• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Passengers(2016)

DonIago said:
Why is it okay for a woman to beat up a man but not okay for a man to beat up a woman?
Click to expand...
It's not okay in either case, but it's especially not okay when you're twice her weight and muscle mass and have five inches of height and reach on her and you're doing it out of revenge instead of being under direct threat of injury or death.
 
It was never clear to me how much time passed between her finding out and when he started trying to talk to her again and did the PA thing. The movie implies another year passed with the two of them dating so it's possible several weeks could have passed with her ignoring him before he resorted to the PA system to get her attention.

But, again, it's not clear. I didn't get the impression he was constantly hounding her I mean they did at some point come up with "joint custody rules" with the bartender-bot so they must have had some level of communication and agreement.

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.
Click to expand...

You're usually more rational than this, I had to do a double-take on your username.

But, you should realize the difference between sitting here in the comfort of your home without ever having been in an experience like the one Pratt's character has and saying what you would do in such a situation and that notion that, you know, a military contingent should be able to aim their weapons or maybe hit something just out of pure chance once in awhile.

It's easy for me, you, or anyone to sit here and say what they would do in a situation. I'd like to think that if I saw a car coming down the road about to hit an unaware kid I'd leap in front of the car to move the kid out of the way, putting myself in harm. But I can sit here and say that all I want, but if it were to ever really happen things may be very different because in that situation the brain works differently.

I'd like to think that if I were in a situation like Pratt's character was in I'd just tough it out on my own, but desperate men will do desperate things. Like Fishburne's character says a drowning man will pull the man next to him under trying to stay afloat, so it's hard to say what you would do in such a circumstance because when you're *in* such a circumstance your thinking operates differently just from the pure biology of how emotions work.

Not to mention the fact that Pratt's character had already lived a year by himself and likely wasn't 100% in his right mind.

I feel it's kind of preposterous for people to sit hit at their computers having regular human interaction to be able to say what they would do in a circumstance where they're completely, totally, and utterly alone and they see an opportunity to change that.

We can arguing whether or not what Pratt did was "right" or not, what he did was "rape" or not, whether or nor Lawrence's character was suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome or any of the other moral choices made here, but I just don't feel one can say with any level certainty what they would do in a circumstance as Pratt's character. Because when desperate and possibly having been driven mad, you decision making is going to be very different than they are with you sitting there at your desk with your loved ones in ear-shot.
 
Last edited:
The Naughty List said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'm not a "whoever." I've been a contributing member of the board for some time. Your reaction seems awfully emotional for a moderator. Is everything ok? I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone's sensitive sensibilities. I do, however, think it's a bit ridiculous to say that the entire discussion is now ruined because "that horrible VGer guy or whoever came our and was just outright MEAN cuz he doesn't agree!!"

And, I believe your analogy criticizing my argument is completely inaccurate and inappropriate. If people are going to argue that the main character of a film is a rapist and a murderer without demonstrating any understanding /empathy / self-awareness at all for the situation (some hadn't even seen the film yet)...yeah, I think that's worth calling out in a discussion like this, and I think it's reasonable to remind people that it's easy to fancy themselves heroic and noble when they've likely never faced such a situation themselves. In fact, the most fascinating thing about the film is that the main character's predicament is so beyond the common human experience that we are not in any way equipped to judge him adequately.

Anyway, I thought the movie was great. Fascinating production design, fairly good sci-if premise, 2 a-list actors, very good visual effects, a reasonable amount of suspense, and (obviously) a great moral/ethical question. It reminded me a lot of episodes of Star Trek like "I, Borg" or "Private Little War" where the "right" thing can be hotly debated.

It's unfortunate that the critical word of mouth and people's bias about the is going to keep some from seeing it.
 
Trekker4747 said:
It was never clear to me how much time passed between her finding out and when he started trying to talk to her again and did the PA thing. The movie implies another year passed with the two of them dating so it's possible several weeks could have passed with her ignoring him before he resorted to the PA system to get her attention.

But, again, it's not clear. I didn't get the impression he was constantly hounding her I mean they did at some point come up with "joint custody rules" with the bartender-bot so they must have had some level of communication and and agreement.
Click to expand...
I think I heard 3 or 4 months. I'm not sure though.
 
Trekker4747 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice post. In a profession where I am constantly subjected to (almost literal) "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" by people who have neither the experience, expertise, or immediate pressures for decisions that exist...I am admittedly more sensitive to people who proudly and confidently profess how valiant and correct their decisions would be as opposed to the ones that actually get made by the people on the front line. It's always easy when you're not in the fishbowl, though, isn't it?
 
I think I'm going to use the time that I saved not seeing this film to watching Upstream Color (2013) instead -- it sounds a lot more interesting.
 
LJones41 said:
It's not okay period to beat up someone regardless of the perpetrator or victim's gender.
Click to expand...
Thanks for re-quoting what I already said.

"It's not okay in either case..."

There is a massive difference in physical size and strength at play and a difference in situations provoking her actions (she's reacting to having her life taken away from her) that mitigate the circumstances somewhat, while not excusing them, but I'm not really interested in debating false equivalencies.
 
 
Saw this last night.. I have to say I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. The wife REALLY liked it..

