Chris Pratt Admits He Was ‘Caught Off Guard’ by ‘Passengers’ Criticism

Chris Pratt Admits 'Passengers' Criticism Surprsied
Courtesy of Sony

SPOILER ALERT: The following article contains some spoilers for Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence’s “Passengers.”

Chris Pratt is about to top the box office with “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2,” a follow-up to the 2014 blockbuster that made him an international movie star. It’s his first movie since December’s “Passengers,” which was eviscerated by critics – it currently holds a 31% on Rotten Tomatoes. Many took particular issue with a controversial plot point in the sci-fi romance.

In the film, Pratt plays Jim, one of 5,000 passengers in suspended animation on a ship taking 120 years to reach its destination. After accidentally awakening 90 years early, Jim endures a year of loneliness before making the decision to wake up a fellow passenger, Aurora, played by Jennifer Lawrence. This decision didn’t set well with some, such as the Guardian, who called it an “interstellar version of social-media stalking” or the New York Daily News, who called it “nearly as cold and creepy as the space it takes us through.”

Related

A Monster Calls

14-Time Oscar Nominee Thomas Newman on Scoring Space Drama ‘Passengers’

Asked if the reactions to the film surprised him, Pratt hesitates. “Yeah,” he says. “It did, it really did. I was really caught off guard by that. It was definitely a lesson.”

Pratt goes on to say that he stands by the film. “I personally think the movie is very good, I’m very proud of it,” he says. “I’ll be curious to see if it holds up — the criticism and the movie.”

He adds, “I’m proud of how the movie turned out and it did just fine to make money back for the studio.” “Passengers” grossed almost $300 million worldwide on a budget of $110 million. It also received two Academy Award nominations for original score and production design. He adds, “But the critical score was disproportionately negative compared to the Cinemascore. It got the same rating on Rotten Tomatoes as ‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop,’ maybe worse.” (As of this writing, “Paul Blart” sits at 33% on Rotten Tomatoes, with “Passengers” at 31%. “Passengers” has a B CinemaScore.)

That said, Pratt doesn’t want to criticize the critics. “I never want to be in a situation where I’m blaming critics for not liking a movie,” he says. “So I’ll just stop talking. It is what it is and I’m proud of it.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 74

Leave a Reply

74 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. sure jan says:

    As a woman and a “feminist”/egalitarian (egal?), I’d have to largely agree with Aaron. Legally, in the US and I believe other first-world nations, we’ve achieved equality. Any lingering BS “men are superior” mentality is what I’ve always punched straight back into the deep dark past where it forever belongs. Girl power. ;p Zig-a-zig-ha.
    Unfortunately men do still have more higher-paying jobs on average, and importantly tend to work more/longer hours, so the fact that they earn more as a whole is NOT because it’s legal anywhere in this country to change the pay for a certain position based on the employee’s sex. If employers could do that, they’d all hire nothing but women so they could pay them less. ;p

    And Momo’s alternate suggestion for how Passengers could’ve gone is a valid idea as well, but the way it does play out is also entirely possible. Jim wouldn’t necessarily stalk Aurora. He may never be totally the same psychologically, but having a companion brought him back to just about normal (no telling for how long…had the android not spilled the beans, might he eventually have broken down and confessed? How long could he have continued deceiving Aurora? Guess we’ll never know.) Anything she might have picked up on as “abnormal” about him could easily be chalked up to him having been alone on the ship for a year previously!
    He DOES feel guilty, which feeds into his heroism and self-sacrificing. You think that if he had the capacity for that he never would’ve found himself in this situation, that the way you assume things would’ve gone is the only realistic/believable way…but none of that is so. Jim isn’t a bad person. We can acknowledge that he did an absolutely horrible thing without pretending to be certain that we would never do the same under those circumstances. And why would he be sacrificing anyone else for his “comfort?” The movie does sorta take an easy way out by placing the entire ship in jeopardy, requiring them to save everyone aboard, including themselves.
    Jim is a “self-indulgent impulse-driven loser”…but anyone else in his situation, completely alone out there in space for the rest of his/her life, would wind up the same, and be very likely to wake up somebody else? *eyeroll*
    But ULTIMATELY, none of this matters, because in ANY realistic and believable situation like this, there WOULD be an easy, instructed way to put yourself back in stasis which doesn’t require you to stumble upon it in the sickbay! There would be a rotating schedule of ship-mechanic people waking up temporarily to check for problems and make necessary repairs–including malfunctioned pods that weren’t supposed to be able to fail, but obviously can if a bleeding asteroid smacks you the wrong way at some point! Who would ever embark on such a journey if the company running it were this idiotic and incompetent, and you KNEW this could happen to you?! The bloody psychology isn’t the unrealistic thing here, the very premise is!!

  2. Though I truly like him, I’ll always view Chris Pratt as the mentally torpid character he played on Parks and Recreation.

  3. Mary Lou Reed says:

    The critics are crazy. I loved this movie. Entertaining, exciting and heartfelt. Acting by both leads, especially, Lawrence, was notable. Now that o it’s out on cable, enjoy.

