I wonder how much Andy Garcia was paid for his role.

imjustsayin said:

---

I wonder how much Andy Garcia was paid for his role.

---

SPOILER
I read that the ending was the hardest part of the script for them to film. They actually filmed multiple endings and one of them was Garcia wandering around the vessel looking at the remnants of the previous 90 years. It was supposed to be a decent cameo, but at the end of the day, they decided against using it.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

imjustsayin said:

---

I wonder how much Andy Garcia was paid for his role.

---

SPOILER
I read that the ending was the hardest part of the script for them to film. They actually filmed multiple endings and one of them was Garcia wandering around the vessel looking at the remnants of the previous 90 years. It was supposed to be a decent cameo, but at the end of the day, they decided against using it.

---

Hopefully they include that as an extra when it comes out on blu-ray / iTunes.

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Would you recommend seeing it, or is it too vanilla?

Honestly, I would wait for streaming.

Vanilla is a really good description for this movie. Not bad (though there were certainly some acting moments and lines that make me think "wow, thats bad") and not great (though there were maybe 2 moments of "wow, thats great").

i thought the bartender was the best actor.

But naked JLaw?????

aggiesq said:

---

Vanilla is a really good description for this movie. Not bad (though there were certainly some acting moments and lines that make me think "wow, thats bad") and not great (though there were maybe 2 moments of "wow, thats great").

i thought the bartender was the best actor.

---

Despite his politics, I love Michael Sheen. He is in the upper echelon of supporting actors. His one scene in Nocturnal Animals was fantastic and he had the best role in the forgettable TRON sequel.

Just got back from the theatre with Mrs. Martin, and we both loved it. We're incurable romantics, but I refuse to apologize for enjoying this movie. The only thing I'm disappointed in is that a lot of other people who would also enjoy it will be scared off by an undeserved low RT score.

TCTTS said:

---

Honestly, I would wait for streaming.

---

We're really glad we saw it now on a big screen. The Avalon sets and visual effects are impressive. I thought it was worth the ticket, certainly.

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

Wife and I saw it yesterday and we both loved it.

Saw it today. Not the one of the best movies ever, but I wasn't expecting it to be to be honest. It was a good and entertaining movie though. I think the critics and ratings are low and harsh. About the only cringeworthy thing was the "you die, I die" line. The visuals were stunning, and there were some funny and tense parts. I think the previous comparison to the first part being a little like "Last Man on Earth" were spot on.

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I thought that was a very smart addition too. Moreover, Jim could have stayed silent and kept the Autodoc's capabilities to himself, but didn't. There's some redemption in that.

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

---

Jim's and Gus' pod malfunctions were caused by the cascading system failures, which were getting so frequent and critical that the loss of the ship and 5,255 other innocent people was certain. If Aurora had refused to help Jim save the ship, would she not be an even bigger monster than Jim?

Quote:

---

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

---

If Jim had stayed dead, Aurora would have been doomed to 88 years of solitude. How is that a happy ending for her? Maybe after a year or two of loneliness, she makes the same choice and wakes up someone else. Would that be preferable?

Quote:

---

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

---

That's a legitimate criticism; it was discussed earlier in the thread before the movie released. But recall that it took an asteroid hit that punctured the ship and damaged the reactor, eventually leading to multiple system failures before overwhelming the damage control systems, to lead to two pod failures.

G Martin 87 said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

---

Jim's and Gus' pod malfunctions were caused by the cascading system failures, which were getting so frequent and critical that the loss of the ship and 5,255 other innocent people was certain. If Aurora had refused to help Jim save the ship, would she not be an even bigger monster than Jim?

Quote:

---

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

---

If Jim had stayed dead, Aurora would have been doomed to 88 years of solitude. How is that a happy ending for her? Maybe after a year or two of loneliness, she makes the same choice and wakes up someone else. Would that be preferable?

Quote:

---

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

---

That's a legitimate criticism; it was discussed earlier in the thread before the movie released. But recall that it took an asteroid hit that punctured the ship and damaged the reactor, eventually leading to multiple system failures before overwhelming the damage control systems, to lead to two pod failures.

