Passengers(2016)

[DonIago]

^ 1 year.

I guess that's one way to celebrate your "anniversary"... I kid, I kid... That's a reasonable amount of time I suppose, especially with no meaningful human contact (even Watney had texting with NASA by that point in The Martian).

Actually, I think it was long enough to make their point.

What point was that? Sorry if I'm being glib, I haven't seen and don't plan to see the film, but this aspect of it I find interesting, though I've gotten the impression it's not handled as well as it merited.

 

[1001001]

Jim is pretty messed up psychologically by the end of that year. He comes very close to committing suicide. Not that it excuses what he did, but it wasn't just a whim on his part. He was desperate ("drowning" as Gus said).

It made me think of Miller from Interstellar. But Jim is not that far gone.

 

[Yanks]

What point was that? Sorry if I'm being glib, I haven't seen and don't plan to see the film, but this aspect of it I find interesting, though I've gotten the impression it's not handled as well as it merited.

The point being he couldn't stand the lonelyness any more. He was going bonkers.

Jim is pretty messed up psychologically by the end of that year. He comes very close to committing suicide. Not that it excuses what he did, but it wasn't just a whim on his part. He was desperate ("drowning" as Gus said).

Why wouldn't it excuse what he did? It's a situation that no one has ever been in... isn't that the whole point of the movie? I think it was easy to empathize with him.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Jim is pretty messed up psychologically by the end of that year. He comes very close to committing suicide. Not that it excuses what he did, but it wasn't just a whim on his part. He was desperate ("drowning" as Gus said).

Thank you. You get it. Maybe the movie and/or Pratt's acting did not do a good enough job conveying this? It seems a lot of people missed the point.

 

[Yanks]

Maybe the movie and/or Pratt's acting did not do a good enough job conveying this? It seems a lot of people missed the point.

His acting was fine. It seems to me that the "complainers" just don't like what he did. His flesh could have been rotting away and that wouldn't justify waking someone up.

Just like those that condemn Janeway for "killing" Tuvix... she's as evil witch... there is no other option.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

I've posted twice in this thread before now, but I deleted those posts because I didn't want to deal with the TrekBBS SJW/PC brigade. I'm going to post once more in brief.

Sci-fi used to be a platform to explore the human condition. Movies are platforms to entertain, yes, but are also used to pose questions to the audience. "What would you do in this situation?"

The dilemma posed in this movie, and the action the protagonist takes, is squarely in that wheelhouse.

When did it become unacceptable to do this? So WHAT if it's morally ambiguous? That's the entire point. The movie explores those questions. Audiences gobble up movies where thousands die in the wake of superheroes battling, or eagerly dig into movies that feature morally-ambiguous villains, but if a movie shows the desperate action taken by a lonely guy who wakes up a female passenger, regrets it, and then has to deal with the consequences of lying to her (which includes getting beaten up by her) it's ZOMG THIS IS TERRIBLE IT'S CREEPY AND RAPEY AND ENCOURAGES RAPE CULTURE AND FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION *HEADS EXPLODE* Just because it's 2016, The Year of Being Sensitive About Everything(tm).

Give me a break. If anything, the fact that the film devolves into a generic Hollywood paint-by-numbers action finale is the biggest flaw. A few movie reviewers I've read have actually done their job correctly and critiqued the movie on THIS, its story and structure....not whether the content triggers some of their personal social justice peeves. As it should be. Unfortunately, the majority seem to have forgotten that their job is to focus on whether a film succeeds or fails on its own merits.

And really, Jennifer Lawrence has tons of money. She's one of the biggest stars in the world, and can pick her projects at this point. If she had a problem with the material, I'm sure she wouldn't have done the movie. It's not like she's starving for scripts.

 

[1001001]

I am certainly not saying what he did was right, or even "okay". The fact that he hid the truth from her is proof he knew what he did was wrong. That's the easy part.

My thought is: is redemption possible? Can he be forgiven?

And I think the answer is yes. When he offers to put her in the med pod, and basically "right the wrong", he made a "perfect act of contrition" (if you'll pardon the Catholicism). She chose to stay. He is redeemed and forgiven. And they live happily ever after.

If what he did is "unforgiveable", then well...we're going to have to reconsider the ending of thousands of books and movies.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

They could have made a movie about a creepy stalker guy without spending so much money on SFX and Jennifer Lawrence. Must be the Zeitgeist.

 

[Yanks]

Sci-fi used to be a platform to explore the human condition. Movies are platforms to entertain, yes, but are also used to pose questions to the audience. "What would you do in this situation?"

The dilemma posed in this movie, and the action the protagonist takes, is squarely in that wheelhouse.

When did it become unacceptable to do this? So WHAT if it's morally ambiguous? That's the entire point. The movie explores those questions.