  4. momo says:

    *spoilers ahead*

    What seriously bothered me about the movie was the sloppy psychology behind it that kept me from being able to suspend my disbelief and get into the movie. Chris Pratt’s character is your typical average Joe who slips into space madness after a year of isolation. He’s beyond suicidal, too cowardly to do it. Wanders around, falls in love with the sleeping beauty he never met. Agonizes over the idea of sabotaging her pod so she could be trapped alone with him. Spends months weighing his conscience but ultimately he decides to do the most selfish thing possible… It’s at this point I’m expecting the movie to take a dark sinister turn. He’s starved for human interaction, been marooned on an empty ship for over a year…. he finally has a human with him. He grasped that waking her up is akin to murder. He made his peace with it out of desperation. Psychologically, his social skills are stagnated and he’d be physically incapable of leaving her alone. He would follow her around with creepy unblinking eyes where ever she goes, just lurking as far away as he humanly possibly could to not creep her out yet he would only be able to stand to be few feet behind her around the corner unable to let himself lose sight of her for even an instant

    But this doesn’t happen. As soon as she’s awake he’s completely cured of every mental illness the isolation caused and he’s like a completely normal guy… just shows her around and they go their separate ways bumping into each other innocently while he lets her deal alone with the utter hell he brought upon her. Once she’s settled in and got over her life being ruined (by what she thinks is a malfunctioned pod) at least as much as he has – he can tell because she’s going to the gym and stopped crying – asks her out on a date, he’s charming, they screw every where, his conscience doesn’t even have much of an affect on him (somehow?!?) she doesn’t pick up on anything wrong with the guy, not a hint of guilt… (wtf.. so weird.. so he’s a sociopath)

    YET he’s become completely unselfish… heroically putting his life on the line all the time even though he sacrificed her life for the sake of his own and spent months doing mental gymnastics to function alright with it.. she finds out what he did, hates him, tries to kill him but is won over by him not fighting back (for some reason… he would have had to have gone off the deep-end and gone full psycho at this point) he suddenly has the capacity to sacrifice himself to make her feel better… not only that but this average joe turned space-maddened psychopath did a total 180 and goes full hero, not only is he no longer (for no reason whatsoever) selfishly sacrificing human life for his own personal comfort, he’s suddenly saving Jennifer Lawrence and the ship at every turn heroically (almost casually) able to sacrifice HIMSELF in horribly painful ways for the rest of the movie every 5 minutes… WTF? If he ever had the capacity to be like this he would have never found himself in this situation to begin with and the circumstances leading up to this are far more trying… chipping away at his sanity bit by bit yet he finds himself completely mentally healthy, pretty much the ideal human and she’s helpless to fall in love with him despite knowing he took her life

    If this movie were realistic, it would be impossible for his love to be anything but unrequited… Jennifer Lawrence would have been in hell since waking up. Maybe take her own life as he hadn’t the balls to. but for the sake of plot lets give her sense of survival a boost. He’s become mentally ill and already come to terms and okay with taking her life for his personal comfort.. Naturally, she finds out and tries to kill him. He’s more frustrated and angry than ever, he’s insane and tries to kill and rape her in any order. She manages to beat the shit out of him and blow him out the air lock because she’s a strong independent woman who learned kick boxing and his character is more of a self-indulgent impulse driven loser that lacks discipline and relied on testosterone… but a few years of solitude later her mind erodes and finds herself in the exact same position.

    Why not have realistic humanly flawed people rather than a steaming pile of Hollywood trash?

  5. Andrew says:

    In other news, a critic from The Guardian slams Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather “for various plot points involving murder, deceit, infidelity, drug dealing and equestrian mistreatment”. “It’s like an American gangster story!” he complains, “…as uncomfortable as the Sicilian sun in the film’s middle act!”

  6. John says:

    I thought it was very good, in fact I’ve seen it twice. I ignore critics, they tend to over analyse movies. It’s like they are frustrated writers or directors who couldn’t make the grade. It’s a movie, it’s fiction and it’s very entertaining. That’s all that matters.

  7. caffeineator says:

    What lesson? It is a movie. A fantasy. Having a critic say it depicted “stalking” says more about the critic than it does about the movie. These things become Rorschach Tests for some people.

  8. Jeffrey says:

    How quaint. a film released by columbia gets reamed on Rotten Tomatoes. A company run BY WARNER BROTHERS. Why do people give that website ANY credibility is beyond stupid.

  9. Mike says:

    It was a sweet movie and had cool special effects and lovely music. I enjoyed watching it on DVD.

  10. great movie…of course feminists and SJW critics had a problem with the moral of the story….SMFH

    • Sandra, what are you doing as a woman by a) belittling Feminists and c) not identifying yourself as one? If you don’t believe women should have equal rights to men then kindly cease expressing your opinions in a public forum as that was a liberty fought for by Feminists and for you to continue to do so would be hypocritical and I’m sure that is something you can’t stand for if indeed you stand for anything other than patriarchal oppression.
      I imagine that when you derisively wrote ‘Of course feminists…had a problem with the moral of the story’ (perhaps you mean plot?) that you meant Misandrists (women who hate men) not Feminists. SMFH indeed!
      I also imagine that if you look up the critics of this film, at least half of the criticism will be from men.
      We are all allowed to enjoy the films we like, and certainly, to express our opinions of them but let’s not take for granted the people who gave us the freedom to do so. It is the very least we can do.

