Lion of the Blogosphere

More thoughts on Passengers (2016)

Spoilers this time

SJWs were outraged at this movie because Jim (played by Chris Pratt) commits an evil act on Aurora (played by Jennifer Lawrence) by waking her, but she falls in love with him anyway. It appears that they would have lived happily ever after if only Chris didn’t accidentally give the android bartender permission to give away his secret. And if the other stuff with the ship malfunctioning didn’t happen.

I think it’s pretty realistic that Aurora would fall in love with Jim under the circumstance that he’s the only living man in the practical world (since there’s no way of getting off the space ship for the next 90 years, the space ship is their only world).

Maybe it would have been a more interesting situation if Jim had been past middle-aged, ugly, out of shape with a pot belly, etc. Would Aurora still have fallen love with that guy? But Jim has the looks of Hollywood actor Chris Pratt, plus he’s fairly intelligent.

Despite Jim’s positive attributes, Jim is absolutely not the type of man that Aurora ever would have fallen for back on Earth. Jim is just a regular middle-class guy whose interests (building and fixing things) are not aligned with what Aurora is interested in. Aurora is rich and beautiful and could probably have had her pick of men who were much more successful than Jim, and on top of that Jim is 11 years older than her (based on the age difference between Pratt and Lawrence) which is generally considered a big negative in the dating market unless the older man has something special to offer.

Whether what Jim did was wrong or not is not really subject to debate. Jim believed it was wrong. Gus believed it was wrong, but was also sympathetic to Jim. Gus said that a drowning man is desperate and will pull down his would-be rescuer killing both of them. The movie showed us that Jim was considering suicide, that’s how bad it was for him to be all alone. Although I don’t agree that people commit suicide so readily.

Would it have made a difference if, instead of waking the most desirable woman on the ship, he woke a woman who was older, more homely, etc? Is Aurora’s life more valuable because she’s beautiful, and therefore Jim’s act of waking her more repellent?

There is a proverb that “all’s fair in love and war,” and it’s worth pondering why such a proverb exists. I think the existence of the proverb indicates that men have a long history of pushing the moral envelope when it comes to winning the heart of a woman.

The movie neatly (rather too neatly) resolves itself with the plot about the ship malfunctioning. In retrospect, everyone would have died had Jim not waked Aurora because they were both needed to repair the ship. The stress of that situation causes Aurora to fall in love with Jim again. The SJWs who hate this movie would see this plot contrivance as yet another excuse for Jim’s action which the SJWs believe is inexcusable.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

Posted in Movies

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Haven’t seen the movie. I guess I will have to now. That is pretty clever of them to name Jennifer Lawrence’s character “Aurora”.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Why? I don’t catch the significance.

      I hate Jlaw. She was one of Harvey’s girls, and now is a vocal proponent of the #Metoo movement without acknowledging in the slightest her complicity with the old whoremonger. Beyond that in the two movies I saw her in, she was adequate, no more. F her.

      But good news on the pop culture front:

      dailycaller.com/2018/01/20/every-glaad-nominated-marvel-comic-book-has-been-axed/

      Jlaw appeared with her whoremaster at one of those GLAAD shindigs. It’s on video, but I’ll spare you. Lion runs a class joint.

      gothamette

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “Aurora” was the name of a generation ship in Kim Stanley Robinson’s much smarter sci-fi novel of the same name. But Jokah probably didn’t read that.

      Dave Pinsen

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Nope, can’t say that I have. But Aurora is the name of the girl in Sleeping Beauty.

        Jokah Macpherson

        January 22, 2018 at EDT am

  2. I don’t find the age thing to be that big a deal, especially only an 11 year gap, but my parents are 11 years apart in age so I guess it’s just been normalized to me my whole life.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Anything up to a 15 year difference is no big deal IMO. Beyond that it can start to feel creepy.

      toomanyspiders

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Do you think a hetero-professor can resist the temptation of young nubile girls who fill his classroom year after year? It sucks being a STEM professor though.

        JS

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • JS, I’m going to say this one time and I’m not going to repeat myself.

        If a hetero-professor can’t resist the temptation of young nubile girls who fill his classroom year after year, he doesn’t deserve his job.

        The end.

        njguy73

        January 22, 2018 at EDT am

      • “Anything up to a 15 year difference is no big deal IMO. Beyond that it can start to feel creepy.”

        I think the operative rule here is “Half your age plus seven years”. A twenty year old can be with a seventeen year old. A forty year old can be with a twenty-seven year old. There is a sliding scale of acceptability as you get older.

