Looper what about the original Old Boy, Dae-su Oh fucked his own daughter......HIS DAUGHTER! If that's not controversial, I don't know what is??? Oh Looper, you sure know how to disappoint 👎
I was fine with Jack's death in Titanic. Her throwing the priceless gem into the ocean instead of giving it to her granddaughter is what pissed me off.
You missed the point of the movie. Having been blessed with monetarily rewarding investing, I choose to live a simple life that makes me happy. Sadly, word got out to a materialistic stepson. After a series of events where he wanted my money, I was confronted by him, drunk, with threats of violence. In my opinion, the grandmother did her granddaughter a favor. Wealth is not a joy, its a burden.
People seem to have missed a critical element in the plot of "Passengers". Aurora and Jim's characters saved the ship together in a way Jim could never have done by himself. If he hadn't woken her, Lawrence's character and everyone else aboard would have perished on that fatally malfunctioning vessel. Pratt's character did something unethical out of selfishness but, as it turns out, he didn't rob Aurora of anything but dying prematurely in hibernation.
A better ending for Passengers would have been for Aurora to be so overcome with rage and hate for Jim that she eventually kills him. Then, after months of being alone, she starts looking at those pods, finds a man she finds interesting, and it starts all over again. It could end with her just making a facial expression at a pod as she finally sees things from Jim's point of view and realizes she was wrong to kill him.
Somewhere, that's what is happening : she almost about to kill him and when Jim goes out the spatial ship for may be no returning, she reveals she won't be able to live alone without him. So, the script not consider she will make up someone if Jim dies, but the idea is quite the same. And Jim died, which mechanic would have repair critical damages ?^^
I loved Passengers. The fact she chose to save his life 'waking HIM' up, so she wouldn't be alone for 90 years - plus she apparently had fallen in love with him as he had fallen in love with her, it was poetic. She understood the feeling that Jim must have felt - and that is the point. The trees and all that in the main deck - just wonderful... but... where were their children???
Actually, my fave observation about the ending of Titanic is that Jack dying was the most romantic way to culminate his relationship with Rose: At film's end, he lives on in her mind as a kind of mythic, eternally perfect lover. If he'd lived, he'd have disappointed her, eventually.
Ron Zajac She also went on to have a good life with someone else, which is what Jack wanted for her. Would have been depressing if not done as a flashback and ended like that. But, was a romantic memory of someone who loved her enough to die to save her.
Rose was over-priveladged. She would've gotten really tired of being poor a week into that Relationship. Jack should've known better and let her die so he didn't eventually disappoint her...
The argument I've always made about that ending is that Rose is actually telling the story to the research vessel crew like 80 years after it happened so much of it could be a lie. She might have left Jack back on the ship at some point or fought him off out of fear of freezing to death.
Something Clever Yep, that's the only movie on the List that was a Great Ending because it was the most Rational thing to do. I probably would've done the same thing...
Raven24 I think that's how the book ends but I've heard Steven King say he loved the end to the movie so, high praise from the guy that wrote the story. I give the Director credit for doing something different.
You have to watch the entire movie so you can talk about the finale when it comes to "Passengers". She was more than furious when she found out that he was the one who woke her up and even almost killed him, but when they realize that it's the two of them who have to save the entire spaceship - things change. He in the end forces her to go back to sleep, but, because only one of them can - she refuses, and decides to spend the rest of her life with him. That's a great ending!
Ian Meadows That would actually have been a good way to go. Especially if he does with her hating him until she came to the realisation that she was now stuck with the same choice. Overall I felt that JL's character was underdeveloped. There was a great deal of time spent on Chris Pratt's character but hers felt rushed.
I agree with the POV choice, although I think they focused on Chris Pratt's character to make him more sympathetic to the audience. Seeing how depressed he was and how long he resisted waking her up makes him easier to empathize with. It works better with the happy ending of them ending up together. Perhaps if they had started with her POV and then flash backed to his when he woke up throughout the film.
I remember being soooo impressed with “The Mist”. I saw it soon after it released and at that point in time, I had never seen any scene in film that I felt so deeply. I have always praised the ending as Brilliant and Genius writing. Fantastic film.
That movie just didn't know what it wanted to be. The problem is Spielberg tried straddling the line between his often optimistic film style with Kubrick's often bleak styling. Considering Kubrick died before being able to make the film Spielberg should have just made the film exactly how he would normally go about filming. It probably would have turned out much better.
The author really needs to pull out a dictionary and look up the word Hope. Or take a biology class and learn to calculate the odds of repopulating the world from two children that are basically bear food if they're lucky. Slowly freezing/starving if they're not. As you say. The bear is the only winner here.
Passengers was one of my all time favorite movies. Too bad it got bad reviews from critics who could not acknowledge that a fairly high percentage of people would've done the same thing the Chris Pratt character did eventually.
Why the hell is everyone just ignores the worldwide gross of movies and just taking into consideration the domestic one? I mean Passengers made 200m worldwide on top of the 100m domestically.With a production budget of 110m I wouldn't consider this a flop.
That's still a flop by Hollywood standards. Between production budget, promotional expenses (which can be $100 million), and miscellaneous expenses, the profit gets eaten up. A movie of $110 million probably has to make $500 globally to be a seen as a good investment.
I mean, it wasn't really a huge flop, but I think Sony was expecting it to make a lot more. It was marketed as being this really mysterious/dystopian sci-fi film.
Studios gets 60 to 70% of domestic income and somewhere between 35 and 50% on foreing markets (but only 25% on the chinese market, which is the second biggest income for this kind of movies), which translates to roughly 50-55% of the worldwide income. On top of that, as other people already pointed out, you have to add marketing costs (which *generally* are about 100 mil or so but, as an example, in the case of _Star Wars - The Force Awakens_ were up to 250 mil), distribution and, of course, taxes :-) Do the math and you'll see that - by any possible measures - _Passengers_ flopped (as it should have).
999SickBoy666 as i said before i'm pretty sure that marketing was inside the 110m budget, but as you put it in percentages it makes way more sense why is this considered a flop
110m is the production budget as reported by both BoxOfficeMojo/IMDb and Wikipedia - marketing budget are never included under "production". Sometimes - like in the case of _The Force Awakens_ - marketing budget are revealed or leaked, but they are an entirly different item (and, yes, as a reference: this means that, overall, a movie like _The Force Awakens_ cost [production+marketing] in the neighborhood of 500m). Anyway, glad if I was of any help in clearing things up a bit :-)
In the Death of Superman episode, it shows Vandal Savage who is an immortal bad guys who finally managed to destroy all humanity. The problem is he lives alone for long time and finally he met with Superman who got transport to the future. The entire episode show even the most evil villain can't live alone and with enough time, he even dine with his enemy and willing to change to past so he couldn't be alone anymore.
Passengers is one of my favorite movies. Think about it...a VERY complex machine, full of autonomous computers is hit by a boloid that cripples a main system. What does this thinking machine do, it wakes the one man who can fix it. A mechanic. What this mechanic does then is awaken another. Good or Bad who cares. Then at another critical point it wakes a deck officer, who can provide acces to the place that needs fixing. The hero of this movie is the spaceship !!! It saved 5000 plus people, maybe in a cold hearted way, but it does. Great movie. Great sub-plot LOVED IT.
I love passengers also. Who cares what other people think. Its a different kind of love story and like most love story's they all have a down side but end up right anyway. I also like that the droid bartender that has played P.M. Tony Blair in two other movie ends up doing this movie.
Daenerys it was just following the book, which is fucking sad as shit. If you enjoy a good read you should read it. It had to cut a lot of scenes and they really make the ending hit harder.
I didn't like the ending but it was logical which is the only way Dr. Manhattan could see things. If he had known that Rorschach had left his notebook at the newspaper, it may have been different.
Keplergamer I liked Passengers. I didn't see his actions as murder, per se. So I found Chris Pratt to be a more sympathetic character. They did a pretty decent job of showing him going slightly crazy before he resorts to the course of action he ultimately takes. They also do a nice job with the 'drowning' metaphor which I believe is the actual reason that she forgives him without having to kill him to understand how she would feel on his place. They could still do a sequel; just say it was a sister-ship but this time have a female passenger wake up first. Then we would see the dilemma from the opposite perspective. The REAL difference would be to leave out the "ship might explode ex-machina" to see how long it would take before they either fell in love or murdered each other.
I just hated it. Because it is a romantic-comedy-scifi thingy, which doesn't mesh well with me. And if you're wondering why I watched it I was forced to. Eh, atleast the acting was nice. And Morpheus.
I actually really liked passengers, but there is better. Still better than that terrible 2016 ghostbusters remake. If it weren't for Chris Hemsworth, I would've skipped that movie.
Interesting how different US and German critics reacted to Passengers. While I agree that they could have tackled the issue of Jim waking up Aurora in more depth, critics over here still called it one of the best SciFis ever. And I'd agree. Because honestly, I would think about waking somebody up, too. Nobody can expect anyone to stay alone for the rest of his/her life when he/she can help it. And in the end her decision was logical. She couldn't go back into her pod, and there was only one person around to spend her life with. And while he may have been selfish in waking her up, he kinda saved her life and all others on the ship. Unknowingly first, sure, but in the end the result matters, doesn't it? So sure, it's a moral grey, but that US critics hated it that much to me means that they never made that thought experiment of putting themselves into Jim's place and thinking about how they would have reacted. Because Jim acted just like a human being. We are selfish idiots. Hating ourselves for it won't make that go away.
@@buffseven I live in the US and agree with him. Not you. Given the fact that he was human and not machine, it's not surprising that he woke her up. It's human nature to want to be with someone, to be with someone you feel you will have chemistry with and to try to make a life.
I saw Passengers the other night and I really liked it. Chris Pratt's move was kind of dickish but ultimately all 5000 people on the ship would have died if he hadn't have done it.
He did not know he was going to need a second person to pull that off when he fucked up her life. And even if he had known he would need help, if he was really anything other than a selfish creep, he would have picked a crew member or someone more technically skilled. The asshole picked the attractive blonde... and he did not do that to save the ship. I thought the movie was quite good, fun and visually stunning, but the ending was... disgusting.
DN FI Did you miss the part where all of the crew were sealed away by an impenetrable door that the main character spent a good chunk of time trying to get through as one of his first acts?