My thought is: is redemption possible? Can he be forgiven?

And I think the answer is yes. When he offers to put her in the med pod, and basically "right the wrong", he made a "perfect act of contrition" (if you'll pardon the Catholicism). She chose to stay. He is redeemed and forgiven. And they live happily ever after.

I agree. No "social justice" necessary nor desired.

 

[1001001]

I agree. No "social justice" necessary nor desired.

Wait...what??

 

[Kemaiku]

Wait...what??

Just the typical lazy "wah SJW" stuff again if people dare to try and discuss something.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I've posted twice in this thread before now, but I deleted those posts because I didn't want to deal with the TrekBBS SJW/PC brigade.

Social justice is defined as "... promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity." I wonder what kind of a person would think of that as a bad thing and throw the term around like it's some kind of slur, especially when it has fuck all to do with anything that's been discussed in this thread so far and is just a lazy catchphrase? Probably the same type of person who stupidly misuses the term PC when that has fuck all to do with this discussion either.

Sci-fi used to be a platform to explore the human condition. Movies are platforms to entertain, yes, but are also used to pose questions to the audience. "What would you do in this situation?"

The dilemma posed in this movie, and the action the protagonist takes, is squarely in that wheelhouse.

When did it become unacceptable to do this? So WHAT if it's morally ambiguous? That's the entire point. The movie explores those questions. Audiences gobble up movies where thousands die in the wake of superheroes battling, or eagerly dig into movies that feature morally-ambiguous villains, but if a movie shows the desperate action taken by a lonely guy who wakes up a female passenger, regrets it, and then has to deal with the consequences of lying to her (which includes getting beaten up by her) it's ZOMG THIS IS TERRIBLE IT'S CREEPY AND RAPEY AND ENCOURAGES RAPE CULTURE AND FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION *HEADS EXPLODE* Just because it's 2016, The Year of Being Sensitive About Everything(tm).

You're the one freaking the fuck out because people dare to disagree with your assessment of a fictional event, so who's being sensitive again?

I have absolutely no problem with moral ambiguity being explored, and I welcome it. The problem is that Chris Pratt's character 1) makes a selfish and monstrous decision for personal benefit, 2) lies and manipulates to continue to get what he wants out of J-Law's character, included sex and a romantic relationship under false pretenses, 3) when she finds out the truth he refuses to give her the space she wants to process her situation, instead constantly forcing himself on her again through little robots and PA announcements, and 4) in the end he is rewarded for his shitty, selfish behavior by having a relationship with her anyway. That's what I have a problem with, not morally ambiguous storytelling.

Remember Matt Damon's story in Interstellar? Similar premise, he's lonely after being stuck on this planet so he tries to sabotage the mission to get the others to stay there with him. Yet, in that film he is the closest we come to an actual villain of the piece, versus Pratt never being treated that way here. Despite feeling sympathy for his predicament, you can't excuse his actions as a result, and he is not rewarded for them in the end.

Are we only to discuss the outcome in a positive light that agrees with your viewpoint? Because that would seem to go against the point of moral ambiguity.

Give me a break. If anything, the fact that the film devolves into a generic Hollywood paint-by-numbers action finale is the biggest flaw.

Yes, no shit. That's the whole point. It would have been better having a taut psychological thriller dealing with the fallout of Pratt's actions in the final act. You could have even made him a less slasher-filmy version of the Captain Pinbacher guy from the last act of Sunshine. Turn his moral ambiguity into all out villainy as she refuses to forgive him for what he did.

 

[Yanks]

I have absolutely no problem with moral ambiguity being explored, and I welcome it. The problem is that Chris Pratt's character 1) makes a selfish and monstrous decision for personal benefit,

Sounds to me like you are basing you "hatred" for this movie on his actions. psssst.... that's the whole point of the movie - moral ambiguity.

I don't think his actions were monsterous at all.

2) lies and manipulates to continue to get what he wants out of J-Law's character, included sex and a romantic relationship under false pretenses

What false pretenses? He gave her space and time and she initiated the contact. There was only one lie. They're relationship was real.

3) when she finds out the truth he refuses to give her the space she wants to process her situation, instead constantly forcing himself on her again through little robots and PA announcements

He got on the PA once and the robots weren't "hounding" her. You forget how much time they had out there.

4) in the end he is rewarded for his shitty, selfish behavior by having a relationship with her anyway. That's what I have a problem with, not morally ambiguous storytelling.

Actually, it was his unselfish behavior that was rewarded. He sacrificed himself to save her and the ship AND offered to let her sleep the rest of the journey.

Here's an interesting query.... if the roles were reversed, would she receive the same condemnation from you if she woke him up? .... would it have been OK for him to beat her up after he found out?

