Passengers : Morally ambiguous (this is not)

If you were in a certain death situation, like an inescapable house fire, or a car sinking in a lake, wouldn't it be better to be alone? Would you force your certain fate on others? Yes, these are much faster deaths than what Jim and Aurora had, but the end result is the same. What if you had AIDS? Would you knowingly have unprotected sex with other people so they could share your fate? I have been raped, and his actions triggered some of the same feelings of being violated. Her life plan never included him, until he forced her to only ever have him in her life, for the rest of her life. It would be the same also if the roles were reversed and it was Aurora to wake Jim. We will all one day die, I would never force other people to die with me.

its easy for you to say that from the comfort of your chair in front of your computer screen while living in a world full of people but nobody knows what they would do in a nightmarish situation like having no human contact for the rest of your life. He was losing his mind and you would too. It is quite possible that you would not do that but you can only know for sure if you are in that situation. it is really easy to pass judgement on people when we are not wearing their metaphorical shoes.

Its easy for you from the comfort of your ignorance to make generalizations about what all people would do based on your own moral shortcomings. This boils down to a choice of suicide vs homicide. I have enough self control to make the right choice. Of that, I am sure.

But there is no right or wrong choice. It's your opinion. I agree with the other poster. Until you're faced with a life of loneliness, you don't know what you'd do.

BTW, you are wrong. There is absolutely a right and wrong choice. There is an episode of law and order svu where the perp has aids, knows he has aids, and then has unprotected sex with other people because he put his wants above the safety of others. He is basically condemning the people he sleeps with to his same fate. This is the most analogous thing I can think of that is comparable to what Jim did. A condition that can be knowingly spread (AIDS and unprotected sex/ opening pod) if you are willing to put your wants above the safety of others. If he didn't want to be alone, the right choice was suicide. The moment you give the power of choice over one persons life to another person, you have crossed a line.

Okay but no other death you can bring up will ever compare to be stranding in the middle of space with NO contact with any human being. Technically, he didn't murder her either. She was still able to live out her life, in luxury even. All he did was take away her choices and change her life plan. She could have still choose her orginal plan, but after living with him for 2 years she decided that life was better.

I am really wondering about that law and order episode, was he convicted of murder? How is this for a legal quandary. If he got convicted of murder and then a cure was found and none of his victims (or him) died would the charge be downgraded retroactively to attempted murder?

I recall an episode with that theme, but it may not be the only one; in the one I saw, though, the perp was murdered before he could be convicted.

That said, the situations are not AT ALL similar (as others have noted). And let's not forget the characters later risked their lives to save the other 4998 people on the ship. My guess is the OP has his/her own biases that led him/her to these conclusions. To the OP: I'm sorry you were victimized, truly; no one should ever have to go through that. But choosing to infect others with a terminal illness because you want momentary, sexual release is WORLDS different from wanting at least one other live being around for the remaining 40+ years of your life.

Quite frankly, the very fact that this subject is being debated on multiple threads means this film is a success. The fact of the matter is, moral questions like this one need to be explored, and it is only fair that the debate should expand beyond the parameters of the film itself. As much as some may wish to deny it, there is indeed a moral ambiguity to this story that has as much to do with what we have yet to learn about ourselves as anything else.

It is clear that people are already finding correlations between this SF scenario and contemporary reality, which is the function of good storytelling. I would suggest one more corresponding scenario that occurs to me: what if you knew you would soon be so disabled you would not be able to function on your own. Would you be willing to have a family member or someone close to you give up their own hopes and dreams in order to take care of you for the remaining years or even decades of your existence? Or could you stand the thought that someone with no personal connection to you (or you to them) would be your only true companion during the rest of your life? And are you so sure you could carry through on the alternate sin of suicide?

This.

---

There is an episode of law and order svu where the perp has AIDS, knows he has aids, and then has unprotected sex with other people because he put his wants above the safety of others. He is basically condemning the people he sleeps with to his same fate. This is the most analogous thing I can think of that is comparable to what Jim did. A condition that can be knowingly spread (AIDS and unprotected sex/ opening pod) if you are willing to put your wants above the safety of others.