Jeremy When I first saw the previews, I was excited to see this film. Then, I realized that he purposefully woke her up and that pissed me off. I still don't know why people would be upset for her falling in love with him though. What else was she going to do? Lol. That being said, you make me feel like I should give this movie a shot. So, the moral to this story is, Sharing Your Opinion Online CAN Make a Difference!! Well played, Internet. Well played.
"Passengers" is a movie designed to make the audience face the idea: what would you be willing to do if you were stranded alone for the rest of your life? The answer in the movie isn't advocating that course of action - it's presenting it for commentary. Do folks who dislike the movie because of what he did also hate on "American Beauty" thinking it advocated sex with teen girls and homophobic murder? Also: if someone is stranded on a desert island and they strand you with them for the rest of both your lives, would you really just ignore them for decades? There's no "right" answer - you're supposed to turn it over in your mind and savor it. The movie is designed to make you think, which leads me to believe that the people who hate on it simply aren't.
Philo Janus Exactly! I really like the film! And I don't believe she had Stockholm Syndrome at all ( like someone suggested above). She didn't know he had woken him when she fell in love with him. She then finds out. And yes she's rightfully furious, but she did love him. She said so in the book she's writing. She watches her friends goodbye video and the friend talks about her falling in love. Then she saves him because 1) she loved him and 2) didn't want to be alone. Maybe at that point realizing how he felt at the thought of living alone. But she still loved him.
"There's no "right" answer " Lmao except yours apparently, how did you miss the irony of your own comment? Lol. This movie only makes you think "Should I watch until the end? Or is the story that predictable?" And it was and I shouldn't have. Personally as a custom fabricator, Sound engineer and musician who has to think A LOT in order to pay bills and eat, I did not find this movie thought provoking. fully my opinion though, my brother loved it and he's a jive cat. But he did like Twilight and I did got one hell of a Twilight vibe from this movie. Any Teen in high school could write this one.
Well, we clearly see at the end that stuff is still in good shape, moving around, etc. So, I think the intent was to give the impression that someone was still alive on board. If it wasn't them then it was probably their kids.
It would have been very selfish for them to have had children, or a child. When they were gone, the child would have been in Jim's position and would have been alone for the remainder of their life or the trip.
James Deal sorry, but I liked the twisted ending. It would have been good to have had it not alien, but a mind-altering thing, done by the army. So they would have hallucinated it all.
Am I the only one that saw through the twist. It wasn't surprising at all, completely predictable. The moment he decided to kill everyone I knew he was going to survive somehow.
@@WorgenGrrl Actually, the original book on which Blade Runner is roughly based is titled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". (I am holding a copy in my hand) However they are radically different from each other. About the only thing they have in common is the hero's name "Rick Deckard". ;-)
The Mist ending was indeed horrible. So-called "artists" that exploit the suffering of children for entertainment are scum, pure and simple. It's so cheap and easy and juvenile. The ending ruined an otherwise enjoyable B movie.
Meh. Maybe if Jim had been healing in the Autodoc for a week or so leaving Aurora alone. Still, it was sold as a sci-fi love story, and we got a stalker-rapist story.
I was very upset when I watched the movie "My Sister's Keeper", and the director CHANGED the ending and someone else dies instead of the person in the book. That was a TOTAL change of what the author intended!!!
In Passangers it took months and Jim almost sacrificing himself for Aurora to forgive him and he gave her the option of going into a medically induce coma the fiture.
re: Passengers To be honest, at the end I was half expecting to see Jim and Aurora's offspring manning the ship waiting for the rest of the crew to wake from hibernation, going "Boy, do we have a story for you!"
Life of Brian WTF. The ending is universally ADORED. #1 requested song to be played at funeral in UK. The whole movie has a smear campaign by nut jobs but the ending was hardly the main issue for those tiny few religious protesters. Ugh.
"I resisted the idea of being a replicant, as a replicant would." Sounds to me like Ford did not disagree with Scott's take on things, merely he presented the character as not being a replicant, which is exactly how a replicant would act.
I think passengers would have been more interesting if she found out that she was one of many women he had woken up, and later killed when they found out and the "relationship" fell apart, the isolation for him drove him insane, and he had been waking up women hoping for the fairybook ending. then after she kills him, you cut to 3 years later and see her standing over a guys cryo tube. Movie ends.
I liked Passengers, but I gotta admit, if done right, that could have been really interesting. Especially if the movie had played it exactly the same as it is now, straight, with no hints or foreshadowing, and save that as a complete reveal in the last 20 minutes. Maybe Morpheus finds the bodies while he's looking for the problem that's about to destroy the ship. Jennifer could have been woken up 10 or maybe even 15 years after Chris and he might not have aged enough for us to notice.
Even just making her the only girl, but not letting the audience in on it, would have made it better. They could let the romance grow, and everyone is rooting for it, then it's revealed not just to Aurora, but also the audience, that he deliberately woke her. It makes it infinitely more creepy and changes the character focus from what is essentially the villain, in attempt to make him sympathetic, and rightly puts the POV with the victim. Now she's isolated on a ship with someone who's been lying and manipulating her and the plot tension would properly match that. Instead we got a film that doesn't properly address Stockholm syndrome in favor for a 'save the world' plot. The movie undermines what made the whole idea appealing in the first place.
+Steven Puckitt ~ Well since it wasn't "Stockholm Syndrome" the way feminists would like you to believe, there was no need to address anything. While there are indeed genuine cases of SS (like western women embracing ISIS), the armchair diagnosis is thrown around way too much, it treats women as weak-willed and takes away their personal agency. Way to go, feminism! /s
The most controversial part of it was the implication that Jesus was just another street prophet who was taken more seriously than others and that his status as son of God was a rationalization by the masses looking for something to believe. It was saying religion was a mass psychosis rather than true belief.
That's what religions generally despise the most - when non-divine things make perfect sense. Scariest thing for a church, really. Imagine if people in the church would see that things with god make zero sense while things without god make perfect sense - how would the church justify its existence?
Religion (whatever) having no sense of humor doesn't mean God (whatever) doesn't have one. All Monty Python movies are just great; I guess it would look weird to some people if you saw just the one.
What was wrong with Passengers...? Hadn't Jim woken her up they all would have died, what Jim did was selfish but makes sense that she'd come to appreciate it and forgive him as it LITERALLY saved her life and everyone else's. Everyone criticising the movie conveniently forget the part about the spacecraft almost blowing up (and Jim willing to lay down his life to save everyone ... In that moment she too feared becoming alone like he was for so long, showing she had come to understand his POV is some way) and make it sound like Aurora just decided to forgive him out of nowhere, some saying they made her look weak.
There are other costs on top of that budget that us regular folk don't know about which factor in. Things such as marketing costs, overhead, home video production, residuals, etc. Each expense can cost 50 million a piece (give or take). Do the math and profits for making the film will sink into the negatives.
I'm sure it ended in the black (more likely than not) given international and DVD sales...But overall they were probably expecting a much huger return...If they made $20 million in the end however? I'm not crying for them, and neither should anyone else
Passengers was a story that was fundamentally centred on one very controversial moral dilemma. So controversial, in fact, that all other aspects of the movie and even the conclusions the movie draws about this moral dilemma were completely overshadowed by the offence - yes, OFFENCE - of supposedly mature, adult film critics. If the actions of Chris Pratt's character in this movie were truly so reprehensible as they were made out to be, I would have hoped for a public condemnation of all serious dramatic films to ever exist due to their depiction of murder, rape, sexual assault, racism, classism, oppression, crime, war and violence. But of course that won't happen, because the critics who legitimately found fault with Passengers because of the actions of a character in the film they happened to disagree with are not intellectually capable of understanding context or nuance. Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt were great in their roles. All of their actions were understandable and justifiable. It takes a serious inability to put oneself in another's shoes to think otherwise. I would ask everyone who criticised Chris' character's decision to awaken Aurora to isolate themselves from all other human contact for 1 month, let alone 1 year, and see how their mental health copes. Humans are a social species and almost all of us require regular interaction with other people to remain psychologically healthy. Had Jim not woken up Aurora, he eventually would have killed himself, which would have been after more than a year of isolation, a length of time extremely impressive and a testament to his willpower in holding off his urges for a greater moral purpose. Not only that, if he had died then, everyone on board the ship would have died - not just Aurora. People also complain about Aurora suddenly bursting into Jim's room in a violent meltdown. I think the way in which that was depicted held very true, considering the reality of sudden psychological depletion when forced into isolation and captivity, and the intense anger one would harbour against someone who gave them a death sentence - to be carried out completely alone with no greater meaning ever being able to be achieved. Despite this, Aurora is very firmly placed in Jim's earlier position when she fears he has died trying to fix the ship. In that moment she foresees what a life alone on the ship would be like, and realises that what she feels in that moment is what Jim had felt for a YEAR. Because of this, she forgives him, and her earlier love for him re-emerges. Critics and audience who missed this and dislike the movie because of it are very superficial.
This is probably the best summary of the thesis of the movie in a few paragraphs. Movie critics be damned, but this was a good movie to examine how we all might act if put in Jim's position.
Actually I think the whole plot is wrong. They should have woke up at the same time. The story of beeing strandet in a space ship is IMO story enough. I don't need the moral drama. The film did need more aliens and other mystery stuff. The trailer WAS toally misleading and it promised a much better movie.
If the movie is really about his choice as you say, then she choice needs to be just as interesting and drawn out and it isn't. It's a pat answer. Also, if it's about his choice then why do we need an action adventure ending? The movie is deeply flawed. It's not terrible, but it's not a good movie and she's there just as a plot device for his choice, not as a fully fleshed out character.
Finally someone who understood the movie. I dont get why ppl judged Jim so hard, I believe they just dont want to put in his situation. Also, both critics and audience have to admit that the situation presented in the movie is the luckiest posibility out of all. Without Jim and Aurora awake, they would have all died, and also, it turns out that Jim and Aurora had a wonderful and long life together. I really liked the plot and the concept and I'm disappointed that so many people didnt got the idea. This movie is about how humans react when they have to make capital decisions in their lifes (I loved that in the end they let Aurora the posibility to go back to hibernation, so in this way Jim's initial decision to wake her up can be changed, but she decides to go for love, following the advice recieved from her friends from Earth)
"The Passengers" went deep into Chris Pratt's doubts and guilt about condemning Jennifer's charactor to live out a sole existence with just him...I thought it was a actually pretty darn good story line for a movie that wasn't your average space adventure movie...
