Passengers spoilers from post 58

FortuneChip · 20-09-2016 11:31am #1

Honestly, I was skeptical of this. Just a cash grab with two fairly bankable stars but... this trailer looks fantastic. Right amount of levity and gravity (puns not wholly intentional)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BWWWQzTpNU

Funny we've had a thread about Temp Tracks recently, there's a whole lot of "influences" here.

H3llR4iser · 20-09-2016 11:40am

I knew nothing about this movie, first time I even hear (see) it mentioned.

Few points:

- The ship interior looks phenomenal; First time since Star Trek: The Next Generation that I see a long-journey starship interior done properly, meaning it looks more like a cruise liner than a military submarine; If you have people spending years on board a ship, you wan it to be nice;

- I assume people are supposed to wake up at some point before the end of their 120-years journey, or the huge salon and mess hall would have zero purpose;

- The whole movie around only two actors might be a bit boring; Although Gravity showed us it can be pulled;

- I will be in Italy when it releases, don't fancy the sh1tty dubbing, so I may have to wait for home video release;

- Last and most important point: Chris Pratt gets stranded on a deserted spaceship for like 90 years, and the only other person around is Jennifer Lawrence. If it was me instead of Chris, the only other person would be a 56 years old male biker gang member with a B/O issue

;

cowboyBuilder · 20-09-2016 11:27pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I knew nothing about this movie, first time I even hear (see) it mentioned.

Few points:

- The ship interior looks phenomenal; First time since Star Trek: The Next Generation that I see a long-journey starship interior done properly, meaning it looks more like a cruise liner than a military submarine; If you have people spending years on board a ship, you wan it to be nice;

- I assume people are supposed to wake up at some point before the end of their 120-years journey, or the huge salon and mess hall would have zero purpose;

- The whole movie around only two actors might be a bit boring; Although Gravity showed us it can be pulled;

- I will be in Italy when it releases, don't fancy the sh1tty dubbing, so I may have to wait for home video release;

- Last and most important point: Chris Pratt gets stranded on a deserted spaceship for like 90 years, and the only other person around is Jennifer Lawrence. If it was me instead of Chris, the only other person would be a 56 years old male biker gang member with a B/O issue ;

First time I heard of it too, looks really good actually.

Is there no VO cinemas near you ?

just curious about Italy..

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 20-09-2016 11:47pm

When I read about this a while ago it sounded like they were keeping very quiet about the plot, but the trailer seems to show an awful lot. Still looks good though.

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 12:34am

Was curious about this until I saw the director.
Wanting to give it a second chance, I had a look at what else the writer has done.

I won't be checking this out.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 21-09-2016 12:39am

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Was curious about this until I saw the director.
Wanting to give it a second chance, I had a look at what else the writer has done.

I won't be checking this out.

Just looked up the director myself...hardly inspiring work besides the imitation game.

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 12:48am

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Just looked up the director myself...hardly inspiring work besides the imitation game.

Are you implying the Imitation Game was inspiring?!

I didn't like Headhunters and I haaaaated the Imitation Game. Morten Tyldum's elevation into $100 million+ budgets absolutely baffles me. That's territory for surefire franchise driven blockbusters and people with extremely solid track records behind them.

H3llR4iser · 21-09-2016 1:04am

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

First time I heard of it too, looks really good actually.

Is there no VO cinemas near you ?

just curious about Italy..

Every single movie gets completely redubbed in Italian; It's never been ideal, but until 15/20 years ago, there were a couple of extremely good dubbing studios in Italy which actually won many international awards. A voice actor named Ferruccio Amendola used to dub actors like De Niro and Hoffman; He did it so well, in fact, that Hoffman wanted to meet him after hearing "himself" speaking Italian to personally congratulate.

