its zpg zealot … with her there’s no such thing as reasonable debate with her on male/female issues like this
But a relative who did see it said it would be creepy but also flattering at the same time
as she said “there was 4,999 people to pick from and he chose YOU” what woman wouldn’t impressed by that once she thought about it ?"
But as others said theres a serious sci-fi movie that was messed up along the way …
I wonder if the fact that Chris Pratt happens to be cute is what help makes it “flattering”. What if he was played by an overweight and pimply actor?
Of course you can; don’t wake up another person for your own benefit, and attempt to sacrifice your life to save 5000 people.
The opportunity for him to be “more heroic” was right there. He instead chose to do something quite evil.
<facepalm.jpg>
Had he not chosen to wake someone else up, *everyone *on the ship would have died…
To call Chris Pratt’s character a psychopath or evil is to completely devalue the words in question. His actions in the movie were not those of a psychopath, and to compare him to Ariel Castro (a convicted serial kidnapper and rapist) is ludicrous.
As I stated earlier upthread, there are much worse things someone in his position could do that fall into psychopath category–killing the other passengers or sabotaging the ship, for example.
The only way Pratt’s actions could be legitimately compared to those of Ariel Castro would be if Pratt had planned the whole situation from the beginning (including his early wake-up).
This is not meant to condone his actions. What he did was clearly wrong, and Jennifer Lawrence’s character would be well within her rights to never forgive his actions. She was NOT within her rights to actually murder Pratt in response, and to say that this would have been “a good and just ending” is also ludicrous.
While Pratt’s actions were wrong, if blame for the situation is being apportioned, I would hold the designers and operator of the ship most at fault. This sort of situation should never have been possible. For example, there could have been a skeleton crew left awake that rotates in and out of hibernation. Alternatively, if that were not possible, there should have at least been a way for a passenger in Pratt’s situation to wake the crew, and for the crew and passengers to subsequently re-enter hibernation.
In the movie, Chris Pratt’s character was shown to be suicidal and slowly going insane from the isolation. This does not justify his actions, but it does make them understandable, in my opinion.
Yeah the more I think about it the more this movie needed to end with Pratt’s Character dead saving the ship and J Law back asleep.
ETA: He wasn’t a Psychopath but he did an evil act in a moment of weakness and extreme stress which the movie seemed to fully forgive him for but I didn’t.
Agreed; the Homestead Corporation is way too overconfident in their auto-pilot. There should be a contingency plan for putting people back into suspended animation in flight. They don’t even need to have skeleton crews working in shifts during the voyage, just have the captain and a maintenance crew wake up for an annual inspection (or whenever certain alarms are triggered).
See, I thought that’s what the movie was going to be about. The ship’s computer clearly knew a lot about the passengers. So, it suffered its malfunction after the asteroids. It managed the malfunctions, but it correctly predicted that the cascading failures would eventually exceed its capacity to keep up. So, it scoured the passenger manifest and found a fix-it guy to patch up the problem. The computer is the one who is guilty of the first violation, in waking a slumbering passenger. Of course, had Pratt not been awakened, everyone would have died.
The thing is, if the computer were sophisticated enough to diagnose the problem, realize that the problem was going to eventually exceed its capacity to cope, find someone with the skills to fix the problem, and wake that person, the computer should have been able to take the final step, TELL THE FIX-IT GUY WHAT THE FUCK TO FIX!
Did he know that at the time? Was that part of his planning process?
If I attack someone in the street and steal their handbag - but it later turns out that there was actually something in it the owner was deathly allergic to - am I a great hero for my act of robbery?
You seem mostly to be disagreeing with** ZPG Zealot** than me. As to my point, I think the extent to which his isolation and “slowly going insane” plays a role here is negated by his planning and deliberate selection of Aurora. This wasn’t the act of someone who had a moment of weakness.
No, it wasn’t, and I think that adding the crisis at the end in which two people just happened to be needed was a transparent attempt by the scriptwriters to whitewash Chris Pratt’s actions.
That said, within the framework of the story, it was essentially a lucky break for Chris Pratt’s character that does end up justifying his actions, even though he had no way of knowing this in advance.
That’s probably true, but not only do I disagree with the characterization of Chris Pratt being a psychopath, I also disagree with him being characterized as “evil.” His actions were morally wrong, but not “quite evil,” in my opinion.
The planning seemed to consist solely of pulling out the manual for the hibernation pods, and figuring out how to override the timer. (And I don’t recall the exact sequence, but he may have already pulled out the manual before when he tried to put himself back to sleep.) Most of the weeks or months of him agonizing was simply whether to do it or not.
When he finally did it, it took less than a minute. This absolutely could have been the actions of a desperate person who had a moment of weakness.
“Tis better that everyone dies than for two people to be awake.” -Shakespeare, probably.
Definitely. Also the fact that a man is doing this to a woman makes it more palatable for many of the men on this board. You guys need to consider the question, what if Pratt’s character had been gay and instead of Aurora he choose to wake up Aaron (the nice straight alter-ego/stand in for male heterosexual Dopers)? You would be calling him more than a monster, I’ll bet.
Good grief. No. If I were in the female lead’s situation (but were myself, a man), and a gay man woke me up, I’d be like, “DUUUUDE, bad call!” At the same time, I’d understand why he did it. Unless he physically coerced me into a sexual relationship, I wouldn’t consider him a monster.
If destroying someone’s life for personal gratification isn’t monstrous behavior, what exactly do you consider heinous?
No one’s life was destroyed.
Altered, yes.
The good or bad of that is open to interpretation.
Another morale to the flick is, “Don’t trust a bartender”.
She was a journalist with a round-trip ticket. Her every intention was to return to Earth, to write, to associate with other people, maybe to pair off with someone of her own choosing (not just the only person available). He destroyed her life to make his more comfortable.
Well, the moral is if you expect your bartender to keep your secrets, don’t agree that you have no secrets now.
I realize the question was not directed to me, but I’ve already answered this twice in this thread. More heinous/monstrous behavior than waking up another passenger:
[ul]
[li]Killing the other passengers.[/li][li]Sabotaging the ship.[/li][/ul]