I loved Passengers for a lot of reasons. Mainly, I have always had an interest in last man on earth or dystopian stories. I thought this was well written and well acted. The cinematography was also great. As for the story the main question the reader or watcher must answer is: what would you do if you were in this situation? Many forget that Jim too was a victim. He was brought out off his sleep pod early. He is a good man that was forced to make a terrible choice.although we recognize he is lonely, he isn’t his only concern. He has to look after the other passengers. Ship procedures prevented him from accessing the bridge and actual crew. So those resources were not available to help. Yet he still waited over a year to make the call. As a mechanic he knew something was wrong and could diagnose it with the currently available resources and what would happen if another issue occurred and Jim was here alone to solve it. He needed back up and selfishly, he needed company to share this burden. His choice was made for him. He selected a passenger who he thought he would get along with. They connected. Sure she had a natural reaction to the turn of events, but realized at a point when Jim was almost lost that she would have made a similar choice if the roles were reversed. The story makes you think. But in the end they saved the ship and hundreds of passengers owe them their lives. But why no kids?
Passengers is one of my favourite movies for the sole reason that it didn't go the traditional route and involved evaluating your own psychology and making you wonder what you would've done if you were in the same situation. That movie had me thinking about that question for the next week after seeing it in theatres!
I understand the part about Titanic and why the decision was made for Jack to die and not let him live. We remember that Titanic is movie based on a real life tragedy. The characters of Jack and Rose were created with the intent to convey and spread this message of tragedy. It is *not* easy when you make a movie about an enormous tragedy where over 1500 people died in the freezing water of the Atlantic Ocean and striking a balance to be inspirational without diminishing the loss of life. This is the exact reason why the decision was made for Jack to die and Rose to live. It's all in the main theme song too with My Heart Will Go On. Of course the decision could have easily been made to let Jack live, see the two of them arrive in New York Harbour and see them begin their new lives, but it would not have done any justice to the tragedy of the Titanic at all, which was the most important message James Cameron wanted to spread.
I think "Passengers" might be interesting if it explored that pod they found in the end that allowed one person to hibernate. I think they could have had a child together and let that child sleep in the pod
the plot of Passengers was misunderstood. While, yes, Jim did wake her up, but he did it under duress, with absolute desperation. There's no saying what any one of us would have done in the same position. And Aurora fell in love with him again, after she forgave him, because she understood why he did it. I went and saw Passengers in the theaters six times before I came on video. I even wrote a fan fiction novelization of it online
With passengers I always say to people who hate it, what would you do in Jim’s place? Aurora never saw what Jim did from his perspective and why until the moment that she might have been left in the position that he was if he died. Just those fleeting moments of realisation of loneliness that Aurora faced when Jim was technically dead made her realise that she might well have done the same and was able to come to terms with what he had done to her! Plus what everyone forgets is that when they got Gus’s ID and security bracelet Jim could put Aurora back in to stasis in the autodoc, she didn’t have to die on the ship. All those feelings Aurora had for Jim returned and the hate disappeared.
I recommended The Mist to my youngest sister because she wanted to watch movie with shocking twist ending. 2 hours later she stormed to my room, her eyes were bawling with tears, and she punched me several time while saying, "Never do that again to me! Don't you ever recommend a movie with that kind of ending to me! Ever! How dare you making me ugly cry like this!" Well Sis, you asked for it 😂
I love that ending, really didn't expect it. Makes me think twice about shooting the people around me next time, i'll take the chance of them being eaten alive lol. That movie was so good in showing the worst of people despite even having a common enemy.
@@humanshieldz it's just like people who are stuck on a raft, and want to kill themselves or each other, but then the next day, a sailing ship spots them.
Ending should have been save the ship, Aurora never forgive Jim, kills him, gets lonely, awakes another passenger, that passenger kills her for awakening her, then that passenger gets lonely and awakens another passenger and the pattern gets repeating itself
They alluded to that point. They said mythbusters tested the theory and for them both to get on the raft she would have had to have taken off her life vest and put it under the bottom of the door. It isn't a huge stretch to think that two adults in a life and death situation could think of this solution.
Pavel Drotár myth busters used two grown men, who weight far more together than a lady and Leonardo Decaprio. The thickness of the coats and the water temp have nothing to do with boyancy.
By FAR the most controversial scene I have ever witnessed in a theater is the baby scene in Mother. Holy poop! I have never seen so many people express anger and immediately walk out of a theater before.
Batman's ending was good for it's setting. It matching Alfred's dream for Bruce was just Bruce giving Alfred the hope he wanted. It was perfect for them both. :) The 3rd movie still needed work though :p Passengers needed work, but he never murdered her. He woke her up. She'll live a life she may not have seen coming, but that's just called life. :p And kidnap? She's on the same ship she willingly went on. What he did, was wake her up when she shouldn't have. Dick move maybe, but not kidnap or murder. :p
Pavel Drotár OMG! thank you for catching on to that! i been thinking the same thing. It would have been almost impossible for him to fix the ship himself.
Brand X Maybe not murder but is kidnapping. She went into the ship to travel to another planet, not to be stranded all her life in it with a random guy she didnt knew and that condemed her to that life without asking... That or to be alone just like he was as much time as she could resist. But yes, the script needed work, i didnt "hate" the ending, i was just like "whaaaaat???????" I think the ending could be better, not that "alright, i love you now, lets spend all our lifes in the ship... The end" Actually, i remember i guy who said that if they were spare parts for anything they could build another (a second) medical pod, hibernate both and awake with everyone else. Then, in the new planet they could try to pursue the relantionship to find if it was true love
He woke her up early. She's still where she put herself. That's not kidnapping. What he did was a dick move. That's all. As for the ending, I didn't have a problem with it. The movie at that point was fine. The problem was somewhere in the middle (I believe, right after she finds out) that the movie just felt like it was dragging. The suggestion I've seen, that to start the movie after he woke her up and then see his waking up in flashbacks, may have gotten rid of the boring middle part, I don't know, but the ending itself, I was okay with.
The one thing everyone misses in the Passenger is that if he had not woken someone, everyone would have died. It took two people to correct the issue with the ship and if not for his initial self serving act everyone would have perished in transit. According to Spock "the good of the many out weigh the good of the one"
Exactly, and they foreshadowed it by having Morgan Freeman mention he'd fixed the function to fly the ship remotely - and recreating Alfred's dream was a nod from Bruce to Alfred :)
I honestly think the ending to the film version of Watchmen was an improvement. It explained why Dr Manhattan wouldn't want to get involved and sort it all out and why the heroes would be so crushed as to never want to help again.
Snyder's choice to change the ending was the best choice. That change, changes everything about the story and makes it hit harder. The problems of the time they're trying to fix or solve is exactly what, for those in the know, brings the world together. The threat of nuclear holocausts. The problems with trust, betrayal, murders. Above all that, the source? The secrecy. With that why invent a new super being when you already have one, he'll understand. The world has their nuclear exchange, small scale, they get a glimpse and pull back. It's a far better story decision.
Where’s “The Abyss” in this list? A) It’s a James Cameron film B) It’s ending was so controversial that a directors cut was made. C) The filmed suffered at the box office because of its ending.
Ian Meadows is right. By putting Pratt's character in the foreground we're expected to empathize with him even though what he did was very wrong. So it's already assuming that either our moral compasses are very broken or that we're gonna fall for his shtick at some point during the show and ignore the fact that what he did was super rapey. However if we see things through her eyes not only do we get a better story in general, we are left to explore his character on our own, instead of having this pressure to empathize with him, we are given that option but not forced into it and can then come to terms on our own. If the ending was a bit more ambiguous it would've been better. Like if the audience could decide if/when he was redeemed and not be force-fed this insulting cliche 'love conquers all' type romantic ending. Edit: Also I remember reading that exact suggestion elsewhere, ages ago, in a different analysis of the film. you might want to credit your sources.
The premise is painfully dumb. Ship cannot repair itself, does not wake the crew up, no ability to put people/crew members back to sleep after fixing the ship if need be. The ENTIRE human society cannot comprehend a possibility of a pod failure which is reflected in ship's AI being unable to answer simple questions. LOL I love/hate the movie cuz it had sooo much potential that got wasted.
It examines the moral dilemmas of the 2 main characters and to a lesser degree of the engineer who must choose duty over making judgements. The plot demonstrates that had Jim not awakened Aurora, the entire ship would have been lost. Jim further redeems himself by offering to put Aurora in the Auto-doc pod, which would both save her and condemn him to again live alone.
The ship's computer was damaged by the meteor strike, which would explain the delay in waking Engineer Gus Mancuso. Seriously, though, what are the odds that Gus being awakened is an accident? The shipping company knew that pod failures sometimes occur and mutinies are possible, which explains why the crew area is hardened against intrusion and why it is necessary to travel in an elevator to get from the pod areas to the main hull. Since no human passenger and only crew members had ever returned from a trip, the fact of occasional pod failures would have been hidden by the shipping company. Propaganda and effective 'gas-lighting' would make a pod failure seem as improbable as being struck by lightning. Think about it for a moment. You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the Mega Millions lottery, but people still play the lottery and ignore lightning storms.
The fan edits where the Passengers movie starts with Aurora waking up and then Jim's story is interspersed into what would have been Act 2 was a thing of beauty, and would have had people going back to see the movie over & over to piece together the whole story. A simple editing change could have made that movie a billion $$$.
As someone who only ever watches movie online (Netflix, Amazon etc) I had no idea Passengers was a flop at the movies, which I find really surprising as it was a great movie, incredibly well acted and written, and to hear the movie critics completely missed the whole point that if Jim hadden't awakened Aurora, she and everybody else on the ship would have died, so in fact he hadn't imprisoned her, he had saved her, and to top it all off he even found a way to use the auto-doc pod to place her back into hibernation, but she chose to stay with the man who saver her and everybody else's life, just confirms what I've always suspected about critics, they aren't anywhere near as clever as they think they are :)
@@casinodelonge Because at the bar Aurora said "Besides there are no secrets between me and Jim." To which Arthur looked at Jim who had told him never to tell Aurora he had woken her up, and asked Jim "Is that so?" to which Jim said "You heard the lady." Thus informing Arthur's AI that there were no longer ANY restricted information from Aurora. And that's the problem with dealing with AI's, they just don't understand the human necessity for deception in harmonious relationships eg "No darling that dress doesn't make your bum look big." ;)
The problem with the Passengers is that he cherry picked the hottest girl to be his companion and to obviously have sex with her. He took away her freedom of choice and her future. I know he's crazy but he could have woken up the best mechanics on the ship or something since the crew was locked up... It's pure coincidence that he is good looking, because he sure as hell behaved like a creep around her. I know they were trying to portray that he was shocked by another human being finally entering his life, but he looked at her like a crazy person. If he wasn't hot, I bet the story would go differently. Imagine him looking like Steve Bucsemi
I don't remember which video it was but there was an interesting one who talked about an other way to see the movie Passengers : Forget all the beginning and just take the movie from the moment Aurora wakes up then go until the moment she learns that he messed up with her pod (the movie becomes creepy AF) then place all the story of the awakening of the guy and take the movie back to the captain waking up. it was really interesting seeing the movie in that light, in a way creepier and even more morally wrong than the movie.
