Watch Out, Titanic.... Here Comes Passengers
Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 10:30AM Or so says its director. Speaking to Entertainment Weekly, Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game) tried to build up hype for his December release starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt:
Every generation has its love story. I feel like this is it.
There are certainly similarities with Titanic. Passengers is about two, well passengers, aboard a spaceship who accidentally wake up from an iduced time suspension, 90 years into a 120 year trip. Everyone else on board is still asleep when they discover that the ship is in danger. They try to save themselves and everyone else while falling in love. Sound familiar?
Lawrence and Pratt are arguably the two biggest movie stars in their age groups, so a commercial hit is expected. But will they capture the zeitgeist like Kate and Leo? Tyldum certainly hopes so. We will find out on December 21.
Reader Comments (28)
I just don't know about this one,it will really tellif Lawrence and Pratt are drawers outside of major franchises or Oscar players.
We have to wait and see if they have on screen chemistry
Hyping anything as the next Titanic is kinda silly. The box office won't be anything near that - Titanic was an Event film that mothers and old grandmas wanted to go see - this won't be that.
@mark - with that said, Lawrence has definitely proven herself a draw. If you don't consider her a draw, then what female star would be? McCarthy only?
My main concerns are the script and, assuming the script is good, if Pratt can pull it off. Great scifi often requires strong actors and he has not proven himself to be a strong dramatic actor yet' just someone who can play a likable doofus. Any number of other young actors (like Michael Jordan or Jaimie Bell or Dane Dehaan would have been more interesting choices here). With that said, early reviews of the script back when Keannu Reeves was involved called it a Sci-Fi Dark Comedy, so we will see.
Also Lawrence required a heck of a lot of money to do this film. Perhaps an indicator that the script was not up to par with other films she could have done.
I thought this generation's love story was Amour.
YES to this! You had me at J-Law. Though I still have such doubts about Pratt.
I really like Jennifer as an actress and movie star,she's the closest thing we have to a Julia Roberts,maybe it's cos I was a child of the 80's/90's when certain female stars carried movies to BO success all on their own in mostly original material time after time.
Julia Roberts in the 90's is a benchmark of what a female star can achieve,Bullock,Ryan,Goldberg,Foster maybe Demi Moore could also lay claim to be able to do this in the 90's and more recently for Bullock.
The 80's BO stars and don't forget a movie grossing 30 mill 30 yrs ago was a big deal if it had a female lead were Turner,Midler,Hawn and Streep and maybe Sally Field,feel free to name more
00's BO stars were Diaz,Zellweger,Lopez maybe Kidman and Barrymore but they often miss.
70's Streisand,Hawn, and Fonda ruled maybe Dunaway too.
10's Bullock as a holdover Hathaway,Lawrence but not so big outside of franchises or Oscar players
Anonny: If "This Generation's Love Story is also a "Sci-fi Dark Comedy" that kind of says a lot and, based on a lot of stuff that's happened in the last couple years (especially Gamer Gate), might be justified. That having been said, I'd also not be surprised if it means Morten Tyldum and team has sanded off all edge to accomplish it.
Nothing suggests that Tyldum is capable of making this generation's Titanic, is the only problem.
It DOES sound familiar. Two attractive young people, waking up at the wrong time, stranded together but surrounded by resources, falling in love while warding off some threat - is this a remake of "Career Opportunities"?
I want to be excited for this one. I love Chris Pratt but I have such a love/hate relationship with Jennifer Lawrence. I would've preferred that maybe someone like Rachel McAdams, who was originally meant to star, or Gugu Mbatha-Raw was cast in the role instead (Seriously, Gugu needs more starring roles.).
Looks like a commercial for indigestion
It could also be this generations Irwin Allen movie... anyone who has doubts about the charming Mr Pratt only has to look at "Jurassic World" and how basically steals the "Magnificent Seven" trailer- likeable doofus indeed
I like both of these actors and will be anxious to see the movie.
I first saw Lawrence in Winter's Bone and thought she was more than great... was so happy to see her click in movies; that said, I'm not so sure of her drawing power , ,... she has starred in ACTION movies and become huge with the franchises, but when she is in the movies, Joy, Serena,etc, they have been less than stellar hits. Can she alone carry a movie?
Titanic had the all epic aspect of such a well known story based on real events that this movie doesn't have and it also was a different time... that said, early reactions to the CinemaCon footage described it as 2001 a Space Odyssey meets Gravity and Titanic... plus the script was great and they all said Lawrence and Pratt have amazing chemistry. Jennifer Lawrence is the best actress of her generation and by far my favorite. Maybe it will do more like Gravity numbers but I think it will be epic. Can't wait!
