She signed on because she got paid $20 million! For that kind of money, she would have been crazy to say no. But honestly, I think she was overpaid. Considering that her salary alone was about 25% of the entire movie's budget, that's kinda crazy.
Passengers(2016)
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
She signed on because she got paid $20 million! For that kind of money, she would have been crazy to say no. But honestly, I think she was overpaid. Considering that her salary alone was about 25% of the entire movie's budget, that's kinda crazy.
^ $20 million plus a percentage of the profits.
The movie hasn't done as well as hoped so I wonder what impact this will have on her future earnings.
The movie hasn't done as well as hoped so I wonder what impact this will have on her future earnings.
If any bonus is based upon net (rather than gross) revenues: I doubt she will see anything beyond her original $20 million (even without shady Hollywood practices that make sure nothing makes a profit on paper). It has only just reached $30 million in ticket sales with a publicized budget of $110 million.
I loved reading all the self-righteous bs on here's about how "creepy" Jim was and how "I'd like to think I'd have done xyz instead."
Sure pal, next time you find yourself in that situation, you let me know how well your psychology holds up and how many strong moral and ethical decisions you make.
I also find it odd that people seem to miss that the questionable ethics are the whole point of the movie.
Sure pal, next time you find yourself in that situation, you let me know how well your psychology holds up and how many strong moral and ethical decisions you make.
I also find it odd that people seem to miss that the questionable ethics are the whole point of the movie.
It's not self-righteousness if it's true.
It is self-righteous unless the person saying it has undergone any kind of true personal psychological trauma of equal or greater weight than Jim's in this film, which can easily be argued as a fate worse than death in a situation that slowly and deliberately unfolds over time.
Otherwise, I view it as a bunch of message board warriors and armchair critics fancying themselves heroes and martyrs.
Which is...you know...more than a little ridiculous.
It cannot be true if it's based on theory. Unless you've been in a situation where it was either kill yourself or subject someone to a lonely life outside of what they're expecting and you made the choice to kill yourself, then anything you say is based on projection and assumption.
But when you're really there and faced with the emotions and mental instability you can't say. It's like how people are always quick to say "if I were [in dangerous confrontation with criminals] I'd just attack them and try and save the day!" It's easy to "Monday morning quarterback" like that and say things with the benefit of hindsight and not having the emotional rush.
But unless you're really there you cannot say because in that situation emotions, rational thought and everything are running wild and going out the window. People who're suicidal even in "mundane" situations on Earth struggle with the decision to do it or not because killing yourself is fucking hard to do because we all fear the unknown not to mention the discomfort and pain that comes with it. (Particularly in Jim's case where he doesn't seem to have many "painless" options.) Yes, many people do commit suicide but in a majority of cases it's more for a call for attention or help than an act to kill one's self and then there's, yes, those few cases where someone wants to kill themselves and does it in an absolute manner.
But here you are, mentally sound, sitting behind your computer inside a comfortable home with comfortable daily human interactions saying you'd, without question, throw yourself out an airlock rather than use skill and knowledge you have to wake another person up and lie to them about what happened. Right.
I'm not saying Jim makes the "right" call, but I also cannot say it was the "wrong" call, but then I also have the value of hindsight to know that had he not woken Aurora up he'd either have killed himself or been driven further-ly mentally unstable in the following year meaning the ship would have blown up and then everyone would have died.
But I can say he made a human call. Not a humane one but one that's understandably human because in extreme circumstances people do extreme things. And, yes, while he does "steal her life" -or rather the life she was expecting- she still had "a" life and presumably a happy one (though they presumably never had any children (hello vasectomy selection on the medical pod thing!)) and he doesn't manipulate or Stockholm her into falling for him. Sure, she interacts with him and falls for him because she has no other choice but it's not like he tying her up and physically forcing herself into anything, and as said above arranged/forced copulations have existed in our culture longer than they haven't and are still going on; so we're also looking at this with a 21st century, Western, viewpoint. Even some 21st Century Eastern viewpoints would see his "forced" copulation as being something of a societal norm, at least Aurora was given the advantage of freedom and choice as opposed to, "Here's your husband, we're getting some land and 50% share in the business in exchange. Deal. I did when I was your age."
So, no, you cannot say what you would do. I cannot say what I would do because this is out of our experiences and we're not in the emotional mindset Jim would have been in. I'd like to say I'd tough it out and just live out my life alone, but I cannot say with certainty that I wouldn't wake up myself a companion if I had the skill to do so and I cannot say with certainty as someone who has coped with suicidal thoughts that I would or wouldn't kill myself.
It's impossible to know. Being in a situation is different than observing it and then making second guesses after the fact.
Analyze the morality of it all you want, that's what the movie wants you to do. But what you cannot do is stand on your horse and say, "I'd kill myself rather than subject another person to this experience!" because you have no way of knowing that because your morals now in your comfortable life with regular human interaction would be very different in the situation the protagonist is in.