How about, she looks up his background and finds he had a restraining order placed on him by his ex-girlfriend, or left Earth after serving time for assault?
I thought Passengers was a great ending and i thought they gave time for Lawrence's character go through her own emotional process and reach her own decisions.
What’s truly sad about the ending of Titanic is not that Jack died but that when Rose did she went back to him in the “after-life”...the guy she knew for like 3 days...and not to the family she had after she arrived to America. Bit of a slap in the face to them....
The thing with the grey is the wolf howls are grammatically wrong... At bit like having people replicating Chinese by making offensive racial stereotype noises
A better ending for Passengers would have been for Jim to die after the reactor scene. Fade out, then fade in, and it's few years later, with Aurora standing over some guy's pod wrestling with the same dilemma that Jim faced. Does she or doesn't she? Movie ends. Also, a better beginning to the movie would have been with Aurora waking up to find this random guy (Jim) wandering around the ship (having been awake himself for a few years, but without the audience knowing it yet). He would then have come across as creepy and mysterious, and a later reveal of his waking up of Aurora would have provided a twist. In other words, the same story, but from Aurora's perspective.
Comon looper most of these are clearly highly grossing movies within the last 10 or so years. You gotta expand your horizons especially when it comes to controversy. I mean you guys are supposed to be cinema lovers not another pop culture list maker
The problem with Titanic for me was not that Jack froze to death. My problem was that Rose threw that giant ass necklace off the ship when she could have paid off people's student loans, helped under-privileged children get an education, or even just sold the necklace and start a charity in Jack's name. I think that would have been a much better ending.
When? The necklace actually belonged to her fiance's family. Even if she waited until he died, his relatives would have recognized it and sued to recover it.
It's a narrative device, not real jewelry. I'm sure if you ever find yourself in possession of a shittastic megagem you don't need, you'll make a better choice than she did 😂
9:45 - That's not fair. She forgave him and decided to spend her life with him because he corrected his mistake by fixing just one pod and offering to return her to stasis in it while he resumed living alone. Up until that point, she was steadfast in avoiding him totally. Yeah, she could have remained awake against her will had things not gone as they did, but things did work out, and she had her freedom given back to her in the end. This is why I liked the ending - she ultimately forgave and made a decision for her own life that just happened to be a beautiful thing for both of them.
The squid may look stupid, but the whole point was to create an unknown enemy that both the US and USSR could fight. Dr. Manhattan was an American and was used as a weapon by America, so framing him doesn't accomplish the goal. There's no real reason why the USSR would want to join up with the US to fight a weapon made by the US.
kd8663 Dr. Manhatten wasn't a weapon per se. He was more of an US ally the seeming turner against humanity in general (by blowing up NY and moscow and some other cities)
7 лет назад+7
It was not about uniting people against Dr. Manhattan, more like planting fear in them that they are being watched and judged by an omnipotent being, who says live by my rules or perish. Sounds familiar? Because sometimes this is the only way to make people behave civilized. The whole concept has strong theological vibes.
+literallyawerewolf When it comes to uniting the world, I don’t think it matters whether it’s an unknown enemy, as long as it’s a common enemy. Dr. Manhattan serves that role fine-I don’t see an issue.
People always talk about the door in titanic. The first thing I thought when I left the cinema was, if rose wouldn't have jumped out of the life boat to be with jack he would have had the door all by himself. Strange people never see that option.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! Check us out everywhere else for more cool stuff:
Instagram → instagram.com/looperhq/
Facebook → facebook.com/loopermoviestv/
Looper what about the original Old Boy, Dae-su Oh fucked his own daughter......HIS DAUGHTER! If that's not controversial, I don't know what is??? Oh Looper, you sure know how to disappoint 👎
Joshua Smith agreed a grim but excellent film. Not as shocking but similar themes is Sympathy for Mr Vengeance.
Looper Kevin
Aurora did not die in passengers she lives you can see her go in the pod and end the movie
The Grey has a end credit scene
I was fine with Jack's death in Titanic. Her throwing the priceless gem into the ocean instead of giving it to her granddaughter is what pissed me off.
You missed the point of the movie.
Having been blessed with monetarily rewarding investing, I choose to live a simple life that makes me happy. Sadly, word got out to a materialistic stepson. After a series of events where he wanted my money, I was confronted by him, drunk, with threats of violence.
In my opinion, the grandmother did her granddaughter a favor.
Wealth is not a joy, its a burden.
@@DougAlesUSA Not nearly as much a burden as poverty.
Pmsl!
“Wealth is a burden” said by poor people never!
@@DougAlesUSA You have obviously never experienced a welfare Christmas. Anyone who believes money is the root of all evil never has.
I was shocked by Titanic's ending. I never expected the ship to sink.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 me too
😆😆😂😂
Lmao
Yeah that was the most depressing surprise !!
The ship sank?
People seem to have missed a critical element in the plot of "Passengers". Aurora and Jim's characters saved the ship together in a way Jim could never have done by himself. If he hadn't woken her, Lawrence's character and everyone else aboard would have perished on that fatally malfunctioning vessel. Pratt's character did something unethical out of selfishness but, as it turns out, he didn't rob Aurora of anything but dying prematurely in hibernation.
Okay, but it was still a bad movie. That's why it tanked. It's just not enjoyable to watch and her acting in atrocious.
@Alex B. I agree. I put it down as fate that drove him to do it, more than his own personal need.
FLdancer00 stop it. There was nothing wrong with that movie.
@@armanilafond44 That is highly debatable. The concept was great, the execution was poor.
@@FLdancer00 funny that pigs think their opinions matter.
JL has an oscar and her performance in passengers deserve one too
A better ending for Passengers would have been for Aurora to be so overcome with rage and hate for Jim that she eventually kills him. Then, after months of being alone, she starts looking at those pods, finds a man she finds interesting, and it starts all over again. It could end with her just making a facial expression at a pod as she finally sees things from Jim's point of view and realizes she was wrong to kill him.
Somewhere, that's what is happening : she almost about to kill him and when Jim goes out the spatial ship for may be no returning, she reveals she won't be able to live alone without him. So, the script not consider she will make up someone if Jim dies, but the idea is quite the same.
And Jim died, which mechanic would have repair critical damages ?^^
Pokerface .....interesting.
I absolutely love that idea
I loved Passengers. The fact she chose to save his life 'waking HIM' up, so she wouldn't be alone for 90 years - plus she apparently had fallen in love with him as he had fallen in love with her, it was poetic.
She understood the feeling that Jim must have felt - and that is the point.
The trees and all that in the main deck - just wonderful... but... where were their children???
Did you get this idea from NerdWriters video on rearranging the film 🤔🤔
Actually, my fave observation about the ending of Titanic is that Jack dying was the most romantic way to culminate his relationship with Rose: At film's end, he lives on in her mind as a kind of mythic, eternally perfect lover. If he'd lived, he'd have disappointed her, eventually.
Ron Zajac She also went on to have a good life with someone else, which is what Jack wanted for her. Would have been depressing if not done as a flashback and ended like that. But, was a romantic memory of someone who loved her enough to die to save her.
Rose was over-priveladged. She would've gotten really tired of being poor a week into that Relationship. Jack should've known better and let her die so he didn't eventually disappoint her...
lol
Ron Zajac+ I know you are right. I've been married for 48 yrs.
The argument I've always made about that ending is that Rose is actually telling the story to the research vessel crew like 80 years after it happened so much of it could be a lie. She might have left Jack back on the ship at some point or fought him off out of fear of freezing to death.
Passengers was not a bad movie. Good acting, and good dialogue.
Ending of "The Mist" was devastatingly brilliant. Makes you feel just like he does with that haunting scream
Something Clever Yep, that's the only movie on the List that was a Great Ending because it was the most Rational thing to do. I probably would've done the same thing...
I'll never forget the first time I saw it. Blew my mind.
I prefer the ending they didn't show, guess its an alternate ending where they all live
Raven24 I think that's how the book ends but I've heard Steven King say he loved the end to the movie so, high praise from the guy that wrote the story. I give the Director credit for doing something different.
Thomas Jane's scream actually almost ruins it for me. Everything else is perfect though.
Passengers was good after seeing it I immediately rewatched it with my wife and she also loved it. Prat's decision was selfish but relatable.
I liked it to.
The irony is... if he didn't wake her all would have died including her.
I thought it was interesting that he could only wait a year before he just had to wake her up & ruine her life. One year! Really?
I loved Passengers. It showed a pretty wide range of humanity, from ugly to beautiful, and did well balancing realism with idealism.
I’ll never forget watching The Mist and literally letting out a scream of despair when the army guys showed up 😩
I was shook af 😂
The whole reason why my wife hates it and gets angry when i say hey honey the mist is on.
Army guys = soldiers
I had to pick up my jaw off the floor. I read the novella, expected that ending. I could not believe it
@pan af well good for you, but this is just a film dude. Fantasy.
You have to watch the entire movie so you can talk about the finale when it comes to "Passengers". She was more than furious when she found out that he was the one who woke her up and even almost killed him, but when they realize that it's the two of them who have to save the entire spaceship - things change. He in the end forces her to go back to sleep, but, because only one of them can - she refuses, and decides to spend the rest of her life with him. That's a great ending!
Ian Meadows
That would actually have been a good way to go. Especially if he does with her hating him until she came to the realisation that she was now stuck with the same choice.
Overall I felt that JL's character was underdeveloped. There was a great deal of time spent on Chris Pratt's character but hers felt rushed.
I agree the ending was great. That was one of my fav movies last year. there were so many lessons to get out of it.