Since that specific generation of voice actors retired, however, it's gone down and down to the point it's now a joke - not only the acting is bad, it's often completely out of sync as well :mad:

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 1:17am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Every single movie gets completely redubbed in Italian; It's never been ideal, but until 15/20 years ago, there were a couple of extremely good dubbing studios in Italy which actually won many international awards. A voice actor named Ferruccio Amendola used to dub actors like De Niro and Hoffman; He did it so well, in fact, that Hoffman wanted to meet him after hearing "himself" speaking Italian to personally congratulate.

Since that specific generation of voice actors retired, however, it's gone down and down to the point it's now a joke - not only the acting is bad, it's often completely out of sync as well :mad:

Ooooh, interesting!
Doesn't this all stem from the quality of film equipment available in Italy after WW2 being really f*cking loud, so they wound up dubbing everything? The assumption films would be dubbed became part of the whole Italian filmmaking process (casting crazily attractive women who can't act at all, casting major foreign stars who don't know a word of Italian).
When even the Italian language films are dubbed, the notion of reading subtitles over dubbing became way less attractive than it did just about everywhere else.

That generation of voice actors were presumably cultivated from the time period where even Italian films would be dubbed, I assume?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 21-09-2016 1:31am

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Are you implying the Imitation Game was inspiring?!

I didn't like Headhunters and I haaaaated the Imitation Game. Morten Tyldum's elevation into $100 million+ budgets absolutely baffles me. That's territory for surefire franchise driven blockbusters and people with extremely solid track records behind them.

Don't know what order people were hired in but with the two most bankable stars in Hollywood on board it doesn't matter who the director is, it's a guaranteed money maker.

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 2:00am

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Don't know what order people were hired in but with the two most bankable stars in Hollywood on board it doesn't matter who the director is, it's a guaranteed money maker.

They're bankable until they're not. These big budget films need to make absolutely gigantic money to be considered a success (as they've to offset losses elsewhere and whatnot).

Lawrence is getting $20 million and 30% of the films profits after it breaks even.

A budget of $120 million coupled with (what appears will be) the biggest marketing campaign for a film this Christmas, the film won't break even unless it hits over $300 million.
Even accommodating for some clever accounting managing to hide that from Lawrence for one or two hundred million, this film is gonna have to make absolutely huge money for it to be considered a success.

Lawrence's role in all of this is very interesting. I think she's pretty great but I also think she's a bit **** at picking roles and more a naturally talented actor than one with much range, someone who's either destined to remain in really meh mainstream roles or to turn into a pretty brilliant character actor (or the latter via a decade or so of the former). The money is par for the course for a (male) lead in a big film, the huge percentage of the profit is veering into Tom Cruise empire building territory.

Michael Sheen has also finally found the role Hollywood was always going to eventually find a way for him to play, a cordial robot bartender :pac:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 21-09-2016 2:05am

^ I think Lawrence should steer clear of David O Russell for a while/forever. Although weirdly enough it's his films that keep getting her on the awards circuit. That means little as far as quality is concerned but it certainly helps her bring in the $.

cowboyBuilder · 21-09-2016 9:55am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Every single movie gets completely redubbed in Italian; It's never been ideal, but until 15/20 years ago, there were a couple of extremely good dubbing studios in Italy which actually won many international awards. A voice actor named Ferruccio Amendola used to dub actors like De Niro and Hoffman; He did it so well, in fact, that Hoffman wanted to meet him after hearing "himself" speaking Italian to personally congratulate.

Since that specific generation of voice actors retired, however, it's gone down and down to the point it's now a joke - not only the acting is bad, it's often completely out of sync as well :mad:

Same in Spain - but there are VO (Version Originale) cinemas that show in original audio with Spanish subtitles - surely it's the same in Italy.

Surprised about Hoffman to be honest, a dubbing "actor" is a hack, he sits in a studio and reads a script and gets credit for someone elses work.

Dubbing is a disgrace to cinema and an insult to an actors art.

It's always out of sync and just sounds wrong - at least in Spanish.

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 10:10am

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Same in Spain - but there are VO (Version Originale) cinemas that show in original audio with Spanish subtitles - surely it's the same in Italy.