---

To the last point, having worked in an industry with large scale mechanical and electronic instruments, I think many people would be surprised how often "whatever proof" elements break or malfunction and how inadequate backup or compensation mechanisms often don't do anything to fix the issue. It is not quite as far fetched as it sounds.

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

that explains why they only had 1 of those on a ship with 5000 people.

G Martin 87 said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

---

Jim's and Gus' pod malfunctions were caused by the cascading system failures, which were getting so frequent and critical that the loss of the ship and 5,255 other innocent people was certain. If Aurora had refused to help Jim save the ship, would she not be an even bigger monster than Jim?

Quote:

---

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

---

If Jim had stayed dead, Aurora would have been doomed to 88 years of solitude. How is that a happy ending for her? Maybe after a year or two of loneliness, she makes the same choice and wakes up someone else. Would that be preferable?

Quote:

---

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

---

That's a legitimate criticism; it was discussed earlier in the thread before the movie released. But recall that it took an asteroid hit that punctured the ship and damaged the reactor, eventually leading to multiple system failures before overwhelming the damage control systems, to lead to two pod failures.

---

1. My point is rather than have her actually decide to forgive him (part of this supposedly brilliant moral dilemma this movie is) they instead put her in a position where her emotions don't actually matter, she has to participate in an action movie All the questions about morality or put aside for a run of the mill blockbuster ending

2. Again, if this story is actually about morality, maybe it's not supposed to have a happy ending? Maybe he dies and she tragically lives out her days, maybe she does the same thing he did, maybe she agrees and gets in the medical pod (as someone else said...only 1? another dumb thing about this ship). Instead, they did exactly what so many critics have pointed out: turn it into an action flick where everything works out for the hot guy as long as he does some manly things.

3. I don't remember them saying if the asteroid is what made everything turn on. I thought they said it started with one small thing...one pod coming malfunctioning, as if the machines being on was normal.

I will say this: the best scene in the movie was when she went into his bedroom and beat the **** out of him. That part of the movie should have been longer. They showed the anger, but she also should have been afraid of him. She should have been carrying a knife around as he stalked her around the ship...instead they just agreed joint custody of the bartender

Ag Since 83 said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

---

Jim's and Gus' pod malfunctions were caused by the cascading system failures, which were getting so frequent and critical that the loss of the ship and 5,255 other innocent people was certain. If Aurora had refused to help Jim save the ship, would she not be an even bigger monster than Jim?

Quote:

---

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

---

If Jim had stayed dead, Aurora would have been doomed to 88 years of solitude. How is that a happy ending for her? Maybe after a year or two of loneliness, she makes the same choice and wakes up someone else. Would that be preferable?

Quote:

---

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

---

That's a legitimate criticism; it was discussed earlier in the thread before the movie released. But recall that it took an asteroid hit that punctured the ship and damaged the reactor, eventually leading to multiple system failures before overwhelming the damage control systems, to lead to two pod failures.

---

1. My point is rather than have her actually decide to forgive him (part of this supposedly brilliant moral dilemma this movie is) they instead put her in a position where her emotions don't actually matter, she has to participate in an action movie All the questions about morality or put aside for a run of the mill blockbuster ending

2. Again, if this story is actually about morality, maybe it's not supposed to have a happy ending? Maybe he dies and she tragically lives out her days, maybe she does the same thing he did, maybe she agrees and gets in the medical pod (as someone else said...only 1? another dumb thing about this ship). Instead, they did exactly what so many critics have pointed out: turn it into an action flick where everything works out for the hot guy as long as he does some manly things.

3. I don't remember them saying if the asteroid is what made everything turn on. I thought they said it started with one small thing...one pod coming malfunctioning, as if the machines being on was normal.

I will say this: the best scene in the movie was when she went into his bedroom and beat the **** out of him. That part of the movie should have been longer. They showed the anger, but she also should have been afraid of him. She should have been carrying a knife around as he stalked her around the ship...instead they just agreed joint custody of the bartender

---

I will counter point #1 a bit...I was thinking about this during and whether this was some cheap copout but.....