She didn't live her life with him, she went to sleep in the pod, then later wrote about everything when they were established after the ship landed
I agree with the POV choice, although I think they focused on Chris Pratt's character to make him more sympathetic to the audience. Seeing how depressed he was and how long he resisted waking her up makes him easier to empathize with. It works better with the happy ending of them ending up together. Perhaps if they had started with her POV and then flash backed to his when he woke up throughout the film.
she only stayed with him because of the...."implication"
I remember being soooo impressed with “The Mist”. I saw it soon after it released and at that point in time, I had never seen any scene in film that I felt so deeply. I have always praised the ending as Brilliant and Genius writing. Fantastic film.
There was also the ending to _A.I.: Artificial Intelligence_ .
That was a sad SAD ending. Alien using dna and the child memory to recreate tthe mother for just a day
That movie just didn't know what it wanted to be. The problem is Spielberg tried straddling the line between his often optimistic film style with Kubrick's often bleak styling. Considering Kubrick died before being able to make the film Spielberg should have just made the film exactly how he would normally go about filming. It probably would have turned out much better.
Steven Puckitt That's the thing, the ending was Kubrick's idea.
Le Quasar You've reminded me now of the bear.
The lovely bear, teddy :D . He Is the one that kept all along The mother's hair that alien use to exctract dna.
Snowpiercer: Polar bear spots hot meals in frozen wasteland.
Polar Bear: " ..there is hope after all!"
Polar bear 2 hours later, with bones and fur coats lying around...
BUUURP
The author really needs to pull out a dictionary and look up the word Hope. Or take a biology class and learn to calculate the odds of repopulating the world from two children that are basically bear food if they're lucky. Slowly freezing/starving if they're not.
As you say. The bear is the only winner here.
Passengers was one of my all time favorite movies. Too bad it got bad reviews from critics who could not acknowledge that a fairly high percentage of people would've done the same thing the Chris Pratt character did eventually.
Why the hell is everyone just ignores the worldwide gross of movies and just taking into consideration the domestic one? I mean Passengers made 200m worldwide on top of the 100m domestically.With a production budget of 110m I wouldn't consider this a flop.
That's still a flop by Hollywood standards. Between production budget, promotional expenses (which can be $100 million), and miscellaneous expenses, the profit gets eaten up. A movie of $110 million probably has to make $500 globally to be a seen as a good investment.
I mean, it wasn't really a huge flop, but I think Sony was expecting it to make a lot more. It was marketed as being this really mysterious/dystopian sci-fi film.
Studios gets 60 to 70% of domestic income and somewhere between 35 and 50% on foreing markets (but only 25% on the chinese market, which is the second biggest income for this kind of movies), which translates to roughly 50-55% of the worldwide income. On top of that, as other people already pointed out, you have to add marketing costs (which *generally* are about 100 mil or so but, as an example, in the case of _Star Wars - The Force Awakens_ were up to 250 mil), distribution and, of course, taxes :-)
Do the math and you'll see that - by any possible measures - _Passengers_ flopped (as it should have).
999SickBoy666 as i said before i'm pretty sure that marketing was inside the 110m budget, but as you put it in percentages it makes way more sense why is this considered a flop
110m is the production budget as reported by both BoxOfficeMojo/IMDb and Wikipedia - marketing budget are never included under "production". Sometimes - like in the case of _The Force Awakens_ - marketing budget are revealed or leaked, but they are an entirly different item (and, yes, as a reference: this means that, overall, a movie like _The Force Awakens_ cost [production+marketing] in the neighborhood of 500m).
Anyway, glad if I was of any help in clearing things up a bit :-)
Passengers dealt with the fundamental human need for companionship. It showed how much we are willing to forgive to not be alone.
In the Death of Superman episode, it shows Vandal Savage who is an immortal bad guys who finally managed to destroy all humanity. The problem is he lives alone for long time and finally he met with Superman who got transport to the future.
The entire episode show even the most evil villain can't live alone and with enough time, he even dine with his enemy and willing to change to past so he couldn't be alone anymore.
I liked passengers, was a good movie but the end did piss me off haha
It tried
Except it has Jennifer Lawrence. So the movie was bound to fail
Justin I actually enjoyed that film. It was scary as a kid watching it but well acted
Passengers is one of my favorite movies. Think about it...a VERY complex machine, full of autonomous computers is hit by a boloid that cripples a main system. What does this thinking machine do, it wakes the one man who can fix it. A mechanic. What this mechanic does then is awaken another. Good or Bad who cares. Then at another critical point it wakes a deck officer, who can provide acces to the place that needs fixing. The hero of this movie is the spaceship !!! It saved 5000 plus people, maybe in a cold hearted way, but it does. Great movie. Great sub-plot LOVED IT.
David Bires Damn never thought of it that way
Indeed! :)
You're thinking way too much and giving this movie way too much credit. It was a bad rom com with subpar acting.
I love passengers also. Who cares what other people think. Its a different kind of love story and like most love story's they all have a down side but end up right anyway. I also like that the droid bartender that has played P.M. Tony Blair in two other movie ends up doing this movie.
@@FLdancer00 fuckin fat pig at it again
I don't know if it was controversial, but after finishing Boy in the Striped Pajamas, it left me in a stunned silence.
Daenerys it was just following the book, which is fucking sad as shit. If you enjoy a good read you should read it. It had to cut a lot of scenes and they really make the ending hit harder.
I was crying too much to be stunned. Left me quite morbid for days.
I watched it as a 10 year old kid, I was crying and wouldn't believe it. My parents then told me he survived.
Good old times
I hate to admit it, but it left me rather 'satisfied' that the father finally feels what he puts others through.
I finished the book in a class, had to step out for a walk cause of the ending.
"The script says Jack dies." Fucking awesome honesty. James Cameron rocks. Rian Johnson could learn a lesson from him.
Directors change the scripts all the time. He should have shot an extra ending with Jack surviving. Maybe future CGI can come to Jack's rescue.
Yes, It's like 3/4 of the way through. I wonder if they watched the movies.
Sorry dude... you missed it with Watchmen.
I think that the biggest and most controversial ending, was when Dr. Manhattan killed Rorschach
Let us Reason but that happened in the graphic novel it’s not controversial if it wasn’t changed
I didn't like the ending but it was logical which is the only way Dr. Manhattan could see things. If he had known that Rorschach had left his notebook at the newspaper, it may have been different.
Thank you
For sure
do it
Passengers was one of my favorite movies. A real shame people didn't like it.
Keplergamer I liked Passengers. I didn't see his actions as murder, per se. So I found Chris Pratt to be a more sympathetic character. They did a pretty decent job of showing him going slightly crazy before he resorts to the course of action he ultimately takes. They also do a nice job with the 'drowning' metaphor which I believe is the actual reason that she forgives him without having to kill him to understand how she would feel on his place.
They could still do a sequel; just say it was a sister-ship but this time have a female passenger wake up first. Then we would see the dilemma from the opposite perspective. The REAL difference would be to leave out the "ship might explode ex-machina" to see how long it would take before they either fell in love or murdered each other.
I just hated it. Because it is a romantic-comedy-scifi thingy, which doesn't mesh well with me. And if you're wondering why I watched it I was forced to. Eh, atleast the acting was nice. And Morpheus.
@@deborahhanna6640 I liked it too and you stated the reasons very well :)
I actually really liked passengers, but there is better. Still better than that terrible 2016 ghostbusters remake. If it weren't for Chris Hemsworth, I would've skipped that movie.
Favorite?! Really?! I thought it was garbage, but I could understand if you said you LIKED it. But favorite?!
Interesting how different US and German critics reacted to Passengers. While I agree that they could have tackled the issue of Jim waking up Aurora in more depth, critics over here still called it one of the best SciFis ever. And I'd agree. Because honestly, I would think about waking somebody up, too. Nobody can expect anyone to stay alone for the rest of his/her life when he/she can help it.
And in the end her decision was logical. She couldn't go back into her pod, and there was only one person around to spend her life with. And while he may have been selfish in waking her up, he kinda saved her life and all others on the ship. Unknowingly first, sure, but in the end the result matters, doesn't it? So sure, it's a moral grey, but that US critics hated it that much to me means that they never made that thought experiment of putting themselves into Jim's place and thinking about how they would have reacted. Because Jim acted just like a human being. We are selfish idiots. Hating ourselves for it won't make that go away.
Germany is not in the U.K. my friend
@@buffseven I live in the US and agree with him. Not you. Given the fact that he was human and not machine, it's not surprising that he woke her up. It's human nature to want to be with someone, to be with someone you feel you will have chemistry with and to try to make a life.
@@bethjones1116 and not forgetting that he first "meet" her just after trying to kill himself in the sas.
I still contend that people hated it because it was a bad movie, not because Aurora ended up going back to him.
Movies in America are held to a higher standard because Americans pump out the highest volume of quality movies than every other countries.
The ending of Shutter Island was an ending I just couldn't wrap my head around.
Yes, the guy was a detective and yet we are supposed to believe he could be drawn into such a delusion with a corny fake gun and other props.
I saw Passengers the other night and I really liked it. Chris Pratt's move was kind of dickish but ultimately all 5000 people on the ship would have died if he hadn't have done it.
He did not know he was going to need a second person to pull that off when he fucked up her life. And even if he had known he would need help, if he was really anything other than a selfish creep, he would have picked a crew member or someone more technically skilled. The asshole picked the attractive blonde... and he did not do that to save the ship. I thought the movie was quite good, fun and visually stunning, but the ending was... disgusting.
how was it disgusting lol, what they suppost to do, commit suicide? lol
DN FI
Did you miss the part where all of the crew were sealed away by an impenetrable door that the main character spent a good chunk of time trying to get through as one of his first acts?
true
Jeremy When I first saw the previews, I was excited to see this film. Then, I realized that he purposefully woke her up and that pissed me off. I still don't know why people would be upset for her falling in love with him though. What else was she going to do? Lol.
That being said, you make me feel like I should give this movie a shot.
So, the moral to this story is, Sharing Your Opinion Online CAN Make a Difference!!
Well played, Internet. Well played.
"Passengers" is a movie designed to make the audience face the idea: what would you be willing to do if you were stranded alone for the rest of your life?
The answer in the movie isn't advocating that course of action - it's presenting it for commentary. Do folks who dislike the movie because of what he did also hate on "American Beauty" thinking it advocated sex with teen girls and homophobic murder?
Also: if someone is stranded on a desert island and they strand you with them for the rest of both your lives, would you really just ignore them for decades? There's no "right" answer - you're supposed to turn it over in your mind and savor it.
The movie is designed to make you think, which leads me to believe that the people who hate on it simply aren't.