        John D'oh

        January 22, 2018 at EDT am

    • Jokah, I think you’re right. I read once around 11 years (the male the elder) is the most stable with few divorces, etc. Certainly jives with my experience.

      I have little patience with communistic hypocrites who preach free love one moment and want to restore age-restrictions in the next.

      Robert

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  3. My parents were 9 years apart.

    If the 11 year gap is bad, this is a 21st century American thing. It doesn’t exist in most other countries and didn’t exist in the USA when I was growing up in the late twentieth century.

    I’ve been told the rule is “four years up, one third down” and this is the first I’ve seen anyone contradict that.

    Ed

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  4. Actually, Jim’s mistake was that he was way too nice. He first tried to fix things but nothing worked, so he had only 2 choices: to either kill himself or decide to make a life on this space ship. He should have chosen to make a good life for himself. He should have woken up 4 or 5 young, attractive women, and had his own harem. If one of them got annoying, he could shun her and spend more time with the others. This would keep all the women in line. The ship would have taken care of all their needs food, entertainment, etc. He could have eventually impregnated the women and had a nice big family. Even if the women hated him at first, once they have children they will accept it all. When the kids came of age, he could wake up mates for them. In 90 years when the ship arrives what could the captain do to him? Put him in jail? Nope, he’s dead already. They are not going to punish the grandchildren and great grandchildren. Jim could have lived a full, wonderful life during his 90 year sojourn. We only get one chance at life, was he supposed to sacrifice everything for a bunch of strangers?

    JimBonobo

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Sounds like Lost in Space….. with Ariel Castro.

      Dr Hook

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Fascinating take. I think that story would be more compelling though if told from the perspective of another man who’s woken up in the middle of all this and the audience has to figure out how all this happened along with him.

      Andrew E.

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • If he woke up a harem, odds are higher that one woman starts waking up other men and the whole thing goes south.

      There’s also a question of food consumption, but that’s already kind of a plot hole with just 2 people awake.

      Wency

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “We only get one chance at life, was he supposed to sacrifice everything for a bunch of strangers?”

      That’s an interesting question, but it raises another: What’s to stop a girl in his harem from waking up some young stud? It seems to me that it’s kind of a poor ship design if anyone can wake up anyone else and nobody can go back to sleep. I suppose I will assume for the sake of argument that this character had some special skill which made him uniquely able to wake people up.

      Seems to me that if this were real life, every member of the crew would take a few 1-year shifts to maintain order on the ship; to deal with maintenance issues; etc.

      Anyway, getting back to your question, I think that most men, if they had the choice between (1) being utterly alone and lonely for 40 years; and (2) Shanghaing a few young attractive women to keep them company, knowing that they would get away with it, would choose the second option. In fact, I think a lot of men would choose the harem even if the other alternative would be to lead a normal life.

      “Even if the women hated him at first, once they have children they will accept it all.”

      That’s another interesting question. Do women have a deep instinct to shift allegiance to men who take control of them, even if it’s done wrongfully. “Stockholm syndrome” is a phrase that gets batted around a lot, but there’s very little discussion of how susceptible people are to it and whether women are more susceptible than men. I would guess that it’s actually pretty common and far more prevalent among women than men.

      fortaleza84

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Insofar as Stockholm Syndrome exists, it’s almost entirely a female phenomenon.

        Other than maybe Patty Hearst, it seems to be pretty uncommon in the extreme form — some guy takes a woman hostage for a few days and now she’s in love with him and relates more closely to him than the police.

        But a woman empathizes more with her captor in the short-term, as this helps her to placate him. In the long-term, she may accept him as her husband.

        Men are less inclined to empathize with their captors because captivity for men was often a prelude to death, so all effort must go to escape or killing/disabling your captor.

        Wency

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “Insofar as Stockholm Syndrome exists, it’s almost entirely a female phenomenon.”

        I would guess you are right, but last time I looked there was little or no discussion of the empirical evidence
        for this claim online.

        “Other than maybe Patty Hearst, it seems to be pretty uncommon in the extreme form — some guy takes a woman hostage for a few days and now she’s in love with him and relates more closely to him than the police.”

        I believe Patty Hearst was held captive for a few months before she was involved in a bank robbery.

        “But a woman empathizes more with her captor in the short-term, as this helps her to placate him. In the long-term, she may accept him as her husband.”

        From an evolutionary psychology perspective, I would predict with a good deal of confidence that this is the case. In fact, one of the most genetically successful women in history was Genghis Khan’s mother, who was abducted and made a war bride.