      • Aaron Wantuck says:

        +alysiasilvagni

        *”Sandra, what are you doing as a woman by a) belittling Feminists and c) not identifying yourself as one? “*

        So let me see if I get this straight from your moronic “feminist” logic. If you are a woman, you must be a feminist? False equivalency logical fallacy. Also who cares if she “belittles” feminists. So someone who is hooked and preaching about people’s rights, you seemed to have skipped her 1st Amendment right.

        “If you don’t believe women should have equal rights to men then kindly cease expressing your opinions. in a public forum as that was a liberty fought for by Feminists…….”

        Oh the irony in this statement. First WOMEN DO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AS MEN. Yes feminists orginally during the 1920 stood for equality becasue you did not have it. Then came the 19th and 14th Amendment. Please do NOT insult the women of yester year who actually stood for something with the Feminists of today. So if you want equal rights for women, guess what… MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

        The ONLY way you would win this argument is if you can prove to me how women are oppressed today sighting something that grants special privileges to men but not women. I will tell you this, I can name SEVERAL special privileges that women get over men and I do not see feminists petitioning for equal rights. For example, were are the feminists out in droves complaining they can not register for selective service? What about them complaining that they get less prison sentences for the same crime as a man? Women’s choice, Man’s responsibility. How about how judges favor women in custody, alimony, and basically anything dealing with marriage divorce? Why feminists not standing up for their rights? What about all the clinics for women and how men have a higher suicide rate then women becasue they do not have the same services available to help them as women? What bout prostate cancer which kills more men the breast cancer, yet there are more facilities to handle that?

        BTW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WAGE GAP. I am not going to get into it but basically you can not expect a women social worker to make as much as a male engineer. Women tend to choose jobs that pay less then the jobs men pay. That is just a fact. I mean did you petition for Chris Pratt to be paid 20 million instead of 12 million for passengers when he had more screen time than Jennifer Lawrence who got paid 20 million?

        Feminists of today are not interested in equality. They was female superiority. As a egalitarian, you know someone who stands for true equal rights for everyone and not just women, can tell modern day feminists are hypocrites and want to oppress men in favor of gaining the upper hand.

        Before you preach to m-someone else maybe just maybe you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize how ignorant of the REAL world you are and not live in your perceived juncture or reality.

  11. J says:

    Do people understand he didn’t write the film? Why even *ask* him about story developments in the script? He’s brought in to read what someone else wrote.

  12. JB Steel says:

    I thought the movie was good. It was surprising and romantic. I think it will improve with age. And I get a little sick of the P.C. Thought Police bringing their fake outrage toward a WORK OF FICTION. It’s as if the United States has forgotten what art is. Art is supposed to challenge us. The whole story revolves around the morality of his act to connect with her. It’s not hidden, it’s the story arc. This country needs to grow the F up.

  13. Brilliant set design. One of the best of the year or any other year.

  14. Agniva Basak says:

    Well I don’t understand how this movie could have got such a worse rating , I personally liked it a lot !

  15. talbotfish says:

    “It was a lesson” and then he goes on to say nothing but how good the film is, how financially successful it was and how proud he is of it. …so the lesson? is he’s not I’m not even going to acknowledge any of the creepy stalking/sexist criticisms many pointed out and instead boast how awesome the movie was.

  16. Joyce Shannon says:

    I just watched the movie. Got it at library. Otherwise I would have been very upset if I had paid big bucks to see this movie. I think it was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen I hit that fast forward button a lot. Finally got to end and that was as bad as the rest of movie. Sorry!!!

  17. Tony says:

    It wasn’t a great movie by any means but I enjoyed it. It’s certainly better than that RT 31% rating!

  18. I’d have been interested to gauge the reaction if the guy had been old and creaky waking a beautiful young woman for a companion….

  19. sure jan says:

    Totally agree with Alberto, though Wayne may have a point too…perhaps it was a bit rushed (him fighting the urge to wake her but then doing it the first time he approaches her pod whilst debating it…her falling in love and forgiving him…) The moral qualms are plainly obvious, and maybe there are actors who could’ve better captured the tortured nature of that role, but I pretty much felt that Pratt was sufficiently passable.

  20. Alberto says:

    I honestly don’t understand the criticism this movie is facing. If every character in every movie took only morally correct decisions, we would have rrrrreally boring ass movies.

  21. Wayne says:

    The problem was the ending of the film and the way that Lawrence’s character so easily got over what Pratt did. On the other hand, it’s clear from his character that he had real moral qualms about doing what he did. It was a survival. He knew he was losing his mind. I like Pratt, he’s a talented performer but he didn’t have the depth as an actor to pull off this difficult role. He think he captured some of the shading of the character I also think if his character had been tempted and decided NOT to wake Lawrence up and then, ultimately did so. It would have worked better. The concept was intriguing and the execution was very good at times. The failure was, in my eyes, the ending and in not giving a bit more for Pratt to work with for the character or his ability to pull it off.

