Here we see SenorBeef being triggered by opinions contrary to his, even if those opinions are illusory and founded on a misunderstanding of what everyone else is saying.
Here we see SenorBeef accurately, if unintentionally, self-describing.
Did the movie happen to mention how they planned on replacing all the food they had planned on eating through all those decades they would have lived had there been no disaster?
Just gender swap the characters in your head and have Lawrence wake up Pratt’s character. Suddenly we have an interesting sci-fi story and people can wonder, “hm, what would I do in that situation?” without all the “rape culture, rape culture!”
Oh fun. Is that the leftist equivelant of this?
Trump supporter: [Says something racist]
Non-asshole: “Hey, that’s not cool. I’m not going to tolerate that.”
Trump supporter: “SEE! LIBERALS ARE THE REAL BIGOTS! THEY HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR MY VIEWS!!!”
So if I get annoyed that someone sees a piece of fiction dealing with an issue as a violation of their safe space that should be shunned, then I’m actually one who needs the safe space because I was triggered by them being triggered! It’s hypocrisy turtles all the way down!
Yeah, no, I’m pretty sure that’s as ridiculous as the Trumpette thing.
Not sure I’m understanding the question correctly but I think it is:
They intended to feed 5,300 people for four months before reaching the planet. Pratt/Lawrence lived for, let’s say, 60 years alone, eating food that entire time.
So they ate about 760 people’s food.
No, they did not directly address that ethical issue. But they did show that that ship had an active garden going that could grow fruits and vegetables. Plus, since they were going to be living the cruise ship lifestyle in those four months I’d guess it was carrying much more food that is strictly required for survival.
Also never discussed is what supplies the ship was carrying for after moving to the planet (it wasn’t clear to me what level of habitation already existed).
You’d have a point if what you say you’re reacting to happened. But again, it wasn’t. The criticisms are not that the movie deals with a “triggering issue” but rather that the movie is unaware that it contains such an issue.
Again, I disagree with that, but you’ve built a strawman that you’re absolutely shredding.
Wasn’t planning to see it anyway unless it shows up on the 'flix when I’m out of stuff to watch.
The “twist” actually makes it sound more interesting than the commercials.
No, what I did was make fun of someone erecting a mighty strawman and then proceeding to lose to it, faux “offense” covering for real outrage.
The only one who needs a “safe space” is you. You’re the only one who’s apparently triggered by a nuanced position which doesn’t reduce to a bumper-sticker slogan.
As obfusciatrist said, it’s simple, but, apparently, not simple enough for your tastes: We’re fine with films tackling difficult concepts. However, we’re not OK with films skating over the difficulty with nary an acknowledgement and assuming the audience will be fine with a sympathetic protagonist doing horrible things with selfish justifications.
A movie which deals head-on with difficult topics is respected. A movie which doesn’t even realize it’s handling difficult topics is either stupid, or assumes the audience is. Both of those options are contemptible. Being angry at a contemptible movie is justified.
This analogy is ridiculous. I’ve done nothing remotely indicating that I need a safe space. I haven’t hidden myself away from discussion, I haven’t pre-judged that I must keep myself from seeing a piece of art for myself because it deals with a certain topic, I haven’t tried to influence anyone away from seeing it, and I haven’t railed about how a movie I haven’t even see is part of the omnipresent Rape Culture. All I’ve done is criticized delicate flowers for putting a piece of art on the forbidden list because it’s apparently not an after school special about rape by deception. Trying to turn it around on me and say “you’re the one who really needs the safe space!” is exactly like those Trump voters who say “you’re the real bigot!”
I haven’t seen the movie. I can’t defend the specifics. But obfusciatrist has, and in post 52 he indicates that the issue was indeed addressed. And it seems to me that it must’ve been addressed because why else set it up that way? If all you want is an action and romance romp, why not just have them both wake up accidentally as part of the same accident? Why have Pratt deliberately choosing to wake up Lawrence?
So then the issue is that the movie doesn’t hit you in the face hard enough with it. It doesn’t take an intermission where a narrator tells you why Chris Pratt having sex with Jennifer Lawrence is icky and you should feel terrible about it. It doesn’t take her eternally hating him as the only possible outcome of the situation. It’s apparently not enough to be able to decide on your own how you feel about the whole thing.
levdragon brought up a great point. Now - the decision for one lone survivor to wake up another passenger and put them into a similar situation to his, condemning their life to something that is clearly against their will and not of their choosing, is a million times worse than any rape by deception. Moreover, that action could’ve been done by a character of either gender. There’s nothing male-specific about the decision to wake up another passenger to alleviate the loneliness.
Nor is there anything male-specific to the potential rape-by-deception that would follow such a scenario, if you were to have sex with the person you woke up. This isn’t forcible rape, which males have a greater (but not exclusive) ability to inflict, but rape by withholding critical information for fully informed consent (and I’m playing along by calling that “rape” because my point stands even if it is), which could be done equally well by either gender.
Then if the genders were reversed, and the woman was the one who was woken up first and chose to woke up the man, the plot of the movie and its moral implications would be the exact same. Except I can 100% absolutely guarantee you that no one would be screaming about rape culture in that case. Very few people would pre-judge it and declare that it’s too offensive for them to watch based on that plot.