Some of the holes were a little too big to fill for my tastes (Like why not have Gus wake up another crew member who is in charge or at least works in the hibernation lab as soon as he realizes he is really sick? I mean, there is a return trip planned so they HAVE to have people that do that sort of thing, right? Or how about a ship's computer system that could be of some use? Or maybe build into the system, some fail safes so that just in the infinitesimal chance that something happens and people wake up, there's an easy way to get back to sleep)..

anyway, all those things aside, the moral dilemma plot line was pretty well done and Chris and Jennifer really did some great acting. The visuals were excellent as well. Worth the price of admission, in my book...
 
That was the obvious problem. If there are system problems, it should be ROUTINE to wake up some of the crew to deal with them if they don't self-repair at an expected rate. There would then be the systems in place to put those crewmembers back under when the repair is finished. To NOT have the crew (or a subset) woken up when there are massive, ship-ending problems, is crazy.

Even if it's impossible to put them back under without a land-based facility for dramatic reason X, the crew should know that those are the risks, and they'll just have to live out life on the ship post-repair. Cost of doing business.

Also, how badly did these two screw over the rest of the passengers? How stocked up is the ship? Assume there's extra provisions and whatnot to account for loss, but 2 people just spent 90 years (or however long they lived) eating food, knocking down drinks, breathing the air (why was the whole ship filled with breathable air if the inhabitants were all going to sleep another 90 years?), etc. Also years of mechanical wear and tear on lights, elevators, doors, and so forth. Sure they repaired what they could, but the ship was only expecting 4 months of heavy use, not 90 years of additional service time. Gotta count for something. Is there enough food and air left for the other 5000 people to survive the 4 months from wakeup to landing? Will everything work well enough to do so? Just the little thoughts I had as I was watching... :)
 
What I had some trouble buying, but went along with, is that Aurora apparently never even guessed that Jim had woken her on purpose. He's an engineer and a red-blooded male, alone for over a year? And she's a journalist, as in a person trained to question motives and cover stories? C'mon...
 
Fair point^^... Inherent, but unrealistic trust? But again, as a journalist, not very likely...

As to Scout101's points, I would imagine that they probably kept an account of their usage after a while.. Plus, they got the botanics going to a point that the plants and trees could be harvested, and thus, they created their own self sustaining habitat. With Jim being an engineer, I'm sure he taught Aurora some of the finer points that in the event that he died, she'd be able to maintain the ship. But you're right... The ship itself is set up to only be a habitat for four months, so while it's built to last 120 years in flight, with 5,000 people running around doing all manner of things, the wear and tear factor has got to be pretty high.. The booze on the other hand.. lol... Since I'm sure every drink/meal consumed was charged to them by the company, dying in transit is a helluvah way to get out of paying your tab!

Which reminds me of one more thing.. At the end, as the crew and passengers are up and about, the ship looks awfully close to the planet, and not 4 months away... But maybe they have to orbit while the landing zones are being prepped or something..

I would be curious to know how long they lasted before they died... I mean, they only had 88 years to go, with both being what? mid to late 20s in the movie? Surely they both could have lived that long considering modern medicine on earth, the Autodoc and in general, being healthier than most people in our modern day (presumably).
 
Yeah, the tab would be horrific, spending for 60-70 years or so when you planned on 4 months, but tough to collect from them at this point!

And even with an account of usage or whatever, the parts were likely just not designed for that level of usage for that long a period. Things just give out. Yes, he's a mechanic and can fix/replace things to a point, as long as there are parts and/or material, but the basic math about breathable air, amount of raw material that can be turned into replicated food, etc. is the same. Just for food, it's a matter of how much 'extra' they carry. If they need enough for 5k people to last 4 months, that's 600k days of food. If two people eat it for 70 years, about 10% of their food supply is gone. Not as bad as I thought, and hopefully there's enough redundancy to lose a cargo hold or whatever and still be ok, just saying they put a dent in it. Not horrific, so I guess they can just go on reduced rations and hold out until they get to the planet, but it's an impact. The air is likely a worse problem, since apparently the whole ship seems to be filled with breathable air at all times? That's 90 years of the air scrubbers working when they planned on 4 months. No way they carry that level of replacement, although maybe it's a magic tech thing I guess.

And yeah, they could have grown some things to reduce the load on food, and air scrubbers too, but assuming just general impact numbers. Boring logistics stuff, but important when a 4 month trip lasts 90 years instead...

As for the ship near the planet, I just write that off as artistic license. general public too stupid to understand that they got to the planet unless you show it. yes, supposed to be 4 months out, and would be a speck at best then, but easier to just show the planet so they visually made it. Not as pretty to show the ship flipped backwards and decelerating at max velocity, looking like they're flying away from the planet.

I half expected them to be alive at the end, if very very old. With the autodoc to correct problems, they could have been ok barring an accident or something. Or at least another generation after them, but it gets ugly fast due to inbreeding, so can't really show more than a single generation without icky questions ruining the ending. Could have had a couple 75 year olds out there tending the ship, though. But then confusion about whether it's them or their kids, requires more narrative, etc. so I get why they left it alone. And by not showing either of them or their bodies, don't have to address when they died, who died first, how long the other one was alone, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top