Johnny: I think it's delusional to think she didn't HELP Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle a lot (no way would those movies have cleared $150 mil if she wasn't in them), and that Joy even cleared $100 million (though, because of Joy's $60 million budget, that meant in NO WAY did that break even) is still kind of impressive. That having been said? Just because something is a franchise doesn't mean you can dismiss the concept of the actor as a draw out of hand completely. For example, let's look at Jurassic World without her co-star in Passengers, Chris Pratt? $600-800 million worldwide. (Not coincidentally, those numbers are roughly where EVERY Hunger Games entry landed.) Actual end result? 1.6 BILLION worldwide. When JLaw asked for a matching paycheque to Chris Pratt? I laughed. I'd laugh if a male star whose highest grossing movies were $600-800 million worldwide results on a franchise with heat asked for an equal paycheque to a female star who had just shown they could make a stagnant franchise (and let's be clear, Jurassic Park was a stagnant bleeping franchise that, in no way, should have been expected to be THAT financially successful) roar out of the gate with a $1.6 billion result too. I absolutely believe in equal pay for equal draw, but J Law hasn't actually SHOWN she's an equal draw.
Johnny: So, as far as what I think Passengers can get? Pratt and J Law have overlapping but different audiences and this is a December prestige sci-fi. Minimum (meaning, even with ultimately just mediocre reviews), I'd say an even billion, which is higher than Gravity. But if it really is a great, "five best of the year" piece? It could pull Avatar numbers.
Volvagia -- saying Pratt is a bigger draw than Lawrence is insane. She has taken ORIGINAL dramas & comedies to over $100 and headlined (as original lead) a major billion dollar franchise for years. Pratt has had 2 hits. Both of which were buoyed by being an umpteenth film in billion dollar franchises.
Pratt has no stand alone track record for being a box office draw. He has starred in a Marvel Studios superhero film (a decade after they've all basically been giant hits) and a reboot of the Jurassic franchise. JLaw has taken a movie ENTIRELY SOLD ON HER FACE (Joy) to $100 million even though no one seemed to agree on whether or not it was good or what kind of movie it even was. That's bankability. As soon as Pratt can do that with a non-franchise film that nobody can agree upon that also has no strong saleable elements (a family business dramedy about inventing a mop?), I'll agree that he's as big of a draw as she is.
It's actually shocking to me that we live in a world where Pratt was offered more than Lawrence for this film so I'm glad she was all "no, pay up"
To me, all this talk about her B.O. Reminds me of the Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts. But best actress of her generation? No. Katniss would have made any pretty girl a star. Hunger Games were hugely popular with YA crowd.
Marie: But when who should have been one of the contenders for "Best Actress of JLaw's Generation" can have only a single movie to her name? Things are going WRONG. I watched Far from the Madding Crowd and am watching Suffragette. The former, Mulligan was completely miscast (and bleeping terrible at portraying the character as written, the stupid drowning housecat) and the latter? There's a genuinely great, incendiary, movie and performance concept buried in the first twenty minutes or so, but that movie and performance concept are not named Suffragette. They're named Gender Traitor.
To each their own, but when I think of Streep, Cotillard, Swinton, Blanchett, Chastain ... The next heir to that pantheon is not named Lawrence.
Sidestepping the Lawrence/Box Office debates....
My defining love story is (and presumably always ill be) 'Notorious'. It was the first movie I saw where the chemistry could be felt, and wasn't just portrayed by having a close-up on one attractive person with romantic music, followed by a close-up on another attractive person, with no real interaction - i.e. the movie didn't just assume that since the audience can see they are attractive, they are obviously attracted to each other. Then that code-skirting scene with the repeated kisses! Him insulting her at the racetrack because of jealousy! The desperate kiss outside at the party! Grant rescuing her and finally letting his defenses down and her saying 'tell me you love me again, it keeps me awake'!
I need to rewatch it, I've seen it dozens of time but not in 4-5 years at this point.
Are we still in the same generation as Brokeback Mountain? If so: sorry, Passengers...
"To each their own, but when I think of Streep, Cotillard, Swinton, Blanchett, Chastain ... The next heir to that pantheon is not named Lawrence."
I'll agree with that and I think most people here would. I wouldn't dream of putting Chastain in that company yet either though (Michelle Williams MAYBE after another great performance or two). As many people have said, Lawrence is more heir to Julia Roberts than anyone else (although a better actress IMO).
I hope they bone in zero gravity. And I hope there is room for 2 on the airlock door.
"Katniss would have made any pretty girl a star. Hunger Games were hugely popular with YA crowd."
This isn't fair. Harry Potter was a lot more popular than Hunger Games, and yet the Potter kids aren't household names. And the Divergent books were nearly as popular as the Hunger Games books, and the final Divergent movie is going to tv (and... it took me a second to think of Shailene Woodley's name just now. Anyway, she'll never be a superstar).
Jennifer Lawrence is a movie star, she came into the Hunger Games franchise as a critically lauded, Oscar-nominated actress, and it's not a simple fact that anyone else given that role would have her career.
@Anonny: Pratt has proven himself to be a strong dramatic actor, on Everwood, his first prominent role.
Marie: So many movies with huge fanbases have flopped of the box office. Jennifer Lawrence definitely has proved herself. Also, the abbreviation BO makes it seem like you're talking about body oder.
I recently had a writing project for https://samedayessays.net/ about Passengers, so I came across this article, and I must say that, even though, I loved the movie, it was great, but I consider Titanic as a classic, iconic movie, that nothing can beat!