        I think that that the gynocracy doesn’t like to discuss it much, but women are a good deal more submissive than they are normally given credit for. In normal life in the West, it’s unusual for a man to be in a position to exclusively dominate a female stranger or acquaintance. Bride-kidnapping is, of course, frowned upon (and with good reason).

        But this is all pretty theoretical. It would be interesting to see the empirical evidence.

        fortaleza84

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  5. I’ve come to the conclusion that the sjw feminist mindset are women who are unfeminine and fundamentally do not like men very much. From that postulate, all else follows, and their attitudes and behaviors are entirely understandable.

    jjbees

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Wrong. Look up Liz Plank, who is an attractive French Canadian, and a SJW feminist, who does her thing in NYC.

      She has the hots for Justin Trudope. I like to call him Turdeau, seen with her here at a poutine eatery in Montréal.

      All the lay people being interviewed in this video are morons, including that East Asian guy.

      JS

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I disagree to an extent. Women tend to be very conformist in their thinking; they tend to readily go along with intellectual fashion. So one could say that the SJW mindset is actually very feminine.

      But anyway I think that SJW feminist types are a mixed bag. There is definitely the man-hating contingent, but there are also the ones who hate low-status men but will ditch their feminism in a heartbeat for Mr. Rich and Handsome. (These are the ones who alternate between “how dare he talk to me while I was wearing headphones” and “he was so confident, he struck up a conversation even though I was wearing headphones.”)

      In my day, there were girls who were known as “LUGs,” which stands for “Lesbian Until Graduation.” I assume a similar thing is true for many SJW feminist types. Once they see how feminism redistributes money from their husbands to single women; puts their sons at risk of false rape accusations; etc., their attitude softens somewhat.

      I guess you are talking about the extreme types. The blue-haired obese tumblrinas most of whom are mentally ill.

      fortaleza84

      January 22, 2018 at EDT am

  6. All’s fair in love and war is also a justification of hypergamy. There’s a reason the Left only talks about male-female gaps in terms of income and not peak lifetime wealth.

    I saw Masquerade on Amazon Prime last week. It’s a passable Rob Lowe/Meg Tilley 80s movie. I forgot how alluring young Meg was physically and they give her a very appealing personality in the movie. Very flouncy dresses feminine.

    Curle

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  7. I didn’t know what Meg Tilley looked like so I googled her. Up came a pic showing her in that now-too-familiar girl pose of head tilted to 45°. Why do all women do that? Is it supposed to say, “I may be privileged but I’m not conceited”? I really hate it.

    vipltd

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Meg Tilley is old now. Did you see a pic of her when she was young?

      The new “look” is duck-face. It’s really really disgusting. Instagram is full of girl’s doing duck face. But now “fish gape” is in. It’s all a dystopian nightmare.

      gothamette

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Did you see this pic? Very cute.

      https://goo.gl/images/f19Lrr

      Curle

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • I prefer Jennifer Lawrence.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Meg’s what you get when you mix Irish/Finnish with Chinese. Hawaiians call such mixes Hapa, meaning beautiful people.

        Curle

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • That’s many years ago. This is her now.

        gothamette

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Jennifer Lawrence has a fat, mediocre cosmetically altered face. It is beyond me how anyone could think she is distinctive. Her facial expression = smug bitch. Her career is over. Red Sparrow will tank.

        https://beautyeditor.ca/2017/10/20/jennifer-lawrence-before-and-after

        gothamette

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Meg’s aged, sure. But, she’s still pretty.

        Curle

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Right, that was a particularly unpleasant picture. I’m sorry I put it there. She was and is very pretty woman. Much more than I can say for Jennifer Lawrence.

        gothamette

        January 22, 2018 at EDT pm

  8. ResetEra is saying that what needs to happen is for Trump to fire or at least sideline Miller. I suspect this is probably also the Democrats plan, insofar as they have one.

    They are saying Trump dumped Preibus and Bannon so no reason he won’t dump Miller too. But Miller is close with Jared, Ivanka and Cotton. Kelly presumably also supports Miller. Also Trump never had any personal loyalty to Bannon so it’s apples and oranges.

    Keep standing tall GOP!

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I assume that you are right that Kelly supports Miller. I don’t know that Jarvanka supports him, but apparently he has done a good job of not rubbing them the wrong way.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

      • He’s very close with both of them. He is a sort of uncle to their kids.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  9. cold water on the Blue Wave in November: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/20/democrats-wave-2018-216488

    This is where I am. I am tentatively predicting the Republicans hold the House, but a Dem wave that flips both chambers would not surprise me either.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I’m going to say right now there will be no Blue Wave.