 

[1001001]

Just the typical lazy "wah SJW" stuff again if people dare to try and discuss something.

Yikes. This is a minefield!

I am definitely pro-social justice. I wouldn't want anything I say to give an impression otherwise.

In the end, only she could forgive him, and she did. That was her choice, and it was fairly consistent with what we saw.

If others say they would never have forgiven him, then that's okay too. And if some believe they would have been strong enough to kill themselves or live their lives alone on that ship, more power to them. Who am I to argue that point? Mercifully, none of us will ever really be tested that way.

I did mention Miller from Interstellar earlier. Not quite the same though. Miller tried to kill to cover up his cowardice. Jim did not. Jim offered to put it back how it was (which he didn't have to do: she would never have known about the suspend option in the med pod unless he told her). Miller did not.

I think the impression of harassment after the disclosure is perhaps mischaracterized a bit. While he certainly could have given her more time and space, it was not like he was hounding her constantly. This all took place over a long period of time. Including when she broke into his room and nearly murdered him while he was asleep.

All in all, I guess I wish we had gotten the movie that was advertised.

Then again, we wouldn't be having this nice discussion.

 

[Kemaiku]

Okay then, converse situation, what if *you* were woken up in this situation and lied to, taken to bed by a stranger, then found what happend?

Would you forgive the person and be fine with it? you now have to live with this person rather than the life you wanted. I mean you literally have to think this person worth giving that up, and don't imagine the best case most attractive senario. Think realistic person off the street took you out of stasis to be a sex toy.

You went to sleep in the ship, expecting to have a pretty good life on a new planet, meet someone on your own terms and have a community to live in. Now you're trapped on a lonely ship with robots and one person who obsesses over you in an incredibly unhealthy way and no one can help you if it all goes wrong.

 

[Yanks]

Okay then, converse situation, what if *you* were woken up in this situation and lied to, taken to bed by a stranger, then found what happend?

That's the whole point of the movie, right? I don't really know I guess. I would hope she would be as beautiful as Jennifer Oh the horror of being taken to bed....

Would you forgive the person and be fine with it? you now have to live with this person rather than the life you wanted. I mean you literally have to think this person worth giving that up, and don't imagine the best case most attractive senario. Think realistic person off the street took you out of stasis to be a sex toy.

I think if my situation happened the way it did in the movie, yes - I could be happy.

You went to sleep in the ship, expecting to have a pretty good life on a new planet, meet someone on your own terms and have a community to live in. Now you're trapped on a lonely ship with robots and one person who obsesses over you in an incredibly unhealthy way and no one can help you if it all goes wrong.

Unhealthy way? Not sure I see that, but yes, I guess it all could go wrong... but it's a movie and I like happy endings so I'm glad it didn't.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Think realistic person off the street took you out of stasis to be a sex toy.

Did you even see the movie? Jim did not wake Aurora up to be his sex toy. He woke her up after agonizing over the decision for a long time because his life was depressing and meaningless. And he gave her space and she initiated the romantic relationship with him.

You went to sleep in the ship, expecting to have a pretty good life on a new planet, meet someone on your own terms and have a community to live in. Now you're trapped on a lonely ship with robots and one person who obsesses over you in an incredibly unhealthy way and no one can help you if it all goes wrong.

Yes and she was very angry with Jim when she discovered the truth. She accuses him of murdering her life, breaks off the relationship, refuses to even speak to him and even attacks him. She only forgives him after he saves their lives and offers to fix his mistake by putting her back to sleep for the remainder of the trip.

 

[Kemaiku]

So the third act is a tack-on to give him an excuse to get away with it, got it.

I feel too disgusted with this thread and half the people commenting in it right now.

 

[Starkers]

Things that would have made this better.

1. Jim agonised far too long. I know it was supposed to show us his state of mind, to make us empathise, but I think it had to opposite result. We're never in any doubt that he knows exactly what he's doing and he knows it's wrong. When he acts he's fully in control of his senses. Personally I'd have at least made him do it whist pissed, or had some further incident happen to push him over the edge. As it is it's a well considered act taken by a sober rational individual.

2. Aurora should have figured out how to use the autodoc as a suspension chamber and Jim should never have known. That way it's completely her decision. Hell have her discuss it with Sheen the way he did. Instead the autodoc just gets to be another selfless act for poor sweet innocent Jim to use to prove what a true nice guy he is.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Here's an interesting query.... if the roles were reversed, would she receive the same condemnation from you if she woke him up? .... would it have been OK for him to beat her up after he found out?

Should she receive the same condemnation? Yes. Would it be OK for the guy to beat the crap out of a woman he's got five inches and a hundred pounds on when she poses no threat to him? No.