It's pretty typical of Hollywood to take a decently scripted novel idea, rave about how "high concept" it is, then immediately proceed to round off all it's edges, and substitute anything remotely unconventional or original with whatever some focus group says every demographic responds to. Then act shocked when the movie turns out shite, the audience rejects it, and they come to the conclusion along the lines of "well I guess people don't like movies with female leads..." as that allows them to avoid admitting that they fucked up the movie from the jump.
Full disclosure: I've neither seen "The Passenger" nor read the script, or really know anything about it beyond the vague premise and that it bombed. That said, the above narrative is one I've read in more behind the scenes interviews than I can count, and it seems to fit with what happened with this movie too.
One semi famous example of this almost happening is when Hollywood approached Sir Terry Pratchett to make a movie adaptation of 'Mort' (for those not familiar, it's a fantasy book set in his 'Discworld' in which the personification of Death takes on a human apprentice). Showing it with praise and adulation...then mid-way through the meeting saying something to the effect of "but let's loose the whole 'death' angle. It's a bit of a bummer.." Cut to Terry nopeing the fuck out of that room.
No idea if this also happened to GB16. Maybe to some extent, but I get less of a "ruined gem" vibe from that script and more of a "willed into being by committee, focus testing data and merchandise sales projections."