Surprised about Hoffman to be honest, a dubbing "actor" is a hack, he sits in a studio and reads a script and gets credit for someone elses work.

Dubbing is a disgrace to cinema and an insult to an actors art.

It's always out of sync and just sounds wrong - at least in Spanish.

They literally get no credit at all, surely? There's very little incentive to be especially good at the art of dubbing.

As an actor himself, Hoffman would have to be some prick to not sympathise some with fellow actors who not only have to accept some pretty ****ty jobs to make a living but actually go to the effort of doing a good job.

cowboyBuilder · 21-09-2016 10:49am

They make a good living, the one actor usually does the voices for many lead actors so he can clean up nicely.

There is huge opposition to TV channels here broadcasting films in VO and VO cinemas because they don't want people getting to like the original version - too much $ loss.

Dubbing was originally done for illiterate people anyway, it needs to die.

H3llR4iser · 21-09-2016 11:36am

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Ooooh, interesting!
Doesn't this all stem from the quality of film equipment available in Italy after WW2 being really f*cking loud, so they wound up dubbing everything? The assumption films would be dubbed became part of the whole Italian filmmaking process (casting crazily attractive women who can't act at all, casting major foreign stars who don't know a word of Italian).

Yes, that's what was happening, even Italian productions were dubbed; If that happened for technical reasons due to the equipment quality, I don't know to be honest.

Other than the situation you outlined, which is something that happened all the time, directors/producers played heavily on the dubbing card by creating "Frankenstein characters" who would have the "face" of an actor and the voice of another.

One of the most relevant cases is that of movies starring Bud Spencer & Terence Hill; In most movies until the mid-80s they were both dubbed by actors different than themselves, as their low-pitched, somewhat booming voices were considered not a good fit for the lighthearted character of the comedies.

Chain Smoker wrote: »

When even the Italian language films are dubbed, the notion of reading subtitles over dubbing became way less attractive than it did just about everywhere else.

That generation of voice actors were presumably cultivated from the time period where even Italian films would be dubbed, I assume?

Exactly - the average Italian person can't cope with subtitles and will be actively put off watching a movie by them; As a matter of fact, the practice of overbearing dubbing has had profound cultural ramifications over the decades, as it wasn't only a matter of translations: even concepts, jokes and references have been "trans-cultured" in most movies. As a result, most Italians have a completely skewed view of foreign culture; Because characters in foreign movies use the same slang they do and refer to Italian culture tropes, they assume the entire world to be just an "extension of Italy", if I get the concept across...

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Same in Spain - but there are VO (Version Originale) cinemas that show in original audio with Spanish subtitles - surely it's the same in Italy.

There are, but they aren't especially popular (as I said above, the average Italian has zero command of the English language and hates subtitles) and therefore both rare and concentrated around tourist zones (there are a few in Rome city centre, for example, but zero near where my parents live - and I'll be over Christmas

).

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 21-09-2016 4:15pm

This looks terrible. I'm a huge fan of Chris Pratt and I like J-Law just fine, but the plot is just so 'meh' and it's gonna rely heavily on visuals. I've always put story before style myself and this story is just so uninspiring.

I absolutely detested Gravity for the same reasons, but hell people loved the bejaysus out of that nonsense, so what do I know?

H3llR4iser · 21-09-2016 7:20pm

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

This looks terrible. I'm a huge fan of Chris Pratt and I like J-Law just fine, but the plot is just so 'meh' and it's gonna rely heavily on visuals. I've always put story before style myself and this story is just so uninspiring.

I absolutely detested Gravity for the same reasons, but hell people loved the bejaysus out of that nonsense, so what do I know?

Unrelated, but best. Username. Ever.

Chain Smoker · 21-09-2016 8:11pm

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

This looks terrible. I'm a huge fan of Chris Pratt and I like J-Law just fine, but the plot is just so 'meh' and it's gonna rely heavily on visuals. I've always put story before style myself and this story is just so uninspiring.