Philo Janus Exactly! I really like the film! And I don't believe she had Stockholm Syndrome at all ( like someone suggested above).
She didn't know he had woken him when she fell in love with him. She then finds out. And yes she's rightfully furious, but she did love him. She said so in the book she's writing. She watches her friends goodbye video and the friend talks about her falling in love.
Then she saves him because 1) she loved him and 2) didn't want to be alone. Maybe at that point realizing how he felt at the thought of living alone. But she still loved him.
I enjoyed it and Jim did find out that he could save Aurora but she chose to stay with him.
"There's no "right" answer " Lmao except yours apparently, how did you miss the irony of your own comment? Lol.
This movie only makes you think "Should I watch until the end? Or is the story that predictable?" And it was and I shouldn't have. Personally as a custom fabricator, Sound engineer and musician who has to think A LOT in order to pay bills and eat, I did not find this movie thought provoking.
fully my opinion though, my brother loved it and he's a jive cat. But he did like Twilight and I did got one hell of a Twilight vibe from this movie. Any Teen in high school could write this one.
this movie was a boring as a potato and had not thinking required to watch it. It doesn't have a story or moral. Its was just a cra^y boring movie
It would have been more believable if she had taken his offer to go back to sleep. Otherwise, it feels like she gives in to Stockholm Syndrome.
In “ The Passengers” I thought they would have some kids, who would be old but Alive when the rest of the crew woke up.
The first time I watched it I thought the same thing
They probably did, but they didnz show them hehe
That was my thought too. In fact, in that amount of time there would have been grandchildren.
Well, we clearly see at the end that stuff is still in good shape, moving around, etc. So, I think the intent was to give the impression that someone was still alive on board. If it wasn't them then it was probably their kids.
It would have been very selfish for them to have had children, or a child. When they were gone, the child would have been in Jim's position and would have been alone for the remainder of their life or the trip.
"You gotta watch the movie with your brain sometimes not just your eyes"
-Me
Stephen Kings The Mist was the most fucked up ending I've ever seen.
James Deal I was so pissed at the end.
James Deal i know right
James Deal sorry, but I liked the twisted ending. It would have been good to have had it not alien, but a mind-altering thing, done by the army. So they would have hallucinated it all.
Am I the only one that saw through the twist. It wasn't surprising at all, completely predictable. The moment he decided to kill everyone I knew he was going to survive somehow.
It was fucking great, wasn't it?! :D
the mist was so horrifyingly heartbreaking omgggg
"So I resisted the idea of being a Replicant, as, I suppose, a Replicant would."
Hahaha, yeah, gotta love Harrison Ford.
I was just annoyed that the narrator kept calling replicants robots. They are not robots, they are artificially created humans, clones basically.
I think the true answer lies in "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep"
@@WorgenGrrl Actually, the original book on which Blade Runner is roughly based is titled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". (I am holding a copy in my hand) However they are radically different from each other. About the only thing they have in common is the hero's name "Rick Deckard". ;-)
I still remember being in the theater at the end of The Mist thinking "welp....guess I'll go kill myself 😐"
StephenRahrig that ending just is embedded in my mind's eye.
I am NEVER gonna watch that movie.
The Mist ending was indeed horrible. So-called "artists" that exploit the suffering of children for entertainment are scum, pure and simple. It's so cheap and easy and juvenile. The ending ruined an otherwise enjoyable B movie.
He run out of bullets
exploiting the suffering of children for entertainment? He didn't *really* shoot that kid, you know that right?
Passangers is a great ending, really think it is an under appreciated film.
Meh. Maybe if Jim had been healing in the Autodoc for a week or so leaving Aurora alone. Still, it was sold as a sci-fi love story, and we got a stalker-rapist story.
I was very upset when I watched the movie "My Sister's Keeper", and the director CHANGED the ending and someone else dies instead of the person in the book. That was a TOTAL change of what the author intended!!!
Man, movie critics are THE LAST people i listen to about films!!
In Passangers it took months and Jim almost sacrificing himself for Aurora to forgive him and he gave her the option of going into a medically induce coma the fiture.
re: Passengers
To be honest, at the end I was half expecting to see Jim and Aurora's offspring manning the ship waiting for the rest of the crew to wake from hibernation, going "Boy, do we have a story for you!"
I really enjoyed Passengers. They acted perfectly and the story was nice too. I didn't know it was a flop.. Sad..
Life of Brian WTF. The ending is universally ADORED. #1 requested song to be played at funeral in UK. The whole movie has a smear campaign by nut jobs but the ending was hardly the main issue for those tiny few religious protesters. Ugh.
The very fact that the Roman Catholic church "condemned" it makes it all the more worth watching, and funny.
They really should have had a trigger warning for the Latin lesson though, it gave me high school flashbacks.
I will forever be traumitized by the ending of The Mist. That shit is so fucked up, if he had waited just a few more minutes...
And so think/say we all... One of those "Crap. Crap! CRAP!!!" moments
That scene with Jack & Rose is not the "ending".
Jack Thompson yes it is. For them
No, the actual ending is even worse
"I resisted the idea of being a replicant, as a replicant would." Sounds to me like Ford did not disagree with Scott's take on things, merely he presented the character as not being a replicant, which is exactly how a replicant would act.
In the book, Decker was human and was married. He was having a breakdown of sorts and his wife was trying to help him from going off the deep end.
I think passengers would have been more interesting if she found out that she was one of many women he had woken up, and later killed when they found out and the "relationship" fell apart, the isolation for him drove him insane, and he had been waking up women hoping for the fairybook ending. then after she kills him, you cut to 3 years later and see her standing over a guys cryo tube. Movie ends.
I liked Passengers, but I gotta admit, if done right, that could have been really interesting. Especially if the movie had played it exactly the same as it is now, straight, with no hints or foreshadowing, and save that as a complete reveal in the last 20 minutes. Maybe Morpheus finds the bodies while he's looking for the problem that's about to destroy the ship. Jennifer could have been woken up 10 or maybe even 15 years after Chris and he might not have aged enough for us to notice.
Even just making her the only girl, but not letting the audience in on it, would have made it better. They could let the romance grow, and everyone is rooting for it, then it's revealed not just to Aurora, but also the audience, that he deliberately woke her. It makes it infinitely more creepy and changes the character focus from what is essentially the villain, in attempt to make him sympathetic, and rightly puts the POV with the victim. Now she's isolated on a ship with someone who's been lying and manipulating her and the plot tension would properly match that. Instead we got a film that doesn't properly address Stockholm syndrome in favor for a 'save the world' plot. The movie undermines what made the whole idea appealing in the first place.
53rdcards that sounds amazing. I would have loved that twist.
+Steven Puckitt ~ Well since it wasn't "Stockholm Syndrome" the way feminists would like you to believe, there was no need to address anything. While there are indeed genuine cases of SS (like western women embracing ISIS), the armchair diagnosis is thrown around way too much, it treats women as weak-willed and takes away their personal agency. Way to go, feminism! /s
duuuuude
The ending of Life Of Brian wasn't the bit that was controversial though was it.
Chris Norman what was? I've never watched it
The most controversial part of it was the implication that Jesus was just another street prophet who was taken more seriously than others and that his status as son of God was a rationalization by the masses looking for something to believe. It was saying religion was a mass psychosis rather than true belief.
What's controversial about that? Makes perfect sense.
That's what religions generally despise the most - when non-divine things make perfect sense. Scariest thing for a church, really.
Imagine if people in the church would see that things with god make zero sense while things without god make perfect sense - how would the church justify its existence?
Religion (whatever) having no sense of humor doesn't mean God (whatever) doesn't have one. All Monty Python movies are just great; I guess it would look weird to some people if you saw just the one.
What was wrong with Passengers...? Hadn't Jim woken her up they all would have died, what Jim did was selfish but makes sense that she'd come to appreciate it and forgive him as it LITERALLY saved her life and everyone else's.
Everyone criticising the movie conveniently forget the part about the spacecraft almost blowing up (and Jim willing to lay down his life to save everyone ... In that moment she too feared becoming alone like he was for so long, showing she had come to understand his POV is some way) and make it sound like Aurora just decided to forgive him out of nowhere, some saying they made her look weak.
$300 million worldwide gross against a $110 million dollar budget is not a flop. By any means.
Hollywood films don't have to be good (which Passengers was) they just have to make money, a lot of it.
There are other costs on top of that budget that us regular folk don't know about which factor in. Things such as marketing costs, overhead, home video production, residuals, etc. Each expense can cost 50 million a piece (give or take). Do the math and profits for making the film will sink into the negatives.
I'm sure it ended in the black (more likely than not) given international and DVD sales...But overall they were probably expecting a much huger return...If they made $20 million in the end however? I'm not crying for them, and neither should anyone else
I believe the Hollywood math is more than 3x the budget to be successful.
Passengers was a story that was fundamentally centred on one very controversial moral dilemma. So controversial, in fact, that all other aspects of the movie and even the conclusions the movie draws about this moral dilemma were completely overshadowed by the offence - yes, OFFENCE - of supposedly mature, adult film critics. If the actions of Chris Pratt's character in this movie were truly so reprehensible as they were made out to be, I would have hoped for a public condemnation of all serious dramatic films to ever exist due to their depiction of murder, rape, sexual assault, racism, classism, oppression, crime, war and violence. But of course that won't happen, because the critics who legitimately found fault with Passengers because of the actions of a character in the film they happened to disagree with are not intellectually capable of understanding context or nuance.
Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt were great in their roles. All of their actions were understandable and justifiable. It takes a serious inability to put oneself in another's shoes to think otherwise. I would ask everyone who criticised Chris' character's decision to awaken Aurora to isolate themselves from all other human contact for 1 month, let alone 1 year, and see how their mental health copes. Humans are a social species and almost all of us require regular interaction with other people to remain psychologically healthy. Had Jim not woken up Aurora, he eventually would have killed himself, which would have been after more than a year of isolation, a length of time extremely impressive and a testament to his willpower in holding off his urges for a greater moral purpose. Not only that, if he had died then, everyone on board the ship would have died - not just Aurora.
People also complain about Aurora suddenly bursting into Jim's room in a violent meltdown. I think the way in which that was depicted held very true, considering the reality of sudden psychological depletion when forced into isolation and captivity, and the intense anger one would harbour against someone who gave them a death sentence - to be carried out completely alone with no greater meaning ever being able to be achieved.