      And as for listening to Reset Era’s kind advice for Trump, I hafta laugh. Isn’t that kind of like listening to your worst enemy’s advice on the best way to drive across country?

      gothamette

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  10. The movie neatly (rather too neatly) resolves itself with the plot about the ship malfunctioning. In retrospect, everyone would have died had Jim not waked Aurora because they were both needed to repair the ship.

    But the idea that no crew member would be awake in the first place is pretty dumb. They could have had crew members take 10 year shifts in pairs, so they all survived to reach the destination. They did something like that in one of Liu Cixin’s Three Body sequels, IIRC.

    Dave Pinsen

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  11. I once knew an Asian single mother, her favorite movie was “Pretty Woman” which she watched again and again. It occurred to me later that the story really connected with her subconscious, i.e. the idea of a fallen woman being romanced by a handsome rich dude was very appealing.

    Anyway, it occurs to me that “Passengers” might symbolically resonate with a lot of men in this way. Waking up alone on the ship sort of symbolizes feeling isolated and alienated in modern society; being a second class passenger symbolizes the feeling of being locked out of all the good stuff that high class people get to enjoy– being forever low status.

    One of the frustrations for a single man in modern society is seeing a girl you find attractive and knowing that you have literally zero chance with her. What if there were a way to engage in bride-kidnapping; you could get away with it; and the girl would love you? For a lot of frustrated and disaffected men, that might be a compelling fantasy.

    fortaleza84

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  12. Once, probably 15 years or more ago, I was reading some liberal who was criticizing Michael Medved for negatively reviewing movies for having too much sex, profanity, violence, etc. The person said that Medved was just a political ideologue and not a film critic, because true film criticism judges a movie solely on its artistic merits and is disinterested in the film’s message. Now, I know Medved is a cuckservative so I don’t have much interest in defending him, but we see that apparently those rules only apply if you’re a conservative criticizing a movie because it conflicts with your conservative views. If you’re a liberal criticizing a movie for contradicting your liberal views, that’s still valid film criticism.

    Hermes

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  13. The Chris Pratt character is a mechanical engineer. But the JLaw character refers to him as a “mechanic.” That made me lose all sympathy for her. I suppose I should blame the ignorant, limp-wristed young screenwriter for that line.

    Petronella

    January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Well I think the point is that he is a low-status man who, under normal circumstances, would never have a chance with a hottie like JLaw. I didn’t watch the movie, but in the trailer there is a scene where he tries to pick up a cup of coffee from the ship canteen and the system rejects his request for something fancy. i.e. He is literally a second-class citizen.

      As I mentioned up thread, I think it’s pretty common in regular life to feel like this. To feel like you don’t have the right color wristband and you will be forever locked out of the opportunities and experiences everyone craves. I think that the audience is supposed to relate to this, so it makes sense that the hot girl would refer to the male lead’s character’s job in demeaning terms. It seems part of the allure of the film is that the ordinary schmuck finally gets an opportunity to hang out in the VIP room.

      fortaleza84

      January 21, 2018 at EDT pm

  14. Here’s a line from a review I read:

    “This would still be bad even if gender roles were reversed, but the fact is that they weren’t”

    Actually, I think that if the gender-roles had been reversed, nobody except for a few red-pill/MRA types would have criticized the movie for the female lead’s misbehavior. And the response would have been along the lines of “So what? It was presented as morally ambiguous.”

    People just assume that men are supposed to be sacrificed for the benefit of women.

    fortaleza84

    January 22, 2018 at EDT am

    • Yup, a women would be justified in waking up a man, but not the other way around. Society sees (the average) man as expendable, our purpose is to serve other’s needs (woman, children, the few alphas), not our own. That’s why men need a little bit of the dark traits to survive and prosper. If Jim was just a little bit of a sociopath, he’d follow my harem strategy and have a good life on the ship. But he was a nice guy, so he screwed up and had to risk his life just to get back into the good graces of the one woman he dared to disturb from slumber.

      JimBonobo

      January 22, 2018 at EDT am

      • “Yup, a women would be justified in waking up a man, but not the other way around. Society sees (the average) man as expendable, our purpose is to serve other’s needs (woman, children, the few alphas), not our own.”

        Yeah, I think that’s why feminists were freaking out so much about the movie. Obviously what the male character did was wrong, but people do bad things in movies all the time and sometimes they are portrayed sympathetically. The real problem here is that the man put himself ahead of the woman and it was portrayed somewhat sympathetically, which to feminists is an unforgiveable sin.

        fortaleza84

        January 22, 2018 at EDT pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: