MovieChat Forums > Passengers (2016) Discussion > The critical response to this is why we ...

The critical response to this is why we will never see a "Rama"

posted 8 years ago by Benjobuff (406)
40 replies | jump to latest

Morgan freeman wanted to make "rendezvous with Rama" for years. But I guarantee you no matter how many awesome technological ideas they put on film, the majority of people will watch it and say "I can't believe these characters acted in such and such a way. Boring. Vapid. Why is she wearing makeup? Blah blah blah...". Well this is why you won't see it. I went to rotten tomatoes and there are supposedly intelligent critics saying things like "the premise was appalling". "Blatant sexism". Do these people not experience humanity? I remember the tom cruise movie oblivion and the movie interstellar got similarly blasted. There is a strange anti science fiction wave cutting through the sjw period we are living in. Unless your film explicitly promotes a social cause it gets blasted as "mindless distraction". This I find sad. This film had some minor flaws, like the abrupt ending. But the reviews were needlessly biased and I was amazed by the insecurity this movie revealed in major critics

[–] CraigJamesReview (1814) 8 years ago

I agree. I feel like the conflict at the center of the film it was made it a cut above a regular romantic space drama. I felt for Chris Pratt's character and understood his decision and was very surprised at people who called it rapey.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the film here- https://youtu.be/LE_aVVuNqnE

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

You "understand" his decision to completely destroy someone else's life?

Just because he was lonely?

Because to me, if he was going to awaken someone, why not search through the profiles to find someone who could fix the ship? Someone who was amazing at hacking computers or engineering issues to get into the crew quarter's pods and awaken them?

This seemed like a typical Millennial movie: "My needs are the most important, so I'll do the most selfish thing for my own wants. I won't work the problem from a logical standpoint, I'll do that which fulfills my desires most."

..Joe

[–] Xenopharb (617) 8 years ago

Joe, that is the whole basis for the conflict.

Do you live and die alone or wake up someone who you have fallen in love with through her pre-mission videos?

I don't believe for a second that any man posting here would not have considered waking her.

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

Wrong. I would not. I could never kill someone unnecessarily like that just for my own selfish needs.

Because similarly, one could state: "I haven't had sex in a year, so I'll rape this girl here because, well, because I WANT to!"

..Joe

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

Right. So you can say that with certainty, knowing that you will likely be the only person to keep you company until you die? Sure.

And it's people like you calling this film rapey (it's not) that piss me off. Was the decision to do what he did morally wrong? Of course it was. That's what movies are supposed to do...entertain and make you think.

Wow. I enjoyed this movie immensely. It makes you think about what you might do in the same situation. And I can tell you I honestly do not know if I would not have done the same thing. Human contact with others is such a strong stimulus. And it doesn't need to be sexual in any way. Looking at how just one year affected him was enough for me to step back and say (as Gus said)....'damn'.

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

I may have to actually watch this movie before judging it - I have heard both good and bad

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

And at the end of the day that's really all that anyone can ask. I posted in another thread that while RT gave this a poor rating (31 percent) I typically try and aggreagate...using Flixster, their rating was 63 percent...they base that on people who aren't paid to review movies...they base it on people who pay to see them.

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

I find that RT can be way off on movies that I end up liking.

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

Me as well. However most movies 90 percent and above via RT I typically favor. I can't think of one I haven't recently. But many rated like this: I have to shake my head sometimes. As I said, I thought Chris Pratt did well for doing much of the movie solo, and then when they had to play off each other, I thought I read someone in another post saying there was no chemistry between them. Wow...not sure what they were watching, but even big critics of the movie conceded the chemistry between the leads nearly saved the movie for them.

I thought Pratt stretched his acting chops a little here. I've liked him in movies like Moneyball (first thing I can ever remember seeing him in...I was never a huge Parks and Rec fan) and obviously GotG but he always does comedy well. He was playing the straight shooter in this. With a few funny moments sprinkled in.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 8 years ago

Joe, that is a false analogy. He did not rape her, and he did not kill her.

It is easy to say that you would not have done it. It is easy to be right when you actually aren't in that situation. From a psychological view, all men would consider it. Some would do it, some would not, but all would consider it at some point.

I think I would end up doing it. Right or wrong, it is the option that makes the most sense.

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

Maybe not physical rape, but psychological. Rape is about control, not sex. He demanded the control over her life, and took it away from her.

Yeah, that IS rape.

And it is VERY easy to say I would not have done it. It's called a moral code. It's what one lives by, regardless of the circumstances.

It's called "honor." Without it, you're not a man.

..Joe

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

This might be the most idiotic comment I've ever seen.

He didn't rape her. Psychologically or physically.

What he did WAS morally wrong...put yourself in that situation though. 5000 other people on a ship, you're awake 90 years early and likely no one else will wake up. Human contact is craved by humans on a daily basis. Studies show that without it for long stretches (even as short as 2 weeks) people suffer mental instability from it.

Can you with absolute CERTAINTY say you wouldn't do this? I can't.

I call bullshit.

I'm going to edit my post here and add a blurb I found from the screenwriter (Jim Spaihts) regarding this:

It’s not as if it’s an accidental oversight of the film, where we, through some cultural blindness, have failed to see the appalling nature of our hero’s actions. It is the subject of the film. And I think that making a movie that leaves people room to argue about what they would have done, what they could have forgiven, what they can understand or fail to understand, I think that’s great. I think that’s good storytelling. What I don’t believe the movie does is endorse or exonerate anyone. The movie looks, evenhandedly, at the dilemma everybody was in. I think putting good people in impossible circumstances makes for fascinating storytelling.

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

"our hero’s actions"

There's the problem right there- someone that condemns someone else to a death and destroys her life for his own selfish designs can in no way be called a "hero." "Miscreant," or "scumbag," maybe, but "hero? No.

But that a screenwriter can still think of him as a "hero" shows everything wrong with Hollywood.

..Joe

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

You're really overthinking that aren't you? Hero/villain is always identified in almost every entertainment medium. In this case there are technically two and no villains. But continue to overthink if that's what makes you feel better

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

Okay, thanks. And you continue to NOT think at all.

God, you MUST be a Millennial.

..Joe

[–] BigTulsa (25) 8 years ago

I'm gonna bet that I'm probably older than you.

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

I'll bite. I'm 60.

..Joe

[–] Geiri (864) 7 years ago

I'm sorry but long term isolation makes people go insane. Its easy to sit in your seat and say I wouldn't have done it because I have morals. You have no idea how much this experience would change you.

[–] joegerardi (384) 7 years ago

Oh. Okay. So, in order to protect my own insanity, I sentence someone else to death...

You MUST be a millennial.

As to long-term isolation making one insane, have you never heard of Alexander Selkirk? He was the real-life Robinson Crusoe, isolated for years on an island; there have been several Japanese soldiers that - not knowing WWII was over - hid in the jungle for 30 years alone, and when coaxed out were just plain fine.

THAT'S why I state yo must be a Millennial- YOU can't live in isolation so no one can- the hallmark of Millennials- "It's always and only about me."

..Joe

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

Are you serious with this constant harping on Millennials? “Kids today” is the oldest and corniest lament in the book.

[–] joegerardi (384) 7 years ago

Oh, I have nothing wrong with "kids today": there's another generation AFTER Millenials, and so far, I see nothing wrong with them.

But even they hate the 'king Millennials.

..Joe

[–] tom8 (3119) 8 years ago

critics are SJW assholes these days......if the main character is not gay/non white/transgender...... they won't like it

[–] brux (14840) 8 years ago

I am a Liberal, Progressive, I believe in social justice, and I do not have a clue about what a SJW or the stupid stereotype that has been implanted into your right-winger's empty heads, but you don't know anything, and you are allowing your brains to be shut down by right-wing propaganda, and all Left/Liberal/Progressives I know are way more open minded and cool than you guys who always have to make it a point to attack people with concepts you can't even explain but you think it makes you cool to use.

[–] joegerardi (384) 8 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Good one. Just look at who was causing all the damage- destroying cars, burning, breaking windows et al during the inauguration.

Yeah- REALLY open-minded and cool.

..Joe

[–] brux (14840) 8 years ago

Are you accusing me of something with no proof ... that's just typical.

[–] joegerardi (384) 7 years ago

See what we mean about liberals being stupid? I never accused you, I was stating the issue about Liberals (BTW: you folks are ANYTHING but "progressive") in general.

..Joe

[–] brux (14840) 7 years ago

You're just spreading fake news

[–] joegerardi (384) 7 years ago

Typical response. Misdirect, obfuscate, LIE, anything but a cogent, intelligent response. When you have no answer, you attack.

..Joe

[–] brux (14840) 7 years ago

Typical response? Yes, yours is.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

I’m a liberal Democrat, and I loved this movie.

[–] brux (14840) 8 years ago

I read Rendevous With Rama when it came out. Like a few of Arthur C. Clarkes
books, there was not much point to it. Clarkes' books are more like meditations
or thought experiments. He is not so great with plots.

I thought Oblivion was OK when I saw it, predictable at the end. I can barely
remember it now. And Interstellar was good, but the whole teaching the moon-
landing was a hoax in school bothered me the whole movie as well.

I just saw the lame SJW comment ... there are a few things people saw that really
brand them as being not very thoughtful, and that is one of them. Don't be a right
wing pawn, unless you are a right-wing pawn, and then have the decency to let
me know so I don't read your nonsense, please!

[–] Benjobuff (406) 8 years ago

Typical sjw response. Sensitive about the moon landing. And thinks Not much point to rendezvous with Rama! Ha! Classic

[–] Renovatio (2990) 8 years ago

This thread makes me want to read Rendezvous with Rama...

I didn't realise the critics had, on average, hated it so much... i've just read a few of them.. wow... they are so de-sexualised and threatened by a man pursuing a woman...

I liked the movie, but thought it would have been better if they had taken it further! [Spoiler]instead of waking aurora because he was lonely and researched her profile, falling for her words and thoughts, i think it would be even more interesting if he had just chosen her just for her looks, so that not only does she end up falling for him for real, but that he is put in that situation of getting to know her from scratch[/spoiler]

Also, a lot of the critics were so caught up in the sexual politics (their term) that they discarded the idea of putting one's interest above anothers choices, the reality that our decisions will always have consequences to others and the impossibility of absolute autonomy in a society... if there is a criticism of this film it's that it didnt delve deeper into these ideas and gave us a tidy hollywood ending instead... still an entertaining movie...

[–] Benjobuff (406) 8 years ago

Yes. I can think of no greater hypocrisy than denying evolutionary force whilst simultaneously decrying religion. Which of course is the exact crux of Arthur c Charles' writings. It is quite sad. Our technology is doing strange things that none of us will be alive to understand. And very bad storms are on the horizon.

[–] naDaht (1087) 7 years ago

Rendezvous with Rama is a totally different story though. Have you read the novels?

[–] Benjobuff (406) 7 years ago

I read the books. All four in sequence. They dealt with carrying humans for multiple generations a great distance. They dealt with the human condition in every way in context of amazing detailed technological thought. I wasn't comparing plots though. I was noting that the criticisms of this film are so petty compared to the awesome details of science fiction that were presented. Obviously this movie is not on par with a genius work like Rama, but to see it bashed for such petty things, in light of all it did extremely well, is disheartening. That was my
Point. I remember the fusion reactor, the gravity, the food distributor, the artificial intelligence, it was all done very well. And all people can say is "her hair don't look right and the characters are Caucasian and he shouldn't have woke her up". It's disheartening to see the masses today are mostly the same as the masses a thousand years ago. This is the gift the internet has given us I suppose.

Other petty arguments:
Oblivion: "tom cruise believes Scientology is true." Despite in the movie he is mulling the fall of Rome while having a spiritual awakening. Literally comes fave to face with himself. Oblivion was superb science fiction. Superb.

Interstellar: "matt Damon always plays the same character". Seriously? "The moon denial offended me". Seriously? the docking sequence in that film will go down in history of cinema. There is a reason these films are getting panned.

Michael Crichton "state of fear". Read it

[–] naDaht (1087) 7 years ago

Ah. My complaints about Passengers is mostly that I was hoping for Rama but what I got was something completely different. And for what I got, it was pretty OK. There were even some great scenes. I just wish the love story would have been better. Also, I don't care for Jennifer Lawrence. At all. I do like Chris Pratt. And there are great things all over the film.

Just felt like a lost opportunity to me.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

“Oblivion” and “Interstellar” were mediocre science fiction IMO. But “Passengers” was that true rarity: excellent hard sci-fi that almost never cheated (the main exception being when the gravity went out).

[–] brux (14840) 7 years ago

I got Rendezvous with Rama when it was published as I was a big
fan of Arthur C. Clarke and the subject was also a cool one. I don't
think this would make a good movie unless they severely changed,
or in this case created and actual plot. All it was was a giant empty
generation ship that Earth detected entering the solar system. They
go out to investigate, see lots of cools stuff, and then it exists. That
was a real yawner. Lots of ACC's books were like this, the plots were
kind of incidental. He was more about abstract ideas than conflict
or themes. 2001 is probably the most common example. They never
stuck with a character long enough, it was about the monolith. Loved
the movie as a kid, it had huge influence on me and was my favorite
movie when it came out, but it is slow and boring.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yes, harder science fiction needs a bigger place in the spotlight. Enough of this oversensitive, touchy-feely "socially-aware" mumbo jumbo. There is nothing "mindless" about exploring purely scientific/intellectual ideas... that's a contradiction in terms!

The critical response to this is why we will never see a &quot;Rama&quot;

The critical response to this is why we will never see a "Rama"