  22. Shane says:

    Passenger was very entertaining..compair it to social media stocking?? Its like the last man on earth (tv series on fox) and what probably any1 of us would do in that situation. Only negative i thought was that they are there to colonize a new planet soooooo why didnt they create a family of thier own…dumb dumbdumb dumb dumb. :)

  23. sandra says:

    great story, and done very well. music great as well….gives me the chills

  24. *Spoiler*

    Pratt’s character was flawed for doing what he did – that is clear. But one could say that “fate” deemed it necessary, since the ship would have been destroyed without Lawrence’s character’s presence. Sometimes, the ends justify the means, even if those ends are not initially clearly visible.

  25. Kate V says:

    I really liked the movie, an so did several people I know. The guy was alone and going to be alone until his eventual death. How does any sane person make a judgement about a situation they have never, and WILL never face themselves. Ridiculous. It was a great story, and done very well.

  26. Ms. Sogen E says:

    I liked the movie… Pratts character did what any male would do….wake up the mintest chick on board. I thought when Jennifer Lawrence found out she had been woken up she got a little …. He should have dumped her out of the airlock and woken up the second hottest girl.

  27. John says:

    Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But I loved the movie. Both actors did a fine job in my opinion. And I disagree that with the notion that there was no chemistry between the two. I absolutely love Jennifer Lawrence and she was superb as in all of her movies. Yes, I have seen them all. I also have all of them. But that aside, I don’t find movie critic’s reviews particularly helpful nor are they inspiring. Every viewer makes his or her own decision about what’s there, and I was moved during the whole film. Maybe it is wrong to wake a sleeping passenger 88 years early, but Jim was alone and had been for more than a year. And he did give Aurora the opportunity to return to her sleep and she made the decision to make her life with him. The end may not justify the means, but at least Aurora got the opportunity to make the choice she had been denied at first. And had she not been awakened to help Jim, it turns out the whole ship would probably been destroyed with 5000 aboard. Great movie, glad I got to enjoy it. And I never read the first critical review of it until now.

  28. jd says:

    While I saw the attraction of putting the biggest male and female lead together in a film, the main problem was that there was zero chemistry between the two of them and a film like that needs to have chemistry between the two main leads. The two of them were good like they always are but just had no chemistry. Also when its revealed why the ship is falling apart, its not a very exciting or thrilling reason.

    • Debra says:

      The original script is online with a much better ending, or at least you have a better understanding of the movie ending. I’m glad I read it before seeing the movie as it filled in gaps for me. It always disappoints me when I find the script and it all fits together where the movie leaves me scratching my head. For example, Prometheus…

  29. sure jan says:

    It was a good movie, very well-acted by its talented stars (particularly Lawrence.) I was 100% spoiled ahead of time, so there were zero surprises for me, but I knew it wouldn’t gloss over the moral problem with awakening another passenger.

  30. Jackdaw says:

    I’m glad Chris has finally said something after all the criticism he and Jennifer got for this movie. I always said that the idiotic SJW’s had it all wrong. Here are three points that prove my defence.

    1. Jim Preston is not some weirdo who gets his kicks prowling the city streets looking for female victims to chain up, he is a lonely, desperate and frightened man who wakes up 30 years into a 120 year journey and realises that he is doomed to spend the rest of his life alone on a ship full of sleeping people. He spends a year on his own and it is only when he is on the verge of suicide through loneliness that he stumbles upon the sleeping ‘Aurora’. Even then, it is months before he makes the fatal decision to wake her up. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it evil? No. He didn’t do it to hurt her he only wanted company.

    2. The so called ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ does not apply because ‘Aurora’ has no idea that ‘Jim’ woke her up, she thinks it was an accident and that her pod malfunctioned. She begins to fall for Jim’s charms as he gives her hope and in fact it is after a romantic dinner followed by a spacewalk that ‘Aurora’ jumps on ‘Jim’ (not the other way around) ending up with them in bed so there is no ‘rape’. As I said, there is no ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ because the moment ‘Aurora’ discovers ‘Jims’ involvement in her awakening she, understandably, goes completely ballistic and he wakes a few night later to find her standing over him where she proceeds to kick the shit out of him, raining blows and kicks on him culminating in her raising a metal rod over his head with the intention of killing him. The only thing that stops her is the fact that she is no killer.

    3. My final point against the accusation raised is that Jennifer Lawrence is a huge advocate of women’s rights and the right to choose. If she thought the film in any way promoted a ‘rape culture’ there is no way she would have done it.

    Is the film disturbing? I don’t think so. It just raises a very good question about the human condition. What would any of us do if we were in that situation? Would we act any differently? Are Jim’s actions creepy? Yes, definitely. What he does is wrong but is he evil? No. He thinks he is in love with Aurora and after she wakes he does fall in love with her but he would never hurt her. In fact, at the end he finds a way of putting her back into hibernation which he could keep secret but doesn’t.
    I think the film is a very good science fiction film with a love story intertwined. I will go as far as to say it is a beautiful film and I will admit I resent being told that I am watching an inappropriate film. I was brought up to respect women and if this film promoted violence against them I would not watch it and Jennifer wouldn’t be in it anyway so I’d have no reason to.