There's a rather gruesome 2000ad future shock where a guy who grows from a child to an old man whilst acting as a caretaker on a sleeper ship basically kills everyone in their pods.
If he was lonely why didn't he wake four or five people? He seemed to have access to the personal logs of everyone, out of 5000 people you'd think there might be a couple who'd relish that kind of life. But no he just woke up the pretty girl.
Like I say this could have worked, it would have been interesting if they'd basically found they couldn't get on from the start.
As one review I read pointed out, even taking into account he was lonely etc, once she finds out and basically wants nothing more to do with him does he give her space? No he stalks her, even going so far as to use the shipwide com system so she can't escape his desperate pleas for forgiveness.
I'd have sympathised with him a whole lot more at the end if he'd basically knocked her out and put her in the autodock but instead he goes for the passive aggressive "You could go back to sleep" option.
But as I've said, even setting aside the sexual politics the film's utterly bland anyway. IMO
If he was lonely why didn't he wake four or five people? He seemed to have access to the personal logs of everyone, out of 5000 people you'd think there might be a couple who'd relish that kind of life. But no he just woke up the pretty girl.
Like I say this could have worked, it would have been interesting if they'd basically found they couldn't get on from the start.
As one review I read pointed out, even taking into account he was lonely etc, once she finds out and basically wants nothing more to do with him does he give her space? No he stalks her, even going so far as to use the shipwide com system so she can't escape his desperate pleas for forgiveness.
I'd have sympathised with him a whole lot more at the end if he'd basically knocked her out and put her in the autodock but instead he goes for the passive aggressive "You could go back to sleep" option.
But as I've said, even setting aside the sexual politics the film's utterly bland anyway. IMO
Anyone who engages in the kind of behavior that Jim does, should still expect to face the consequences of their actions. Just "because Jim was lonely" doesn't excuse what he did. Why should he get off scot-free?
Last edited:
Anyone who engages in any kind of behavior should be expected to deal with consequences of it, that's the fact of, well, actions. But as far as "excusing" what he did, that's where the topic of debate is. Because while there may on the surface be no excuse for what he did, but is what he did understandable? It's sort of a "Jury Nullification" or "Not Guilty by Insanity" situation, what he did was morally wrong but in the context of how and why it happened does it make sense?
How do you know I can't do it? Have you stood on a horse before? How can you know for sure until you've experienced it? It's almost like the ability to judge abstract concepts is one of the defining characteristics of human behavior or something. I sure hope everyone in the Rogue One thread has volunteered to fight for a Rebellion against an evil Galactic Empire with planet-killer weapons, or else they'll really have egg on their face tomorrow when their hypocrisy is exposed for having opinions on something they haven't experienced.
By the way, where do you get off commenting on Stormtrooper inaccuracy in the SW Forum until you've walked a mile in their boots and seen life through those two little holes in their helmets? Get off your high bantha and stop judging them.
I was enjoying our ethical discussion about fictional characters involved in fictional events until you and whoever that Vger guy is decided to get all personal about it and get insulting for some bizarre reason. I guess we hit a little too close to home on the broken interstellar spaceship astronaut discussion. I can't for the life of me fathom how, but you two got really upset and defensive about it nonetheless.
I guess we just can't know if we'd essentially take someone's life from them and force them to live elsewhere until we've experienced it (murder and kidnapping). I guess we can't know if we'd have sex with them under false pretenses until we've experienced it (rape). I guess we can't know if we'd haunt their every waking moment from then on instead of giving them some personal space (stalking). Yep, no way to know until we're on a spaceship 90 years from home. I guess we might as well shut down all discussion that don't directly pertain to concrete examples we've lived, huh? TREKKER HAS SPOKEN!
That's it in a nutshell. While I don't have any sympathy with the protagonist, I guess Jennifer Lawrence's character might fulfil that requirement as a deuteragonist. However, I also need to be sure I'll be entertained before I'll expend £5.95 and two hours of my time. From what I've read and heard, I'll wait for this movie to become available on Netflix/Amazon/Sky/wherever.
I took in 'Passengers' a couple days ago.
This is getting blistered at Rotten Tomatoes. 32% from the Critics / 69% from the audience.
I've read some reviews. Many obviously don't like the "path" the writers chose.
I personally enjoyed it.
I do understand how many are a little upset that the tailers depicted a completely different movie than we got.
Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt were great. I think they made a pretty good pair. Jennifer Lawrence is an intriging actress.... she's not a "bombshell", kind of like the girl next door. I've liked her in everything I've seen her in and I like her in person as well. She's a hoot.
A lot of whoopla was made about Michael Sheen's performance as Arthur (the robot). I don't think he holds a candle to Michael Fassbender's David in 'Prometheus'. He wasn't bad though.
Of course we get a Morphius appearance. Laurence Fishboure did fine as Gus. I was kind of waiting for a blue pill/red pill inject
He played a good maguffin though.