I absolutely detested Gravity for the same reasons, but hell people loved the bejaysus out of that nonsense, so what do I know?

This'll be nothing like Gravity. It's a script that was being passed around Hollywood for close to a decade and is by a director who isn't at all noted for visual flair.

It's far more likely to be pretty okay than something that was always going to be quite divisive like Gravity.

Visually, I expect this to be a very expensive Nolan imitation but it's gotta be ultimately focused quite heavily on the two actors. It's really the kind of thing you'd expect to be made for significantly less (even accounting for the two leads fees).
That budget is nuts for a project like this though. It doesn't seem like something that has any particularly strong marketing angle beyond "YOU LIKE JENNIFER LAWRENCE, RIGHT?! AND YOU LIKE CHRIS PRATT, DON'T YOU?! AHHH YES!"

cowboyBuilder · 21-09-2016 9:27pm

I got a The Shining in Space vibe from that trailer, with the barman ... just me ?

Bacchus · 22-09-2016 11:24am

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I got a The Shining in Space vibe from that trailer, with the barman ... just me ?

I did too but I doubt they'll get anywhere remotely close to the suspense and creepiness that The Shining achieved. That scene with the barman going a bit beserk also brings on memories of Alien. So it kinda feels like their going for that creepy, isolation tone but it'll end up half done and just turn into a generic "we've got to save the ship from 'sploding" type movie in the final act.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 22-09-2016 11:28am

When this film was first announced the blurb said

he wakes up first and after getting lonely decides to wake someone else up

The trailer doesn't make it look like that. It's possible they've changed that completely but if it's still in there, and there's one line in the trailer that makes it seem like it might be, it could be a slightly different film than it looks.

FunLover18 · 22-09-2016 7:54pm

Will Jennifer Lawrence ever actually get to play a character her own age, or get a romantic lead her own age?

Chain Smoker · 22-09-2016 8:08pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Will Jennifer Lawrence ever actually get to play a character her own age, or get a romantic lead her own age?

When they start making films with major roles for characters her age that pay as much as she's able to command, I imagine she will.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 22-09-2016 8:27pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Will Jennifer Lawrence ever actually get to play a character her own age, or get a romantic lead her own age?

You could ask the same question for most actresses over the age of "passes for a teen".

Even Emma Thompson, at 57, was recently playing the wife of an 80 year old.

cowboyBuilder · 23-09-2016 3:32pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Will Jennifer Lawrence ever actually get to play a character her own age, or get a romantic lead her own age?

It's only 11 years between Chris Pratt and her - whatever about real life I think in the movie business this is fine.

FunLover18 · 23-09-2016 3:52pm

cowboyBuilder wrote:

It's only 11 years between Chris Pratt and her - whatever about real life I think in the movie business this is fine.

But you wouldn't get that the other way around. Anyway that's a wider issue worth a thread on its own right.

The movie looks good and Michael Sheen is always worth watching.

cowboyBuilder · 23-09-2016 3:54pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

But you wouldn't get that the other way around. Anyway that's a wider issue worth a thread on its own right.

The movie looks good and Michael Sheen is always worth watching.

ah of course not, sure wasn't Colin Firth at almost 60 the love interest of some 19 year old recently ?

puke..

Chain Smoker · 23-09-2016 5:31pm

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

ah of course not, sure wasn't Colin Firth at almost 60 the love interest of some 19 year old recently ?

puke..

To be fair, that was a Woody Allen film.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 23-09-2016 6:57pm

Chain Smoker wrote: »

To be fair, that was a Woody Allen film.

Didn't Emma Stone play Jaoquin Phoenix's love interest in a Woody Allen film too?

Chain Smoker · 23-09-2016 8:28pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Didn't Emma Stone play Jaoquin Phoenix's love interest in a Woody Allen film too?

