario sounded 'romantic'?

Well, Twilight did it and got away with it and raised its own generation of girls that want to be watched at night, so,

 

[Octo]

I dunno.

Spoiler

I mean, I have no idea what the context of the film actually is. Presumably if you were in that situation, -woken up in the middle of a light years long space journey, you'd want to wake at least one person up too right? So who do you wake up? Someone you're not even going to get along with? Wouldn't it make sense to find out who they are if there's a likely chance that you're going to be spending the rest of your life with them?

However. Why only wake one person up? Why not a few? Especially as it's likely you're going to have to solve problems, surely more people means more expertise or insight (or at least makes it more likely?) Is this even going to be explained in the film? Seems like a bit of a plothole.

edited for spoiler tags

 

[Ghost X]

Well...

Spoiler

It becomes less of a selfish choice if he wakes people up to help him fix the ship, but Lawrence's character is a journalist in the film. It doesn't seem she was exactly selected for fixing the ship or for her potential in being able to do so, I am guessing .

 

[Octo]

I suppose what I'm saying is

Spoiler: potential spoiler

If you had to wake someone up in that particular situation, wouldn't you choose someone that you could potentially boff - assuming that he thought they would be compatible from reading about her? Even if he didn't think she could be of any particular help in the situation.

But again I'd have to watch the film in its entirety to make any kind of certain judgement, and that ain;t going to happen cos it looks pigshit boring.


The stupid part is if he didn't go on to wake anybody else up. I don't know if this is going to be explained in the film, if maybe there is a reason he couldn't? Or perhaps all the ships functions are automated and no matter how many people are awake it wouldn't help?

Either way it seems pretty dumb from both a writing and in-universe perspective. Furthermore, maybe it's just been marketed wrong. If they'd gone with 'moral dilemmas in SPAAAAACE' or hell even turned it into a psychological thriller instead of er.... some bullshit romance in a sci fi context. It seems to be getting shit reviews anyway

 

[Cthulhu]

Huh. I was going to go see it, but it's not out here yet. Boo.

(probably to not clash with Rogue oen

 

[Ghost X]

@Octo:

Spoiler

I'm arguing you shouldn't wake anyone up in that situation :p. I realise people go insane being alone, and that could be a threat to the mission, but it doesn't sound like the movie explores that angle.

 

[Octo]

So

Spoiler

You'd just be on your own? In space? Forever? Billy No-Mates. Literally Forever Alone. You've made me sad thinking about that.....

I mean, I suppose eventually you'd just have to get into a relationship with Robot Micheal Sheen. I think he's cool and all. But he has a unicycle for a lower half..... I don't know if that would improve things for you or not.

 

[Flare]

Spoiler: Spoiler about a movie I know nothing about but anyways replying to Octo

In the scenario of waking up accidentally on a spaceship and he wakes only one other person up, could be because he's selfish and doesn't want to be alone (I mean who would, right?) or for some other reason, and as for not waking any other person up, well if he wakes them all up would it screw up the mission (everyone's awake yet the journey will still take another 80 years)? So if there's a ship problem, could be torn between "I need some help and so I wake someone else up, but I don't want to ruin everyone's mission so I can't wake up everyone... I'll wake up the one I like the most"

 

[Ghost X]

Spoiler

If I were to do what Pratt does in the film, I think it certainly wouldn't be an easy decision, and then I'd be riddled with debilitating guilt for the rest of my life :p.

I try to think of analogous situations. Eg: I'm an eccentric hermit in a castle. All attempts made of trying to mix with people in a nearby village are unsuccessful. Not wanting to be Forever Alone, I go on the internet, and find a woman I think is just like me, abduct them, and have them live in my basement with me for 90 years :p. That or Chelsea Manning manages to abduct someone to live with her in solitary confinement :p.

 

[Octo]

But

Spoiler

you have a castle right?

 

[Carlie]

So as it turns out the interesting trailers, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence were hiding a creepily terrible movie full of unfortunate implications. This review explains it really well. There's zero chance I'm watching this now.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I've been seeing that description of the movie as

Spoiler

Stockholm Syndrome thrown around a lot, and it seems like a, frankly, stupid way of characterizing anything that isn't actually Stockholm Syndrome. I mean, yeah, I get that the movie raises some potentially interesting questions about trust, forgiveness, morality, mental illness, etc. and, thus, has some shortcomings because it doesn't seem to explore them -- but still, that's an overblown description for what audiences can apparently expect to see.

And that review seems to answer its own confusion: Why should Aurora be afraid of Jim if, as they seem so intent to drive home, Jim has already destroyed her life and anything she had to live for? Why should she care if her death comes in 50 years or five minutes? =P

For that matter, do we have to force that mindset of "You lied to me, so I'm going to act like you're trying to kill me" on the character to take them as believable? Is it not thoroughly believable that she could thoroughly understand why someone in Jim's situation would do what he did and be angry about it without being terrified of him? Or is that a necessary ingredient for this to be "realistic" because "clichés!"?

Sure, by not digging into the questions the film raised, it seems to have fallen into pushing other clichés. I just don't see how adopting another one in their place would necessarily make the movie any better. "The Force Awakens" would not have benefitted from a forced subplot where Rey is furious with Finn for not telling her he was actually a Stormtrooper who defected, would it? But that's the writing choice 99 out of 100 productions would have taken.

Seems like a lot of weak arguments to make in a review -- and because of these weaknesses, it makes me more interested in seeing the movie rather than less. But I'll wait until it comes to Redbox or Netflix.