    There are far worse films on the circuit that DO promote violence against women but I don’t hear any protests about them. The fact is the critics have latched onto one tiny aspect of the film and fixated on it. I have seen it many times and I will continue to watch it as it is a compelling film.

  31. tennisfan says:

    So this guy didnt know why the film failed? He was awful in it. Thats why. He should go back to making marvel films or Dinosaur films , he is a decent actor but nothing worth movies which need dramatic action.

    • Relli says:

      Most stalkers don’t want to hurt their victims. They are lonely and believe themselves in love. They sacrifice another person in order to gain what they want. Are they evil? Yes. Your misery is not an excuse to disenfranchise another human being.
      Stockholm syndrome does apply because he forced her into a position where he was her only companion. It is irrelevant as to whether she knew it.
      Is Jennifer Lawrence an advocate of women’s rights? I’ve only heard her complain about not being paid the same as her male co-stars. Not really the same thing. She’s a young woman. Let’s not put the responsibility of attacking rape culture solely on her.
      The excuses that are being made for this movie are the same excuses we hear every day to defend rape culture and sexism. It’s time to recognise that these reasons do not excuse the impact the behaviour has on another person.

  32. Humpty says:

    Chris Pratt is a limited actor with a goofy face and he freaking spoiled the movie in the second half and was unequipped to convey his guilt to the audience. He thinks that Aurora was unjustly being angry at him and convinces himself that she is overacting , which is ridiculous. Thats why the critics panned this film, though unfairly. Jennifer Lawrence had some great moments but she had better movies.

  33. Thing is $300 million REALLY isn’t that good. People keep saying “Well for $110 million that’s good”. I love how when “Ghost in the Shell” came out, a film that also fell under controversy, articles like this were ready to mention marketing costs making the film more around $200 million but no one mentions that with “Passengers”. $110 million and I bet you $50 million at least was used for marketing. So you got $160 million really. The film was split between two studios, one was a Chinese studio and over there they can monopolize what film gets publicity. AND Lawrence was paid $20 million PLUS 30% of the box office after it breaks even (Which for this film I assume was $220 million). So to recoup losses AND pay Lawrence AND marketing costs, this film really didn’t do that well. I mean come on people. It’s a science fiction film about a hot couple in space. This is soap opera material that was going to get the general audience at least somewhat curious. The main clip that was marketed around on the internet was Lawrence in a bikini flying around in water. It was very clear what drew audiences to this film and it wasn’t any kind of creativity. Sex in space. Sex AND science fiction. Pratt is a nice guy and I give him credit where it’s due for adding a little bit of normalcy, but this film was a mistake from the get-go. It was a decade old script in development hell that no one could get off the ground. There was probably a reason for that.

    • rachel says:

      Dear, atleast get your facts right. She was paid 20 mn or 30% of profit, not both. He was paid 12mn which is too much too.But that isnt much given Sandra bullocks was paid around 70mn for gravity , including the profits. These movies get produced only because they have big stars in it. The film’s production design was excellent and the movie made money. Both Jen and chris were decent given how poor the script was.

      • Rick says:

        You two morons act like movies stop making money once they leave the theater. Between DVDs, Blu-ray, streaming, Cable, etc…this movie will be making more for years.
        If they only came close to breaking even during their theater run, they have a whole lotta profit coming their way over the next 3 years.

      • First of all, don’t call me dear. It’s arrogant. In any case, the movie did not make much money. It was a waste of time for everyone involved. Calling them decent when the film was unanimously hated, and it was about them, implies their characters were bad since the story was about them. No this movie got made because Sony was desperate for a hit. This is the studio who is planning to make a “Men in Black”/”21 Jump Street” crossover. LOL So please don’t give me that. Secondly, Sandra Bullock is a decades-old star with proven success that has shown over more than 20 years. She earned that. Lawrence’s success has been from franchise names and ensemble films or films with other hooks besides her. No one cared that she was in the film. In fact, most people seemed to prefer Pratt over her. And finally, congratulations, the science fiction film looked pretty. LOL It’s that kind of aesthetic-focused nature that made sure this film was guaranteed to fail which is why the film ultimately was a “Young, hot people sleep together in space” story, not an artistic tale.

    • astro says:

      It was priced like Elysium, although Sony probably spent even less on marketing. So it definitely made money. GitS was more expensive (somewhere in the 150 million range or higher) and will barely make 200 million. 300 million is very good given the toxic reviews. The box office duscussion sites have been all over this.

      • Also GITS was being ripped since the film was announced. Passengers didn’t even mention it’s Stockholm Syndrome storyline (Ambiguously was it mentioned how they both woke up. Early synopsis just said they both awoke from malfunctioning pods). My point is that media was ready to destroy “Ghost in the Shell”, a story no one cared about the fact a white actress was playing the lead (Asian audiences interviewed said they liked it!) but this film, even after the reveal of the disturbing storyline, barely attacked it. So of course it did okay. There was almost media silence and every article kept giving hope it would do well internationally while even when GITS beat out Passengers at the China market, articles from places like this said “Oh it’s still going to fail”. There is a lot of bias reporting going on here.