Despite this, Aurora is very firmly placed in Jim's earlier position when she fears he has died trying to fix the ship. In that moment she foresees what a life alone on the ship would be like, and realises that what she feels in that moment is what Jim had felt for a YEAR. Because of this, she forgives him, and her earlier love for him re-emerges.
Critics and audience who missed this and dislike the movie because of it are very superficial.
This is probably the best summary of the thesis of the movie in a few paragraphs. Movie critics be damned, but this was a good movie to examine how we all might act if put in Jim's position.
Actually I think the whole plot is wrong. They should have woke up at the same time. The story of beeing strandet in a space ship is IMO story enough. I don't need the moral drama. The film did need more aliens and other mystery stuff. The trailer WAS toally misleading and it promised a much better movie.
Ruben I completely agree with you
If the movie is really about his choice as you say, then she choice needs to be just as interesting and drawn out and it isn't. It's a pat answer. Also, if it's about his choice then why do we need an action adventure ending?
The movie is deeply flawed. It's not terrible, but it's not a good movie and she's there just as a plot device for his choice, not as a fully fleshed out character.
Finally someone who understood the movie. I dont get why ppl judged Jim so hard, I believe they just dont want to put in his situation. Also, both critics and audience have to admit that the situation presented in the movie is the luckiest posibility out of all. Without Jim and Aurora awake, they would have all died, and also, it turns out that Jim and Aurora had a wonderful and long life together. I really liked the plot and the concept and I'm disappointed that so many people didnt got the idea. This movie is about how humans react when they have to make capital decisions in their lifes (I loved that in the end they let Aurora the posibility to go back to hibernation, so in this way Jim's initial decision to wake her up can be changed, but she decides to go for love, following the advice recieved from her friends from Earth)
I thought Passengers was a good film. It seemed realistic and it basically had a good ending.
The end of The Mist made me feel dead inside
I have always preferred the novella ending. It's bleak yet slightly hopeful.
"The Passengers" went deep into Chris Pratt's doubts and guilt about condemning Jennifer's charactor to live out a sole existence with just him...I thought it was a actually pretty darn good story line for a movie that wasn't your average space adventure movie...
I loved Passengers for a lot of reasons. Mainly, I have always had an interest in last man on earth or dystopian stories. I thought this was well written and well acted. The cinematography was also great. As for the story the main question the reader or watcher must answer is: what would you do if you were in this situation? Many forget that Jim too was a victim. He was brought out off his sleep pod early. He is a good man that was forced to make a terrible choice.although we recognize he is lonely, he isn’t his only concern. He has to look after the other passengers. Ship procedures prevented him from accessing the bridge and actual crew. So those resources were not available to help. Yet he still waited over a year to make the call. As a mechanic he knew something was wrong and could diagnose it with the currently available resources and what would happen if another issue occurred and Jim was here alone to solve it. He needed back up and selfishly, he needed company to share this burden.
His choice was made for him. He selected a passenger who he thought he would get along with. They connected. Sure she had a natural reaction to the turn of events, but realized at a point when Jim was almost lost that she would have made a similar choice if the roles were reversed. The story makes you think. But in the end they saved the ship and hundreds of passengers owe them their lives. But why no kids?
It definitely was about the lack of kids 🤣 I love this movie 🍿
Passengers is one of my favourite movies for the sole reason that it didn't go the traditional route and involved evaluating your own psychology and making you wonder what you would've done if you were in the same situation. That movie had me thinking about that question for the next week after seeing it in theatres!
I understand the part about Titanic and why the decision was made for Jack to die and not let him live. We remember that Titanic is movie based on a real life tragedy. The characters of Jack and Rose were created with the intent to convey and spread this message of tragedy.
It is *not* easy when you make a movie about an enormous tragedy where over 1500 people died in the freezing water of the Atlantic Ocean and striking a balance to be inspirational without diminishing the loss of life. This is the exact reason why the decision was made for Jack to die and Rose to live. It's all in the main theme song too with My Heart Will Go On.
Of course the decision could have easily been made to let Jack live, see the two of them arrive in New York Harbour and see them begin their new lives, but it would not have done any justice to the tragedy of the Titanic at all, which was the most important message James Cameron wanted to spread.
Ohhh very very good point!!
Why are you the only person pointing this out???....this only proves humans are really dumb and don’t pay attention to shit.
dvchel they made jack die because he always said ‘live today like its your last’ thats really the only reason the director said it
Still, the emotion in the ending really died for me since i now know that jack could've lived and that his sacrifice could've been avoided
The controversial end of Titanic, the ship sank!
I think "Passengers" might be interesting if it explored that pod they found in the end that allowed one person to hibernate. I think they could have had a child together and let that child sleep in the pod
The only catch would be they couldn't use the Autodoc once there's a kid, teen, or adult in it.
I saw Titanic once. If she had just gotten on the boat to start with, he would have survived and they could have met up again in New York.
There’s no prof that he would have survived. Also Cal would not have just let her go.
I say use CGI and make another ending with Jack finding his own door to lay on next to her.
watchmen movie ending > novel ending
Evil Nick I agree for the movie not for the comic
Zach Snider is a hack though... so... yeah
Arlington Road is probably one of the most disturbing ending I have seen in a Hollywood production. Lovely Bones too.
"A Clockwork Orange" with it's wonderfully cynical "I was cured alright" should be near, if not at, the top of this list.
The mist ending though.....😓😔
the plot of Passengers was misunderstood.
While, yes, Jim did wake her up, but he did it under duress, with absolute desperation. There's no saying what any one of us would have done in the same position. And Aurora fell in love with him again, after she forgave him, because she understood why he did it.
I went and saw Passengers in the theaters six times before I came on video. I even wrote a fan fiction novelization of it online
moviegoers should follow their hearts not these critics
Here's another shocker,Titanic didn't end with Jack's death.
With passengers I always say to people who hate it, what would you do in Jim’s place? Aurora never saw what Jim did from his perspective and why until the moment that she might have been left in the position that he was if he died. Just those fleeting moments of realisation of loneliness that Aurora faced when Jim was technically dead made her realise that she might well have done the same and was able to come to terms with what he had done to her! Plus what everyone forgets is that when they got Gus’s ID and security bracelet Jim could put Aurora back in to stasis in the autodoc, she didn’t have to die on the ship. All those feelings Aurora had for Jim returned and the hate disappeared.
I recommended The Mist to my youngest sister because she wanted to watch movie with shocking twist ending. 2 hours later she stormed to my room, her eyes were bawling with tears, and she punched me several time while saying, "Never do that again to me! Don't you ever recommend a movie with that kind of ending to me! Ever! How dare you making me ugly cry like this!" Well Sis, you asked for it 😂
I love that ending, really didn't expect it. Makes me think twice about shooting the people around me next time, i'll take the chance of them being eaten alive lol. That movie was so good in showing the worst of people despite even having a common enemy.
@@humanshieldz it's just like people who are stuck on a raft, and want to kill themselves or each other, but then the next day, a sailing ship spots them.
In Titanic they obviously wanted Jack to die, so they didn't give a sh*t about figuring out what Rose could have done to save him.
Ending should have been save the ship, Aurora never forgive Jim, kills him, gets lonely, awakes another passenger, that passenger kills her for awakening her, then that passenger gets lonely and awakens another passenger and the pattern gets repeating itself
jesus fucking christ
am i the only one who remembers that when jack tried to climb onto the door it kept tipping over?
THANK THE LORD
Finally someone who isn't a braindead fish actually
*WATCHED THE FUCKING SCENE PROPERLY*
And people still call it a plot hole smh
They alluded to that point. They said mythbusters tested the theory and for them both to get on the raft she would have had to have taken off her life vest and put it under the bottom of the door. It isn't a huge stretch to think that two adults in a life and death situation could think of this solution.
Oh, so Mythbusters used heavy coats like the one Rose wore? Did they really try it in freezing cold water, with clothes soaked with water?
Pavel Drotár myth busters used two grown men, who weight far more together than a lady and Leonardo Decaprio. The thickness of the coats and the water temp have nothing to do with boyancy.
Mr Man v
I just can't believe some people have finished watching SnowPiercer...
Uhh what?
Awful movie.
its awesome though
yeah it was just a freak show
In a work of fiction, every ending is a "right" ending, and a "wrong" ending. Thus, remakes, sequels, prequels, director's cut, and FAN FICTION!
With "The Grey" you had to wait until after the credits rolled to see that there was a chance the hero survived. I guess Looper didn't bother.
Passengers was terrific movie.... The acting and chemistry was top notch...
now why are you lying that movie sucked ass😭
By FAR the most controversial scene I have ever witnessed in a theater is the baby scene in Mother. Holy poop! I have never seen so many people express anger and immediately walk out of a theater before.
What about Remember Me? That ending was tasteless as hell
Batman's ending was good for it's setting. It matching Alfred's dream for Bruce was just Bruce giving Alfred the hope he wanted. It was perfect for them both. :) The 3rd movie still needed work though :p
Passengers needed work, but he never murdered her. He woke her up. She'll live a life she may not have seen coming, but that's just called life. :p And kidnap? She's on the same ship she willingly went on. What he did, was wake her up when she shouldn't have. Dick move maybe, but not kidnap or murder. :p
The version of passengers I saw had Aurora go back to sleep in some medical pod, so there's that too.
Furthermore, if he didn't wake her up, the ship would have been doomed - fixing the problems required their cooperation.
Pavel Drotár OMG! thank you for catching on to that! i been thinking the same thing. It would have been almost impossible for him to fix the ship himself.
Brand X
Maybe not murder but is kidnapping. She went into the ship to travel to another planet, not to be stranded all her life in it with a random guy she didnt knew and that condemed her to that life without asking... That or to be alone just like he was as much time as she could resist.
But yes, the script needed work, i didnt "hate" the ending, i was just like "whaaaaat???????" I think the ending could be better, not that "alright, i love you now, lets spend all our lifes in the ship... The end"
Actually, i remember i guy who said that if they were spare parts for anything they could build another (a second) medical pod, hibernate both and awake with everyone else. Then, in the new planet they could try to pursue the relantionship to find if it was true love
He woke her up early. She's still where she put herself. That's not kidnapping.
What he did was a dick move. That's all.
As for the ending, I didn't have a problem with it. The movie at that point was fine. The problem was somewhere in the middle (I believe, right after she finds out) that the movie just felt like it was dragging.
The suggestion I've seen, that to start the movie after he woke her up and then see his waking up in flashbacks, may have gotten rid of the boring middle part, I don't know, but the ending itself, I was okay with.
