VibeX

Two A-list actors at the height of their popularity? Check. A bold story idea that will take these two actors into the unknown depths of outer space? Another check. These are the two main ingredients behind the 2016 film, Passengers, that paired Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence together for what should have been a shoo-in blockbuster, right? So, why didn't it happen?

That question is not as easily answered as you might think. It is difficult to call the film a complete flop when you consider that it surpassed $300 million at the box office on a $110 million budget, but there's something off about the film. Was it the direction? Or was it maybe the less-than-stellar effects that can make or break any epic sci-fi drama? Or, maybe the film is just a little dull. Whatever the case, we're going to do our best to break down what derailed a can't-miss movie that somehow left audiences leaving the theater with the feeling that they overpaid for the story for their two-hour theater experience.

RELATED: How Chris Pratt Lost His Way as a Leading Man

It Wasn't Jennifer Lawrence or Chris Pratt's Performance That Made 'Passengers' a Flop

Both Pratt and Lawrence were very much on top of their games as the two mostly unaccompanied players on the screen in Passengers. So, let's go ahead and rule this possibility out right away. The chemistry between the two actors, while not exactly on the level of Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca, was more than serviceable, and they were believable as two marooned passengers aboard a 120-year journey from Earth to a brand-new galactic settlement called Homestead II. It's a little strange, because knowing that the actors gave a respectable performance, and 80 percent of the Passengers is dialogue and interaction between the two, that it would be anything less than a good film.

Consider this as well: the supporting cast consists of top-notch performers in the form of Laurence Fishburne, Michael Sheen, and Andy Garcia. Along with Lawrence and Pratt, these are five impressive actors on screen with essentially no one else. Pratt even told Variety that it was one of the best scripts he had ever read, and was genuinely taken aback when it was met by an unfavorable response. So, we're going to have to look elsewhere as to why Passengers was panned by cinema illuminati.

The Director of 'Passengers' Was an Oscar winner, But...

Morten Tyldum had already established his directorial bona fides when he won an Academy Award for Best Director just two years prior in 2014 for The Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbatch. The questions about Tyldum revolve around whether he was the right director for a big-budgeted, sweeping, science fiction romance like Passengers. One wonders if the same script would have been delivered better to the big screen with someone like Ridley Scott, the grandfather of the modern science-fiction genre. Or even someone like Darren Aronofsky, who is considered one of the finest handlers of complex and interpersonal characters from his work in films like Black Swan, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, and most recently, the character-driven gem, The Whale. The fact is, Tyldum was in the director's chair, and can't be overlooked as part of the albatross around the film's neck.

'Passengers' Is a Little Bit Creepy

There is also the very real, and most likely possibility, that Passengers' failure to live up to expectations is because of a complete lack of awareness of how creepy the whole thing is. In the film, Pratt's character, Jim, wakes up Lawrence's character, Aurora, from stasis prematurely simply because he was lonely and found her attractive — this is what we'd call a major flawed premise. What Jim does in the film is rightly considered to be selfish and bordering on stalking. (Don't listen the small group of outliers that suggest that what he did was understandable because the idea of prolonged solitude and isolation drove him to it.) Lawrence's character, Aurora Lane, was spot on when she accuses Pratt's Jim Preston of ostensibly killing her. Her life and her future was not his to control.

The decision makers at Sony Pictures that gave Passengers the green light were either unable or unwilling to "read the room." Maybe they were in too deep or couldn't plant themselves outside the sphere of an enormous project that was expected to be the latest entry into the pantheon of science-fiction alongside films like Aliens, Interstellar, and Pratt's own, Guardians of the Galaxy. It was never going to happen in this day and age when stalking has become such a palpable and real fear.

What Studios Should Take Away From 'Passengers' Disappointing Reception

The biggest takeaway the two stars can take from the overtly sexist and retrograde premise is that these types of misguided, "White Knight" storylines aren't going to be viewed favorably upon in the 21st century. Anything even resembling male chauvinism or men stepping in to declare themselves as keyholders is going to be frowned upon and even reprimanded — as it should. In the future, it would behoove studio heads who are deciding on which scripts get made to consider an alternate plot that promotes more autonomous equality. That's not to say that men shouldn't make difficult decisions, but should make sure that they are their decisions to make.

Consider this alternative plot: Jim Preston and Aurora Lane's stasis pods malfunction at the same time. Two complete strangers have to come to terms that the rest of their lives will be spent with each other for however long that may be. Let the relationship play out and see what happens. Maybe they will fall in love and establish a relationship based on equal footing. That way, whatever happens from that point forward will be a joint decision that both take responsibility for. Maybe they can't stand each other and spend decades evading one another in the cavernous colonization ship that had such high hopes, but ultimately, failed along the way.

ncG1vNJzZmibn6G5qrDEq2Wcp51kvaK%2F0p6loJ2iqHquu9WinGavmK56qsCMn5iipJWZfA%3D%3D