The movie poses the question of course.... what would you do? Would you break and awaken someone to live your life with; condemning them to a life of solitude? .... or would you tough it out and die alone? Would you commit suicide? This, like Star Trek episodes like "Tuvix" make you think. What is the "right" answer here? Is there a right answer? I don't agree with Trekker4747, I don't think their life together should have been the movie.
I did wonder at the time whether Jim's remark "There are no lie's between us" is taken literally by Arther and he didn't realize what he was doing or he actually understood the impact of living the lie and had to let the cat out of the bag.
One different ending could have been for Jim not to have been rescued after opening the hatch leaving Aurora to have to make the same decision he did. That would have been a tough one. I do like that they injected the option for her to sleep off the rest of the trip.
But I like the "happy ending" we got here. "It took you long enough to ask"
I recommend it, but don't be fooled by the trailers... this is not an action movie; no big bad aliens to deal with.
Probably 8 out of 10 for me.
Loved the spaceship BTW... even though it seemed pretty dumb at times. You'd think that maybe a course change could have happened... but that would have to been incredibly accurate. I chalk this one up to an event that the ship couldn't avoid. Kirk's "Risk is our business" came to mind when someone volunteered for this trip. It did take that HUGE asteriod making direct impact to foil things and it probalby took their entire trip to achieve 1/2 light speed. Lot's of variable here. I've never designed something to make a 120 year trip through deep space so I may have built in the same safeguards with regard to access. I know I wouldn't want a passenger(s) that woke early to be able to sabotage the trip. That wouldn't bode well for profits you know
Avalon
http://www.space.com/35133-how-realistic-s...passengers.html
Space.com thinks this movie "got the science right". http://www.space.com/35104-passengers-scif...ce-physics.html
I of course agree here.
This is getting blistered at Rotten Tomatoes. 32% from the Critics / 69% from the audience.
I've read some reviews. Many obviously don't like the "path" the writers chose.
I personally enjoyed it.
I do understand how many are a little upset that the tailers depicted a completely different movie than we got.
Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt were great. I think they made a pretty good pair. Jennifer Lawrence is an intriging actress.... she's not a "bombshell", kind of like the girl next door. I've liked her in everything I've seen her in and I like her in person as well. She's a hoot.
A lot of whoopla was made about Michael Sheen's performance as Arthur (the robot). I don't think he holds a candle to Michael Fassbender's David in 'Prometheus'. He wasn't bad though.
Of course we get a Morphius appearance. Laurence Fishboure did fine as Gus. I was kind of waiting for a blue pill/red pill inject
He played a good maguffin though.The movie poses the question of course.... what would you do? Would you break and awaken someone to live your life with; condemning them to a life of solitude? .... or would you tough it out and die alone? Would you commit suicide? This, like Star Trek episodes like "Tuvix" make you think. What is the "right" answer here? Is there a right answer? I don't agree with Trekker4747, I don't think their life together should have been the movie.
I did wonder at the time whether Jim's remark "There are no lie's between us" is taken literally by Arther and he didn't realize what he was doing or he actually understood the impact of living the lie and had to let the cat out of the bag.
One different ending could have been for Jim not to have been rescued after opening the hatch leaving Aurora to have to make the same decision he did. That would have been a tough one. I do like that they injected the option for her to sleep off the rest of the trip.
But I like the "happy ending" we got here. "It took you long enough to ask"
I recommend it, but don't be fooled by the trailers... this is not an action movie; no big bad aliens to deal with.
Probably 8 out of 10 for me.
Loved the spaceship BTW... even though it seemed pretty dumb at times. You'd think that maybe a course change could have happened... but that would have to been incredibly accurate. I chalk this one up to an event that the ship couldn't avoid. Kirk's "Risk is our business" came to mind when someone volunteered for this trip. It did take that HUGE asteriod making direct impact to foil things and it probalby took their entire trip to achieve 1/2 light speed. Lot's of variable here. I've never designed something to make a 120 year trip through deep space so I may have built in the same safeguards with regard to access. I know I wouldn't want a passenger(s) that woke early to be able to sabotage the trip. That wouldn't bode well for profits you know
Avalon
http://www.space.com/35133-how-realistic-s...passengers.html
Space.com thinks this movie "got the science right". http://www.space.com/35104-passengers-scif...ce-physics.html
I of course agree here.
I kind of asked about this before but don't think I got a response...
How long is Jim alone for before he wakes up what's-her-face?
Not that it makes much of a difference with regards to the morality of his actions, I'm just curious as to whether it comes off as "well, after that long he probably went nutso" or more along the lines of "dude couldn't even survive a month without waking up the prettiest girl he could find"...
How long is Jim alone for before he wakes up what's-her-face?
Not that it makes much of a difference with regards to the morality of his actions, I'm just curious as to whether it comes off as "well, after that long he probably went nutso" or more along the lines of "dude couldn't even survive a month without waking up the prettiest girl he could find"...
^ 1 year.
Actually, I think it was long enough to make their point.
Will she be able to ask for $20 million again though?
Sure.... no problem. She didn't write this movie. It wasn't her performance here that's causing it to tank.