 

[Carlie]

Spoiler

For that matter, do we have to force that mindset of "You lied to me, so I'm going to act like you're trying to kill me" on the character to take them as believable? Is it not thoroughly believable that she could thoroughly understand why someone in Jim's situation would do what he did and be angry about it without being terrified of him? Or is that a necessary ingredient for this to be "realistic" because "clichés!"?

Spoiler

The thing is after she finds out he lied and leaves him, he starts stalking her all over the ship which is the kind of behavior a villain in a suspense movie would exhibit. And why wouldn't she be afraid of him? As it turns out she doesn't know this guy at all. He was selfish and he was more than willing to continue duping her for the rest of her life, she would wonder what else could he be capable of?

I feel like the movie's logic into the viewers sympathizing with the protagonist was "well yeah he did some shitty things but he's played by Christ Pratt who's charming and lovable so how could you not sympathize with him?"

Spoiler

"The Force Awakens" would not have benefitted from a forced subplot where Rey is furious with Finn for not telling her he was actually a Stormtrooper who defected, would it? But that's the writing choice 99 out of 100 productions would have taken.

Spoiler

But Finn lying was about his past not about anything he did to Rey.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Spoiler

The thing is after she finds out he lied and leaves him, he starts stalking her all over the ship which is the kind of behavior a villain in a suspense movie would exhibit.

Spoiler

Sure, but I'd like to see how it was handled (e.g. passage of time) before I make too many judgments about that particular plot point.

Spoiler

And why wouldn't she be afraid of him?

Spoiler

If the reviewer is to be believed, because she has nothing to live for and would be better off dead anyway.

It could very well be the intention of the screenwriter, though, that she not only doesn't quite feel ready to give up on life but that she also feels she at least knows the guy well enough to believe he's not going to chop her up into pieces despite his selfish, hurtful decision (that he made after a year of a situation that would drive most people insane).

Honestly, I'm glad to know ahead of time that there won't be a subplot where she's worrying about that. I wouldn't take it as a believable reaction if the character suddenly started acting like she thought she was in danger of imminent harm.

If a wife comes home from work early to find her husband/the father of her kids boinking someone else behind her back and he was willing to keep that a secret from her for the rest of her life, she might say or think "I don't know who you are" -- but is it a logical leap that she means it to the extent she might fear he's going to kill her now?

Spoiler

I feel like the movie's logic into the viewers sympathizing with the protagonist was "well yeah he did some shitty things but he's played by Christ Pratt who's charming and lovable so how could you not sympathize with him?"

Spoiler

That may be the case. Hopefully the film does a better job with exploring some of the sanity crippling effects of a year's solitude on someone unprepared for the situation than it apparently does exploring other opportunities it had.

We are, after all, supposed to see this character as an ordinary person (not an astronaut) who had no expectation of being in such a crap spot, nor any training to deal with it. Maybe not even a mental evaluation to determine their fortitude in a worst case scenario.

Spoiler

"The Force Awakens" would not have benefitted from a forced subplot where Rey is furious with Finn for not telling her he was actually a Stormtrooper who defected, would it? But that's the writing choice 99 out of 100 productions would have taken.

Spoiler

But Finn lying was about his past not about anything he did to Rey.

Spoiler

Eh, if one really wanted to push the issue, they could argue he put her in some degree of danger since he's a Stormtrooper who went AWOL, and is apparently recognizable to other Stormtroopers -- but that's not the point I was making at all.

The point I was making is that, as Finn revealed the truth to her, I was digging my fingers into the arms of my seat hoping against hope that the next thing out of her mouth would not be "Why didn't you tell me?" (when the answer is self-evident) in that annoying inflection we've heard a billion times in other movies and TV shows that feel the need to play up the drama of a lie.

I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[HylianMogget]

I hadn't heard of this movie before, but the reviews are killing any interest I might have had in it. It's too bad they didn't decide to handle the plot more philosophically or subversively, because the premise

Spoiler

that is, exploring the moral choice of waking someone else up (effectively destroying what life they could have had) or choosing isolation.

itself is quite strong. The Vox review covers its wasted potential well.

Spoiler

It sounds like the setup for what could be a fascinating sci-fi short story. You could even go the "hell is other people" route with it - isolation is sure to induce insanity but interacting with only one other person for the rest of your life sounds potentially maddening, too. The review does seem to indicate that the movie touches upon Chris Pratt's character's desperation before waking up a second person, but (again, judging from the review) it doesn't follow through with exploring the implications of that action. The premise seems like it would be better suited for an indie film or something rather than a flashy, romantic Hollywood one. Maybe I'm just a cynical person, but it's really weird to me that someone could wring a cheesy romance out of a dilemma that seems like it would - depending on what one chooses to do - very likely result in either guilt or insanity (or both).

Spoiler

If a wife comes home from work early to find her husband/the father of her kids boinking someone else behind her back and he was willing to keep that a secret from her for the rest of her life, she might say or think "I don't know who you are" -- but is it a logical leap that she means it to the extent she might fear he's going to kill her now?

Spoiler

But waking someone up from cryosleep more than a lifetime away from their destination is tantamount to, if not killing them, at least life imprisonment (even if it's a comfortable prison) in the sense that they've taken away whatever future the person would have had (and definitively separated them from everyone they'd ever known). The circumstances are extraordinary, but it's a fundamentally callous act.

Edit: adding onto the last bit ^

Spoiler

If someone's willing to wake you up from cryosleep in that such a situation, it's not unreasonable to assume that they'd kill you for not returning their affection once woken up (whether out of actual malice or insanity).

 

[ForceStealer]

Spoiler

But waking someone up from cryosleep more than a lifetime away from their destination is tantamount to, if not killing them, at least life imprisonment

Spoiler

Definitely the latter. The conflation of life imprisonment with execution that all these reviews are exhibiting is a curious one...