      • Actually no. GITS’s production budget was $110 million as well, same as “Passengers”. Sony would have spent at least $50 million on marketing. No way this movie had less than $50 million. In any case, given Lawrence’s 30% take of the box office they would hardly make anything for what was the budget and “star power” equivalence of other bigger films. In any case, I hardly consider $300 million a success given all the factors involved.

  34. Bill B. says:

    I love the guy, but he’s wrong in my eyes. It’s a pretty weak movie and they both give the weakest performances of their careers, particularly Lawrence. It’s not unwatchable. It’s just a disappointment.

    • AaronW says:

      “Stockholm Syndrome storyline” — In the spirit of another cult classic, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” –Princess Bride.

      Stockholm Syndrome: feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor. –Google.

      Please tell us how Jennifer Lawrence’s character “Aurua” was kidnapped or taken hostage by Chris Pratt’s Character “Jim”. The answer is NEVER.

      You see when you twist the definition of word we call that a strawman argument. I really wish you people would not do that so you can shoe horn stuff into your agenda. Did you not ever take a literary English class and learn to use those Critical thinking skills? there is a reason you go to school and spend a certain amount of credits learning how to decipher plot points.

      Jim was for by himself for a year without ANY interaction. Similar to many other species on the planet such as dogs, horses, wolves, and elephants, humans are also social animals. We crave human interaction with others and get lonely if we are denied it. Jim for a year of being by himself and not talking to anyone on the VERGE of committing suicide stumbles across Aurua’s hypersleep chamber. upon seeing her and CRAVING human interaction he begins looking at her files and learning about her. He then spends MONTHS debating if he should wake her knowing it was wrong to do so.

      Does he wake her because he wants to tie her up and force her into a room on the ship? No. He wakes her becasue he wants company or someone to share his time with him. In fact he asks her out hoping she says yes and she falls in love with him thinking that it was not his fault she is awake but her tube malfunctioned also basically making the best of a terrible situation. If fact when she finds out he woke her her love turns into a hate and she almost kills him herself.

      Furthermore, Jim finally discovers a way to put someone in hypersleep and he offers that up to Aurua so she can make up her own minds knowing full well he will sacrifice his own well being. He does not hide it from her but is very honest.

  35. shanna says:

    A well-measured response. I think the criticism was valid but the work he put and the production put into it should be acknowledged. The story had a problematic premise. I didn’t see it but I didn’t hear anything about their acting being bad so good on them.

    • Relli says:

      He forced her into a situation where he was her only companion and you don’t think that Stockholm syndrome applies?

      • Aaron Wantuck says:

        “He forced her into a situation where he was her only companion and you don’t think that Stockholm syndrome applies?”

        By your logic, one could argue that he was forced into a situation where his only companion was an android bartender so the ship itself was case of Stockholm Syndrome on Jim.

        You see how that does not make sense? Look given the plot and how I already explained that there would be a way to put people back into sleep and at most Jim may have had to wait a year or so for the next crew to wake up on rotation, lets throw that all out and go with the what the movie said on how you could not go back into hypersleep.

        Jim himself was forced into a situation he could not control. Putting aside the moral implications of waking someone else up under those conditions, Stockholm Syndrome requires a captor. Jim was not being a captor.

        Definition time AGAIN….Captor: a person or animal that catches or confines another. –Google

        How does that apply? Jim did not capture and confine her. He woke her up for company. Yes he chose a woman over a man for obvious reasons like almost any other person would have done in choosing their sexual preference, but he was not forcing her to do anything she did not want to willing do.

        If anything a more VALID diagnosis of Jim would be loneliness and depression to the point of suicide. He was thrown into a situation outside his control and basically sentenced to spend his entire rest of his live (about 60 years) by himself with absolutely no one to talk to.

        Also consider this, the ship was failing. If he had not awakened Aurua they would not have been able to repair the ship since he needed her help, they all would have died. In short, he would have had to wake someone else up anyway, why not the person with whom you admired?

    • AaronW says:

      Actually a valid argument could be about plot. For example, having no way to get back into hypersleep makes no sense especially on a 120 year trip. I work with computers and no system is ever “fail-safe”. That is like searching for a unicorn in the dark forest.

      Secondly, it would make sense that the computer would wake a pair of crew members of the 258 crew members to perform a yearly check on the systems. Replace things that need replacing and check logs. Then go back to sleep. In fact if the computer has an issue it can not solve or thinks something needs to be checked on wake up the next pair early so they can determine who needs to be waken up to fix it.

      Thirdly, there is no way you would have 5,258 people and 1 autodoc. What if it fails? What if more than one person needs to use at a time? What if you have an emergency where multiple people get hurt at the same time during the same accident? You need a back up. There would most likely be 20-30 of them.

      Lastly, How does Aurua plan to get back to Earth on the ship when there is no way to put a person back to hypersleep? Why would the company even want the ship to return and how will collect the money of 20% from every passenger? Why would the passengers even follow through with this since it would take 60 years, (They are traveling at 50% light speed) for the first of their “money” to be wired to Earth. By the time they can complain you would be dead anyway. Also why would the colonists even have the ship return? It is better to have it incorporated into the colony and used for a communication, storage, and emergency shelter. There is a lot of tech on board which will help with survival.