What actually happened was the ship was in crisis mode but even then she wasn't just all forgiving there was a bit of yeah we are in this together and gotta survive somehow. but she didn't really forgive him, there was no real emotional scene until after he had basically sacrificed himself - for not only her but for the entire ship of passengers. He lived - or more to the point she rescued him and revived him. But it wasn't that it was simply action for actions sake and a blockbuster ending - they did create an ethical moment for him in which he redeemed himself in her eyes. that actually worked for me.

I've been loving the big budget sci-fi movies the last several years. I stayed away from reviews, this thread, and trailers of Passengers.

My one thought while leaving the theater out was "Forgettable".

Disappointed, because I wanted this to be so much better.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Ag Since 83 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Finally saw it with the family tonight. Not nearly as bad as the critics are making it out to be, but man, it was about the most vanilla version of the script they could have possibly made. Just so incredibly generic on every level. We got the Wal-Mart version of Passengers. I at least wanted the Target version, if not the made-with-love mom & pop version.

Oh, and **** the feminists. Given the scenario, the filmmakers bent over backwards to handle the issue in a tasteful and level-headed way. I mean, I guess I understand their complaints on a basic, knee-jerk level, but good gosh, people are freaking out over that? Get a life.

---

Honest question: What exactly are you referring to as "tasteful" and "level-headed"?

---

A bunch of critics, feminists, and feminist critics freaked out about the plot, one built around Pratt's character - a man - taking away the "agency" of Lawrence's character, a woman. And worse yet, he not only gets away with it, and she not only forgives him, but by the end of the movie she's more in love with him than ever. A lot of people were "disgusted" by that. One prominent female critic even kept saying Pratt's character "murdered" Lawrence's character and said she's never been more aghast at the end of a movie.

But one thing that wasn't in the script, that they added in the final version, was Pratt's character giving Lawrence's character the choice to once again go back into cryo sleep, which I thought was a really nice touch. I'm sure some will complain that it's not a man's place to be the one giving her that choice, but whatever. Point is, between that and, you know, the ENTIRE MOVIE questioning the horrible moral choice Pratt's character made, I truly do not see what all the fuss is about.

---

I disagree. The entire movie did not question the choice. It questioned it for a bit, but then it descended into a generic "gotta save the day" popcorn flick. They made it so that Aurora had to work with him rather than choose to. Additionally, they have LF show up just long enough to excuse Jim's behavior (and provide the information they needed of course).

---

Jim's and Gus' pod malfunctions were caused by the cascading system failures, which were getting so frequent and critical that the loss of the ship and 5,255 other innocent people was certain. If Aurora had refused to help Jim save the ship, would she not be an even bigger monster than Jim?

Quote:

---

If Jim had actually stayed dead (which if the story had made any sense he would have), maybe it would have been somewhat redeeming, but the movie instead wants you to root for a happy ending for him, which is just ridiculous.

---

If Jim had stayed dead, Aurora would have been doomed to 88 years of solitude. How is that a happy ending for her? Maybe after a year or two of loneliness, she makes the same choice and wakes up someone else. Would that be preferable?

Quote:

---

Not to mention how stupid the premise of the movie is to begin with: this company has made thousands of flights without any back up systems in case of pod failure? Tons of robots, but none with the capability of diagnosing and reparing the ship? No emergency "wake up the crew" procedure if something goes wrong? And yet, all the computers to entertain the guests who aren't even supposed to be awake for nearly a century are on and acting like all is normal.

---

That's a legitimate criticism; it was discussed earlier in the thread before the movie released. But recall that it took an asteroid hit that punctured the ship and damaged the reactor, eventually leading to multiple system failures before overwhelming the damage control systems, to lead to two pod failures.

---

1. My point is rather than have her actually decide to forgive him (part of this supposedly brilliant moral dilemma this movie is) they instead put her in a position where her emotions don't actually matter, she has to participate in an action movie All the questions about morality or put aside for a run of the mill blockbuster ending

2. Again, if this story is actually about morality, maybe it's not supposed to have a happy ending? Maybe he dies and she tragically lives out her days, maybe she does the same thing he did, maybe she agrees and gets in the medical pod (as someone else said...only 1? another dumb thing about this ship). Instead, they did exactly what so many critics have pointed out: turn it into an action flick where everything works out for the hot guy as long as he does some manly things.