Not only is the initial decision to wake someone up against their will far more horrifying than any sex (voluntary as it is, even if it’s not fully informed) that can come afterwards (and apparently people think that having sex with the person you woke up is a way greater crime than condemning entire their life to being something they completely did not want and did not consent to, which is utterly preposterous), but people would only consider this horrific when the genders are as they are in the movie, and not if they were reversed indicates that they aren’t taking a genuine moral stance on any issue, nor thinking about its implications, but simply stretching to find instances in which they can scream “rape culture” and reinforce their extreme biases.
For those reasons, the movie should’ve swapped the gender, because that would apparently have been more subversived of audience expectations and biases even though it would’ve told the exact same story with the same ethical and moral implications, apparently a fraction of the audience can only give the situation it presents some thought if the genders are in one configuration but not the reverse.
No, you’re just loudly losing your shit and writing long, rambling posts over a movie you haven’t seen, and then claiming that everyone else is some easily-offended shrinking violet.
It’s clear you can’t actually respond to the substance of my post, so you’re just going to triple down on this “you’re criticized them being offended, you’re actually the real person who needs the safe space!” nonsense.
I’m criticizing people who’ve decided that a piece of art is unviewable because it addresses a subject they’re looking to be outraged about. That it promotes “rape culture” even though if the genders were reversed nothing morally would change at all and yet it would no longer promote “rape culture” - taking for granted that both portraying something is glorifying it. In post 12, Chronos even insinuates that anyone who wants to see this film is someone he feels uncomfortable or possiby in danger being near. None of these people have seen the movie, but they are putting it on their forbidden thoughts list and creating a discussion to encourage others to do the same.
That’s the creation of a “safe space”, the idea that art that doesn’t hand out moral lessons by hitting you in the face like an after school special must be a piece of propoganda for the omnipresent Rape Culture Patriarchy.
These are people who are looking hard for something to be offended by, who clearly have an agenda, and wish to create a safe space by throwing away any challenging art that deals with issues they’re sensitive about.
In comparison, having me criticize such an attempt to avoid being challenged is quite the opposite of asking for a safe space. I’m not trying to shut things down to avoid being challenged, I’m challenging. Your insinuations that I’m somehow being a hypocrite here amount to a sad “no u!!!” that’s wildly off the mark.
I engaged with what was there.
Wrong, of course, and I wonder why you think that. No, wait. I don’t.
[Moderating]
SenorBeef, if you can’t engage in a polite Cafe Society discussion without completely flipping out, then stay out of the discussion. Given your activity so far, I don’t believe that you’ll be able to change to a polite tone in this discussion, so I’m instructing you not to post any more in this thread. If you have something more to say about the participants in this discussion, take it to the Pit.
Everyone else, I’m instructing you all to stop engaging with SenorBeef’s posts in this thread. Again, if you find yourself with unresolved issues, take it to the Pit.
That review was bullshit. The movie is awesome. Go see it.
Goodness, talk about a hatchet job.
Serious question: a 69% audience score sounds pretty good but I don’t follow RT. Are the scores skewed higher so that actually isn’t favorable?
I agree with posters who point out the false tone of the marketing. And yeah, swapping the gender roles, especially with those two, sounds
Ike it would’ve been more interesting.
I may catch it on Netflix.
The problem with audience scores is that too many people give good reviews simply to counteract bad ones. Assassin’s Creed has an even greater disparity.
Passengers was in development hell for nearly a decade, during which time its budget tripled. Not a good sign.
Well, I feel like this thread just got a lot less interesting.
At any rate, I don’t think it has anything to do with rape culture, based on the details I’ve read here. I agree with the general idea that dooming someone to such a bleak existence against their will is a worse thing than rape by deception. It seems if you were stuck with only one other human being for the rest of your life, you’d probably be fairly quick to forgive them things you wouldn’t under normal circumstances. Especially if your own survival suddenly became dependent on cooperating with them. Honestly, what wouldn’t we forgive in those circumstances? That’s an idea worth exploring in and of itself. In a sense, all of the trappings of their culture, including gender roles and what is and is not acceptable, have been stripped away from them, they are beyond social sanction, beholden only to the judgment of one another. ‘Rape culture’ is almost meaningless in this context, only the harm one person does to another.
As shitty as our male protag’s action may be, it is nonetheless a pretty human move in an extreme situation, as life without other people is intolerable to the human animal. This is the stuff good sci-fi is made of, but unfortunately it sounds like an interesting idea poorly executed.
If I’m understanding the critiques correctly, the problem is this movie doesn’t know what it’s about. Surely good storytelling relies on different thematic elements, however, there is usually a central conflict driving the plot and character development arcs, and the sub-conflicts are reflections of the larger conflict. It sounds instead like there were multiple thematically different conflicts shoehorned into the story which resulted in a tonally inconsistent mess, and the perception that the deception issue was being swept under the rug. This is bad writing, or editing, or whatever sort of thing would screw up a film in this way, not a failure of ethics.
I am truly disappointed to hear about the poor storytelling, because I was so excited for a sci-fi romance. It almost never happens.
There’s some nuance to deciphering the relationship between the RT critics and audience scores, but the short version is that the internet itself skews young and male. The RT audience score generally reflects what a teenage boy will find interesting, often to the detriment of movies not targetted towards them. In this case, I’d say the discrepancy is due to a combination of internet trolls, many of whom hadn’t seen the movie (and before it even came out, probably) lashing back at what they saw as “SJWs” complaining about the plot, and teenagers who genuinely thought the story was novel because they’re young and haven’t been exposed to anything better.
This rule of thumb is helpful to explain why garbage can get an overall positive audience score, and truly wonderful films can do worse than the critics’ score.