      Now if you actually brought up those points instead of making up things that are not really there you would actually have a valid argument.

      • Aaron Wantuck says:

        “He didn’t capture her or force her into doing anything she didn’t want to do, in the usual sense. He only forced her to live out the rest of her life on the ship–far as he knew, that’s what he was condemning her to. Of course it was horrible. He knew it. So was his being condemned to that fate in the first place. That was extremely unfair. ”

        That is still NOT Stockholm Syndrome. That might be someone being an complete a$$, but that is a different story all together. Secondly many people are not placing themselves in that situation. Hind sight is always 20/20.

      • sure jan says:

        He didn’t capture her or force her into doing anything she didn’t want to do, in the usual sense. He only forced her to live out the rest of her life on the ship–far as he knew, that’s what he was condemning her to. Of course it was horrible. He knew it. So was his being condemned to that fate in the first place. That was extremely unfair. And whose fault was it? Well, obviously the ship designers’. It makes no sense that people wouldn’t have the ability to put themselves back to sleep in the event that they needed to. Who would agree to this voyage without knowing how to do that? You don’t build this incredible starship and leave it with such a huge fundamental flaw. Yes, in reality he would’ve had to wait for a crewmember to wake up, or maybe just woken one up…y’know, somebody who might’ve known more about the how-to-get-back-to-sleep dilemma than a random passenger. An actual employee, someone whose job involves operating this ship. *shrug* (Or were they not able to get into the room with the crewmembers? I forget. Maybe he would’ve had to wait.) Anyway. As it turned out, yeah, everybody would’ve died if not for Fishburne’s character waking up too and then Jim & Aurora saving the ship, so…

  36. DougW says:

    Really like the film, and love Jennifer in it. How many movies with 2 characters bring in $300 Million? Most of that box office is purely thanks to Chris and Jennifer.

    • sure jan says:

      Oh, I agree it’s not Stockholm Syndrome. What happened to both of them was bad, but it wasn’t really that. (Unless you want to view the ship itself as the “captor” they both come to embrace, and aboard which they happily live out their lives together. ;p But it’s not its fault, either; it’s mostly the dumb designers’…) He took her freedom, yes, but she began to care about him for unrelated reasons while he was not attempting to exert any further control over her. He felt guilt and remorse, and in the end wanted to return her planned life to her.
      I saw Jim as more of an average desperate person than a villain–even though you do have to just accept his desperate situation that doesn’t make sense in the first place. (How could they not tell you how to put yourself back to sleep in case of this type of emergency? How could NO ONE be scheduled to wake up during this journey for ship checks & maintenance? C’mon.)

    • sure jan says:

      I mostly agree with John, Jackdaw, AaronW, Astro, Chaz, Kevin, and Sandra. Actually, Aaron explains what I had meant to say previously.

      The movie isn’t “problematic” because a person goes nearly crazy after a year of solitude and awakens another person. It’s problematic because the problem should never have been a problem in the first place. :P There is no reason that it shouldn’t be easy to put oneself back into stasis in the unlikely event that, oh, say, an asteroid or something collides with the ship sometime during the journey, causing damage to it (oh, hey, look what happened…) Just in case! IF something does go wrong. No reputable company would guarantee that their system is “failsafe” and that waking up too early is impossible. And then there’s the android bartender, who should’ve been designed more like the Jetsons’ Rosie, so that he wouldn’t be apparently stuck to a track behind the bar. Then he could’ve put Jim back to sleep after he put Aurora back to sleep (or just did both of them himself…since they didn’t discover the method for it until Jim needed the autodoc. But AGAIN, this whole premise makes no sense because they should have been told this in the first place, or better yet, it should’ve been way simpler to put yourself back to sleep!)

      And obviously, yes, there’d be more than one autodoc.
      I’m assuming that after Aurora completed her experience/research on the planet colony, one of the corporation’s employees would’ve either used the autodoc to put her back to sleep, or more likely, the ship and all its hypersleep pods would’ve been “reset” for a return trip. Also, I guess you prepay, and then are responsible for paying the company any extra money you spent during your pre-arrival time aboard the ship once you get to the colony.
      (Personally I’d have been tempted to just wake up everybody and hope that SOMEone will be able to get us all back to sleep, because heck no, I ain’t gonna be the only one screwed like this–too bad the crew can tell which pod malfunctioned and which were intentionally deactivated. xD But yes, crew members should’ve been waking up on some schedule anyway just to check things.)

  37. astro says:

    Classy by Pratt, but I have no such virtues. The critics here were an infantile, hysterical, herd-like disgrace. How does the industry survive with critics like this? I thought Passengers was an interesting, odd film that was a curious cinematic experience, sort of a closet art house film, ambiguous, strangely underwritten but provocative. I thought it had flaws, needing more exposition to tell the story more effectively and not make things seem too abrupt, but I also realized that the audience was intelligent enough to fill in the blanks. But rather than see an interesting but flawed film, the critics lost their minds in a braindead, SJW tantrum. The film deserved a RT score somewhere in the 60s.

    Glad the film made money. It has already made over $300 million. And it did that despite triggered “critics” going crazy.