The one thing everyone misses in the Passenger is that if he had not woken someone, everyone would have died. It took two people to correct the issue with the ship and if not for his initial self serving act everyone would have perished in transit. According to Spock "the good of the many out weigh the good of the one"
Dark Knight Rises ending is real. Alfred had told Bruce what he'd dreamed about. So Bruce simply arranged for that dream to come true.
Exactly, and they foreshadowed it by having Morgan Freeman mention he'd fixed the function to fly the ship remotely - and recreating Alfred's dream was a nod from Bruce to Alfred :)
I honestly think the ending to the film version of Watchmen was an improvement.
It explained why Dr Manhattan wouldn't want to get involved and sort it all out and why the heroes would be so crushed as to never want to help again.
Snyder's choice to change the ending was the best choice. That change, changes everything about the story and makes it hit harder. The problems of the time they're trying to fix or solve is exactly what, for those in the know, brings the world together. The threat of nuclear holocausts. The problems with trust, betrayal, murders. Above all that, the source? The secrecy. With that why invent a new super being when you already have one, he'll understand. The world has their nuclear exchange, small scale, they get a glimpse and pull back. It's a far better story decision.
Where’s “The Abyss” in this list?
A) It’s a James Cameron film
B) It’s ending was so controversial that a directors cut was made.
C) The filmed suffered at the box office because of its ending.
James Cameron films..... most of them suck. Titanic was filled with soooooo many anachronisms it's not funny.
exactly..
and no ''law abiding citizen'' either.. talking about endings who left the audience not happy..
but yeah lets put ''life of brian'' in it..
I quite liked Passengers and its ending. I guess I'm just a sucker for schmaltz.
Ian Meadows is right. By putting Pratt's character in the foreground we're expected to empathize with him even though what he did was very wrong. So it's already assuming that either our moral compasses are very broken or that we're gonna fall for his shtick at some point during the show and ignore the fact that what he did was super rapey. However if we see things through her eyes not only do we get a better story in general, we are left to explore his character on our own, instead of having this pressure to empathize with him, we are given that option but not forced into it and can then come to terms on our own. If the ending was a bit more ambiguous it would've been better. Like if the audience could decide if/when he was redeemed and not be force-fed this insulting cliche 'love conquers all' type romantic ending. Edit: Also I remember reading that exact suggestion elsewhere, ages ago, in a different analysis of the film. you might want to credit your sources.
i also watch nerdwriter
The premise is painfully dumb. Ship cannot repair itself, does not wake the crew up, no ability to put people/crew members back to sleep after fixing the ship if need be. The ENTIRE human society cannot comprehend a possibility of a pod failure which is reflected in ship's AI being unable to answer simple questions.
LOL
I love/hate the movie cuz it had sooo much potential that got wasted.
It examines the moral dilemmas of the 2 main characters and to a lesser degree of the engineer who must choose duty over making judgements.
The plot demonstrates that had Jim not awakened Aurora, the entire ship would have been lost. Jim further redeems himself by offering to put Aurora in the Auto-doc pod, which would both save her and condemn him to again live alone.
The ship's computer was damaged by the meteor strike, which would explain the delay in waking Engineer Gus Mancuso. Seriously, though, what are the odds that Gus being awakened is an accident?
The shipping company knew that pod failures sometimes occur and mutinies are possible, which explains why the crew area is hardened against intrusion and why it is necessary to travel in an elevator to get from the pod areas to the main hull.
Since no human passenger and only crew members had ever returned from a trip, the fact of occasional pod failures would have been hidden by the shipping company. Propaganda and effective 'gas-lighting' would make a pod failure seem as improbable as being struck by lightning. Think about it for a moment. You are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the Mega Millions lottery, but people still play the lottery and ignore lightning storms.
The fan edits where the Passengers movie starts with Aurora waking up and then Jim's story is interspersed into what would have been Act 2 was a thing of beauty, and would have had people going back to see the movie over & over to piece together the whole story. A simple editing change could have made that movie a billion $$$.
Good video! I have not seen all these movies, but seems like a good list.
*mentions MythBusters*
Me- FREAKS OUT IN HAPPINESS
As someone who only ever watches movie online (Netflix, Amazon etc) I had no idea Passengers was a flop at the movies, which I find really surprising as it was a great movie, incredibly well acted and written, and to hear the movie critics completely missed the whole point that if Jim hadden't awakened Aurora, she and everybody else on the ship would have died, so in fact he hadn't imprisoned her, he had saved her, and to top it all off he even found a way to use the auto-doc pod to place her back into hibernation, but she chose to stay with the man who saver her and everybody else's life, just confirms what I've always suspected about critics, they aren't anywhere near as clever as they think they are :)
Still not sure why Michael Sheen dobbed him in though.
@@casinodelonge Because at the bar Aurora said "Besides there are no secrets between me and Jim." To which Arthur looked at Jim who had told him never to tell Aurora he had woken her up, and asked Jim "Is that so?" to which Jim said "You heard the lady." Thus informing Arthur's AI that there were no longer ANY restricted information from Aurora. And that's the problem with dealing with AI's, they just don't understand the human necessity for deception in harmonious relationships eg "No darling that dress doesn't make your bum look big." ;)
The problem with the Passengers is that he cherry picked the hottest girl to be his companion and to obviously have sex with her. He took away her freedom of choice and her future. I know he's crazy but he could have woken up the best mechanics on the ship or something since the crew was locked up... It's pure coincidence that he is good looking, because he sure as hell behaved like a creep around her. I know they were trying to portray that he was shocked by another human being finally entering his life, but he looked at her like a crazy person. If he wasn't hot, I bet the story would go differently. Imagine him looking like Steve Bucsemi
Nah
I don't remember which video it was but there was an interesting one who talked about an other way to see the movie Passengers : Forget all the beginning and just take the movie from the moment Aurora wakes up then go until the moment she learns that he messed up with her pod (the movie becomes creepy AF) then place all the story of the awakening of the guy and take the movie back to the captain waking up. it was really interesting seeing the movie in that light, in a way creepier and even more morally wrong than the movie.
How about, she looks up his background and finds he had a restraining order placed on him by his ex-girlfriend, or left Earth after serving time for assault?
I thought Passengers was a great ending and i thought they gave time for Lawrence's character go through her own emotional process and reach her own decisions.
I also think Passengers is great as it is.
What’s truly sad about the ending of Titanic is not that Jack died but that when Rose did she went back to him in the “after-life”...the guy she knew for like 3 days...and not to the family she had after she arrived to America. Bit of a slap in the face to them....
she an old grandma, she had dementia, probably thought it was the bath tub
Exactly why I never cared for this movie...
How about Alfred Hitchcock movies?
What about him? Everybody likes his endings.
are you 80?
Yeah seriously. I felt so surprised at some of the endings.
Jonah Hogue 8
In the end credit of grey he did survive
@ after the end credits there's a scene you should see
It's unconfirmed, it could still be the wolf breathing plus he probably bled out
The thing with the grey is the wolf howls are grammatically wrong...
At bit like having people replicating Chinese by making offensive racial stereotype noises
A better ending for Passengers would have been for Jim to die after the reactor scene. Fade out, then fade in, and it's few years later, with Aurora standing over some guy's pod wrestling with the same dilemma that Jim faced. Does she or doesn't she? Movie ends. Also, a better beginning to the movie would have been with Aurora waking up to find this random guy (Jim) wandering around the ship (having been awake himself for a few years, but without the audience knowing it yet). He would then have come across as creepy and mysterious, and a later reveal of his waking up of Aurora would have provided a twist. In other words, the same story, but from Aurora's perspective.
Comon looper most of these are clearly highly grossing movies within the last 10 or so years. You gotta expand your horizons especially when it comes to controversy. I mean you guys are supposed to be cinema lovers not another pop culture list maker
I thought Suckerpunch would be on this list.
I think I'm the only one who liked the original Blade Runner release best (including the narration parts).
Someone else said it, but you overlooked the fact that Aurora in Passengers "forgave" Jim after he saved the entire spaceship. I liked the movie
2018 and people are still saying "nucUlar"
What´s the problem with "nuclear"?
The problem with Titanic for me was not that Jack froze to death. My problem was that Rose threw that giant ass necklace off the ship when she could have paid off people's student loans, helped under-privileged children get an education, or even just sold the necklace and start a charity in Jack's name. I think that would have been a much better ending.
When?
The necklace actually belonged to her fiance's family. Even if she waited until he died, his relatives would have recognized it and sued to recover it.
@@dianezimmerman4434 it was a gift, so it belonged to Rose and no one else. If I give somethung to you it's yours, not mine anymore
This comment is hilarious.
It's a narrative device, not real jewelry. I'm sure if you ever find yourself in possession of a shittastic megagem you don't need, you'll make a better choice than she did 😂
9:45 - That's not fair. She forgave him and decided to spend her life with him because he corrected his mistake by fixing just one pod and offering to return her to stasis in it while he resumed living alone. Up until that point, she was steadfast in avoiding him totally. Yeah, she could have remained awake against her will had things not gone as they did, but things did work out, and she had her freedom given back to her in the end. This is why I liked the ending - she ultimately forgave and made a decision for her own life that just happened to be a beautiful thing for both of them.
wow...the movie ending to watchmen actually seems better than the comics
I concur
The squid may look stupid, but the whole point was to create an unknown enemy that both the US and USSR could fight. Dr. Manhattan was an American and was used as a weapon by America, so framing him doesn't accomplish the goal. There's no real reason why the USSR would want to join up with the US to fight a weapon made by the US.
kd8663 Dr. Manhatten wasn't a weapon per se. He was more of an US ally the seeming turner against humanity in general (by blowing up NY and moscow and some other cities)
It was not about uniting people against Dr. Manhattan, more like planting fear in them that they are being watched and judged by an omnipotent being, who says live by my rules or perish. Sounds familiar? Because sometimes this is the only way to make people behave civilized. The whole concept has strong theological vibes.
+literallyawerewolf When it comes to uniting the world, I don’t think it matters whether it’s an unknown enemy, as long as it’s a common enemy. Dr. Manhattan serves that role fine-I don’t see an issue.
"True Love is a Lie and You should Never Hope for Happiness!" OMG did he really say that LOL I Think I'm In Love with him now :D
People always talk about the door in titanic. The first thing I thought when I left the cinema was, if rose wouldn't have jumped out of the life boat to be with jack he would have had the door all by himself. Strange people never see that option.