Author Topic: Passengers  (Read 356 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23343
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Passengers
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2017, 12:51:57 AM »
What I have to disagree with is the story. It's not that great. It begins as a stranded-alone segment, evolves into a weak romance and then escalates into fight-the-clock action. None of those elements are particularly well done, they're just serviceable.

The premise here is just what makes sci-fi such an exciting genre. It can push its characters to places no other genre can. New worlds, new technologies, new dilemmas. As much as it is "a stranded-alone" film, it's unlike any stranded alone film we've seen. The particulars of the situation add so many wrinkles to that would-be, well-worn path. What stranded-alone film before now has seen it's character this well provisioned? Stranded-alone films are typically survival stories. In this stranded alone story it would take deliberate action NOT to survive. He has unlimited food, a medical facility... his life is not in danger. So he's not so much stranded as situated. If it were a case of having to work to survive, I don't think waking up another mouth to feed would occur to him. But when you have all else covered, loneliness sets in. With everything the ship provides, games, a bar, sports, spacewalks, and great big ship to roam, all for his sole enjoyment, who could content themselves with that for the remainder of their lives? What would you do in his shoes?


DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Passengers
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2017, 06:01:23 AM »
It sounds great when you say it, but as in most movies, the problem is the execution. I'm not sure how I would change it, but none o it was very compelling. The economics o that venture gave me more to think about than Pratt's character and the best bits were reliably the ones with Michael Sheen.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23343
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Passengers
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2017, 12:15:57 AM »
It sounds great when you say it, but as in most movies, the problem is the execution. I'm not sure how I would change it, but none o it was very compelling. The economics o that venture gave me more to think about than Pratt's character and the best bits were reliably the ones with Michael Sheen.

I really enjoyed Sheen's presence as well! :)

What were the economic elements you recall finding interesting? I did find it amusing that for a year Jim had been eating economy-class grade chow, and then Jennifer Lawrence shows up and is getting a top class breakfast. It seemed like that class-based distinction really only extended to the first meal of the day though, because I don't remember the bar or restaurant making any differentiation. And there was no recreational areas off-limits to Jim if I recall correctly. They didn't dig into that part much.


DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Passengers
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2017, 04:40:36 AM »
I spent a half hour after the movie geeking out with a friend to figure out the travel company's business plan. We came to the conclusion that it was insane and impossible, but it was fun to think about it.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

dassix

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Passengers
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2017, 08:24:56 PM »
I read a lot of negative reviews before this one and almost skipped it because of that.  Thankfully I did not, as I actually enjoyed this film.  I could think of dozens of actresses and actors that would have been better than the Pratt and Lawrence - which would have helped with the execution. Darkening was correct, the execution was somewhat bad. 

"This lever I need to pull is too hot, don't worry I'll take off this shirt I have to use as a protective element."  -Because Jennifer is in the movie
"Why don't we wake up the crew to help?  There's no time!"  -Plot hole #1

DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Passengers
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2017, 04:03:49 AM »
The crew thing actually made sense. It would take half an hour just to get them up to speed.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

dassix

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Passengers
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2017, 09:32:55 AM »
I just couldn't understand how they knew they couldn't spare those 30 minutes. At this point in the movie, they didn't actually yet discover that the reactor (insert their terminology) was going to blow.  Maybe I took his role as a mechanic and less of an engineer, where that problem would have made most mechanics go wake up the staff that understood those systems.  That one single, quick line in the movie seemed to be trying to hide a potential plot hole quickly.

The economics of the movie were very interesting as you pointed out, although they did not quite get too in depth as I would have liked.  If there was a different cast, slightly different execution, this movie could have been great.