  38. ChazM says:

    I’m just curious to know how on earth this movie was accused of misogyny when it was lead by Jennifer Lawrence after she became something of a feminist icon last year.

    That being said, I think Chris did a cool thing in not dismissing film critics as an institution. Class move.

  39. sandra says:

    sjw critics couldn’t handle the plot……had to cry rape

    • ChazM says:

      It’s really interesting, isn’t it. That branch of film critics who are very vocal about their love for how film explores ambiguity and so on, yet the moment they’re presented with a film that genuinely challenges them, they throw a tantrum.

      This coming from a film student.

      • sandra says:

        yes, and it´s dangerous well…..script writers will get afraid to write this “edgy” stuff, which isn’t really edgy at all…….out of fear of movies studios saying no…..we NEED movies that make us think and challenges us…….movie is great, and critics were wrong for bashing it, apparently they don´t know how humans can and will respond to terrible situations

  40. Phillip Ayling says:

    Since he talked so much about the economics of the film, why no mention of Jennifer Lawrence making 40% more than him, even though he was the lead actor?

    • shannabowie says:

      She was the bigger box office draw. She’s Academy Award winning and the head of multiple million dollar franchises.

      • So what? That argument always kills me. She was in “X-Men” and “Hunger Games”. Neither you can really say is because of her. People hate her in X-Men and Hunger Games was Hunger Games. No one says Daniel Radcliffe made Harry Potter. They say Harry Potter made Daniel Radcliffe. And no one has liked the Oscars for awhile. All the news of award bribery that statue doesn’t carry the weight it used to. In fact, honestly, I thought I was the only one who thought she was overrated in that film, but I talked to literally a dozen random people about it and like one person said they liked it. But on my main point, her biggets selling movies outside of franchises were “Silver Linings Playbook”, “American Hustle”, and “Passengers”. All three had an ensemble and other hooks. She did “Joy”, which was just her up front and center and the film flopped. $100 million off a $60 million budget and she got paid $15 doesn’t say much. But you look at Emma Stone with “La La Land” and that film made like $450 million on a $30 million budget. So makes you wonder…is Lawrence a box office draw or has she just been at the right place at the right time? Because Bradley Cooper did “American Sniper” which was a modestly reviewed film (In the 70’s at Rotten Tomatoes) and that film BEAT “Mockingjay Part 1”. No franchise, just him front and center. Just saying.

    • Kevin R says:

      What’s your point? That’s his agent’s fault and/or Lawrence has a good agent who can negotiate.

      • Guest says:

        Shadowsleuth1989, your opinion is understood: Jennifer Lawrence is terrible, overpaid actress! But arguments on box office draw are not valid, they are subjective. Useful to check when people post clearly subjective things. Just few examples. Let’s take Emma Stone, she is a good actress, but La La Land is not her only movie, as we know. In 2015 she played with Bradley Cooper in Aloha – budget 37$ mln, box office 26$ mln. No need to count to see that it’s…not better than Joy. Let’s take Bradley Cooper – Burnt in 2015 with production cost 20$ mln, earned 36$ mln. And we do not speak about how much it cost but cost vs earnings, right? Also 70% at RT is a huge difference from 31% – strong positive and strong negative. Also, Leo Dicaprio – Blood Diamond – 101$ mln cost with 171$ mln earnings. And Leo is known to be as highly paid actor. Yet he didn’t get any backlash. I have no intention to make any actor look bad even if I don’t like someone. And commercial succes of original movies especially can not be put on the shoulders of the actors. As for their pay check, the answer is clear – do not watch their movies if you don’t want to recuperate this money. You and like-minded people however attack exclusively Jennifer Lawrence. When she was a newcomer in X-Men series, did many have opinion that she was a bad Mystique? Now you cry out loud about it. It’s a syndrome of negative obsession.

  41. Brandon Scot Sims says:

    She should have killed him.

  42. Jacques Strappe says:

    Every time I poop, I take a moment to praise the good job I leave in the toilet bowl, Chris.

  43. jona says:

    Lawrence was horrid in that movie. It may have been watchable had it been ANOTHER MOVIE ENTIRELY!

    • Variety member says:

      Shadowsleuth1989, dont spend too much time on why movies failed, there are plenty of reasons why they fail. Actors do what they can do best. Chris Pratt isnt worth 12mn$ if you go by the same logic and stop posting wrong information. You have been posting the same thing on all passengers articles.

    • Heather Brown says:

      Agreed. Chris Pratt is a far more engaging than she is. Maybe studios and film directors will finally see that she’s overrated. So much for this movie being the “vehicle” she needed to make her the next Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts. NEXT!

      • Muerphy says:

        What HE said….

      • She’s this generation’s Marilyn Monroe. Every film it’s the same tired schtick. “I’m the attractive woman who has this bad situation used to give me sympathy and I lash out at everyone for two hours and since all the men are simple-minded I always get what I want.” People act like $300 million for a science fiction film is a big deal. The marketing costs added plus the ridiculous amount of the box office they will give Lawrence, she’s a waste to spend on when other actresses offer versatility and intelligence. Still can’t believe she has an Oscar for wearing yoga pants for two hours.

More Film News from Variety

Loading