Yes, but he's fifteen years younger than Firth so it pales in comparison to Firth and Stone in magic in the moonlight.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 23-09-2016 8:30pm

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Yes, but he's fifteen years younger than Firth so it pales in comparison to Firth and Stone in magic in the moonlight.

That's right, I forgot it was Emma Stone in that one too. She's not 19 though, as the previous poster suggested :eek:

cowboyBuilder · 23-09-2016 9:04pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's right, I forgot it was Emma Stone in that one too. She's not 19 though, as the previous poster suggested :eek:

I thought it was Antonia Clarke !! hehe

Sad Professor · 25-09-2016 9:31pm

There might be 11 years between them, but Pratt and Lawrence seem like a good match in terms of maturity. I mean, Lawrence has played older than herself so many times now that I'm not sure she can convincingly play her own age anymore. And Pratt is basically typecast as immature eternal bachelor types.

I think maturity is more important than age when it comes to on-screen couples. And maybe off-screen too.

AMKC · 25-11-2016 10:12pm

Anyone looking forward to this film. I think it looks good and I am looking forward to seeing it. The ship design looks interesting. Its star Jennifer Laurence and Chris Pratt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0968aYSHUXE&t=22s

JP Liz V1 · 13-12-2016 12:05am

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

It's only 11 years between Chris Pratt and her - whatever about real life I think in the movie business this is fine.

Wow they look near enough around same age to me :eek::o

Any critic reviews out yet?

Arghus · 13-12-2016 12:18am

Sad Professor wrote: »

There might be 11 years between them, but Pratt and Lawrence seem like a good match in terms of maturity. I mean, Lawrence has played older than herself so many times now that I'm not sure she can convincingly play her own age anymore. And Pratt is basically typecast as immature eternal bachelor types.

I think maturity is more important than age when it comes to on-screen couples. And maybe off-screen too.

One of the main reasons why I've grown tired of Jennifer Lawrence as an actress is that - particularly, in the films of David O. Russell - she seems, to me, woefully miscast in roles that would appear believable if played by an actress a decade older. She always makes me think of a kid in a school play, or a child playing dress-up.

Lukeskyrunner · 13-12-2016 9:55pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

But you wouldn't get that the other way around. .

Incorrect ,Man of Steel is the perfect example of why your wrong.Amy Adams is 42 Henry Cavill is 33

Chain Smoker · 20-12-2016 8:59am

Lukeskyrunner wrote: »

Incorrect ,Man of Steel is the perfect example of why your wrong.Amy Adams is 42 Henry Cavill is 33

One example really isn't sufficient to prove someone's wrong...

Anyway, looks like this one is bombing, what a surprise.

Bacchus · 20-12-2016 10:22am

Chain Smoker wrote: »

One example really isn't sufficient to prove someone's wrong...

... except it was. The other poster didn't say it wouldn't happen the other way around 10 times. He simply said it wouldn't happen the other way around... which clearly it has

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Anyway, looks like this one is bombing, what a surprise.

Pity, there was potential there for paranoia and an insane robot butler in space but I guess it was too much to hope from a movie that cast two of Hollywood's "they're so hot right now" actors.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 20-12-2016 10:35am

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Anyway, looks like this one is bombing, what a surprise.

Has it actually opened yet? I know the reviews are all mixed, at best, but I haven't seen any actual numbers for it.

The "twist", if you want to call it that, it was in the original release about the film when it was announced, is the thing that seems to be dividing people. I'd still be interested to see it, to see exactly how they deal, or don't deal with it, but I don't think I'd pay to go see it in the cinema.

Looper007 · 20-12-2016 1:21pm

Lukeskyrunner wrote: »

Incorrect ,Man of Steel is the perfect example of why your wrong.Amy Adams is 42 Henry Cavill is 33

The Studio did complain about it and wanted a young actress, Cavill stood up and said he had no problem with it. Adams bought it up in a interview on Graham Norton.

constitutionus · 21-12-2016 6:53pm

just back from it now.

i thought it was grand. its got a lovely gentle flow to it and IMO is a perfect date movie. the girl gets her chic flic fix and the lad gets the tech side and spectacle to stop him falling asleep.

i really had no idea what i'd think of this one going in but both leads do their job well and the relationships done believably enough.