3. I don't remember them saying if the asteroid is what made everything turn on. I thought they said it started with one small thing...one pod coming malfunctioning, as if the machines being on was normal.

I will say this: the best scene in the movie was when she went into his bedroom and beat the **** out of him. That part of the movie should have been longer. They showed the anger, but she also should have been afraid of him. She should have been carrying a knife around as he stalked her around the ship...instead they just agreed joint custody of the bartender

---

I will counter point #1 a bit...I was thinking about this during and whether this was some cheap copout but.....

What actually happened was the ship was in crisis mode but even then she wasn't just all forgiving there was a bit of yeah we are in this together and gotta survive somehow. but she didn't really forgive him, there was no real emotional scene until after he had basically sacrificed himself - for not only her but for the entire ship of passengers. He lived - or more to the point she rescued him and revived him. But it wasn't that it was simply action for actions sake and a blockbuster ending - they did create an ethical moment for him in which he redeemed himself in her eyes. that actually worked for me.

---

I'm a bit behind on this thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. Here's what I took away from that bit as well:

When Jim made the decision that he would have to sacrifice himself to save the entire ship, Aurora was going to be faced with the same dilemma that Jim was. Either live alone or condemn someone else to dying outside of the pod. Him redeeming himself in willing to make the sacrifice to save the ship and the other passengers, and then Aurora being faced with the same decision if Jim died worked for me. Though, I found her emotional in the moment decision to die rather than save the other 5000 people on the ship to be completely selfish, death was apparently going to be her preference than condemning another passenger to die after being awakened, or spending the rest of he trip alone until her death. I think what would have reinforced that decision was for her to save him or die trying, but there wasn't really any EVA type of equipment shown that I can recall beyond the suits and she saved him without really putting herself at risk from what I remember.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. Though, this isn't going to be something I'll go out of my way to see again.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

imjustsayin said:

---

I wonder how much Andy Garcia was paid for his role.

---

SPOILER
I read that the ending was the hardest part of the script for them to film. They actually filmed multiple endings and one of them was Garcia wandering around the vessel looking at the remnants of the previous 90 years. It was supposed to be a decent cameo, but at the end of the day, they decided against using it.

---

So what you're saying is that this might get the Blade Runner treatment with a director's cut and an ultimate cut?

Just saw it, and we liked it. I'm pretty good at ignoring plot holes and disregarding what critics and others complain about.

Speaking of Blade Runner, the trailer for Blade Runner 2049 was shown before it.

Just got back.

I enjoyed it. I am glad I saw it on the big screen because of the ship, the vistas of space, and so on.

I have a few minor complaints.

I like Chris Pratt as a movie star, but this movie puts him next to two people who are excellent actors, Michael Sheen (the bartender) and Lawrence Fishburne, who I think steals the movie in the small amount of screen time he gets. Pratt is a quite limited and shallow actor and it is made more apparent by the work of those other two.

Jennifer Lawrence does pretty well acting. She is an odd-looking person, though, and is wearing too much eye make-up here.

It is a bit problematic how they managed to have wild space sex for all those years without producing offspring, even unintentionally.

At any rate, I thought it was a pretty good popcorn flick.

OldArmy71 said:

---

It is a bit problematic how they managed to have wild space sex for all those years without producing offspring, even unintentionally.

---

I keep seeing people say this. They had kids. That's what the final shot was hinting at. There was a treehouse and all kinds of paraphernalia in that main concourse area that alluded to them having had a family.

I didn't notice that at all. Humm. That actually generates all sorts of other ethical issues.

By the way, has anyone mentioned that Aurora is the name of the princess in Disney's Sleeping Beauty.

Here's the final scene of a 2013 draft, which is closer to the final product, but fairly different from the original 2007 draft. What I thought was a children's treehouse in that shot is referred to here as a "cottage" - the house Jim always said he wanted to build for Aurora - with no reference to a family. So maybe you're right. Still, I can't remember the exact details, but there were definitely things in that final shot that absolutely made me think all that was for a family and not just two people...

Well, we're clearly going to have to get someone to volunteer to see it again for us and take a careful look at that last shot!