7/10 from me.

ya dont need to see this in the cinema though so i wouldnt blame anyone putting it off till DVD/Blueray comes out, but its not a bad day out either.

MilesMorales1 · 21-12-2016 8:55pm

I thought it was absolute rubbish, personally.

Bacchus · 21-12-2016 9:15pm

constitutionus wrote: »

just back from it now.
i thought it was grand. its got a lovely gentle flow to it and IMO is a perfect date movie. the girl gets her chic flic fix and the lad gets the tech side and spectacle to stop him falling asleep.

Having lost interest in it I read up on the plot and this isn't a spoiler to say as it is very early in the movie.... though maybe it is to some so avert your eyes...

Is it really a chic flick? The premise is that this guy doomed to die alone, obsesses over a hot girl as she sleeps, and then decides he loves her so wakes her up, essentially dooming her to the same fate, stealing her life away from her. Great premise for a creepy thriller. Not so much a romantic movie.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 21-12-2016 9:23pm

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

I thought it was absolute rubbish, personally.

10/10 for the review anyway.

constitutionus · 22-12-2016 3:56pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Having lost interest in it I read up on the plot and this isn't a spoiler to say as it is very early in the movie.... though maybe it is to some so avert your eyes...

Is it really a chic flick? The premise is that this guy doomed to die alone, obsesses over a hot girl as she sleeps, and then decides he loves her so wakes her up, essentially dooming her to the same fate, stealing her life away from her. Great premise for a creepy thriller. Not so much a romantic movie.

except

they completly bottle it in the end when she has the option to go back to sleep in the medical pod but stays with him "cause she loves him"

i didnt say it was a healty chic flic , but girl in an abusive relationship that turns out well in the end is a trope for that lot and it fits in this film.

that said i DID like how that all played out. it was quite dark and prob the most interesting part of the flim IMO. puls im amazed in this PC age no one seems to have a problem with her near putting a crow bar through his head.

RayCun · 22-12-2016 5:29pm

Putting a crowbar through his head sounds like a very reasonable and forgiving thing to do in the circumstances

AMKC · 22-12-2016 10:42pm

constitutionus wrote: »

just back from it now.

i thought it was grand. its got a lovely gentle flow to it and IMO is a perfect date movie. the girl gets her chic flic fix and the lad gets the tech side and spectacle to stop him falling asleep.

i really had no idea what i'd think of this one going in but both leads do their job well and the relationships done believably enough.

7/10 from me.

ya dont need to see this in the cinema though so i wouldnt blame anyone putting it off till DVD/Blueray comes out, but its not a bad day out either.

Cheaper to go see it in the cinema than to buy it on DVD/Bluray unless you wait a few years when they are really cheap but in a few years discs might be very rare and hard to get the way things are going and as you said if you go to see it in the cinema its not a bad day out.

Mr E · 23-12-2016 10:35am

Saw this last night and enjoyed it. A solid 7/10 for me.

The reviews are overly harsh - it doesn't deserve the roasting that it got.

Chain Smoker · 26-12-2016 10:30am

constitutionus wrote: »

ya dont need to see this in the cinema though so i wouldnt blame anyone putting it off till DVD/Blueray comes out, but its not a bad day out either.

Interesting, this is the vibe I got from the trailer that had me so strongly expecting it to flop. As much as people go on about the misogynistic elements of the plot or whatever, this is far more damaging to its potential success.

It's got that Nolan level budget and original sci fis really need that visual flair to justify the budget, but the director didn't seem at all capable of it.

Can you elaborate on why you don't need to see it in the cinema? There's surely some attempts at visual spectacle in it?

Passengers *spoilers from post 58*

Comments

Passengers spoilers from post 58