---

No, it is NOT the same thing, because giving someone AIDS does not "cure" you. It does not change your initial hopeless condition. Awakening Aurora cured his unimaginable loneliness of a degree that you cannot fathom since you probably haven't been more than a day or two without someone to talk to, or at least knew you COULD if you needed tonever mind the thought of going the rest of your life completely alone.

Read about the very famous Milgram "shock" experiments to see how easily people can change their "strongly-held" moral code in the right circumstances. And take a Philosophy and Psychology class sometime. You strike me as someone who's never really faced true adversity that changed your outlook on anything.

---

I have enough self control to make the right choice. Of that, I am sure.

---

Have you ever been in the situation described? If not then you do not know what you would do.

Or like a dieter tempted by junk food that person might hold off for a few years until the loneliness became unbearable and then give in.

Clearly, Jim's situation is NOT the same as dieting.

I love how they made Jim look like a caveman while debating the idea of doing what he wanted with her. I think that was a good artistic choice.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

I like your comparison of suicide versus homicide. Clearly, the great majority of people would pick homicide.

We are hard-wired to protect our own lives at all costs, save maybe that of our loved ones. To kill a stranger or die yourself is then an easy choice to make, even if it is morally wrong.

---

Its easy for you from the comfort of your ignorance to make generalizations about what all people would do based on your own moral shortcomings. This boils down to a choice of suicide vs homicide. I have enough self control to make the right choice. Of that, I am sure.

---

You might be sure NOW, but after a year of being totally alone (but with the temptation of thousands of others sleeping RIGHT THERE) AND knowing you would live exactly like that for the rest of your life, never speaking to another human again, you really do NOT know what you would do.

Someone with AIDS deliberately giving the virus to someone else is not a proper analogy, because that does not improve the original person's state at all. This completely saved his sanity. Read a study or two on the effects of complete isolation from all other humans, for even very short times like a week, do to a person's sanity and moral code.

You don't have a CLUE what you would do after a year of total hopelessness imagining you would live the rest of your life alone. And even though the accommodations could keep him "entertained" for a while, it's a part of human psychology (do some research).

People's moral codes change in VERY extreme circumstances. Ask anyone who's ever had to kill an enemy during war, especially something like dropping a bomb on civilians that are not an eminent threat to oneself.

The other poster was quite right in saying "it's easy for you to say that NOW, in your comfortable life."

Did you see "Castaway"? That character had no choice and still after a year or so was talking to a volleyball, so strong is the need for companionship.

Well if he didn't wake her up then she wouldn't have been able to help him and they all would have died. So technically he saved her.

and hell, I'm an optimist

Massively contrived plot twists always excuse rape, right.

No rape ever happened, and it was a particularly silly film about a situation on an interstellar space-ship which will never occur. Take a chill pill and relax.

You need to broaden your mind, kiddo, things ain't always cut and dry. The film has a message of rape justification, and I am far from the only one to pick up on this.

Comingsoon:

"As it stands, while there will be many audiences who will enjoy the sweeping romance of Passengers, there will be others who will call it for what it is an uncomfortable justification for what is, for all intents and purposes, rape."

It's like claiming attempted murder isn't a crime because nobody was killed.

---

I am far from the only one to pick up on this.

---

All this means you have plenty of company as a Histrionic Personality Disorder victim. I suspect you perceive rape themes aplenty in Donald Duck cartoons.
Here's an exercise for you. Try to find a comparable 'rape' situation in the real world to this dumb film's set-up.
As for your present condition - it seems to be getting worse - get back on your meds STAT!

Sleeping with somebody under false pretenses is rape. Waking her up without her permission is abduction. Fact.

You're a rape apologist, kiddo. Die of rectal cancer.

He doesn't force her to have sex with him, let allone rape her!
In fact she's the one who makes the first move towards sex.
Did you look at another movie or what??

Did you, kid. It was seduction under false pretenses and he abducted her in the first place. Coercion is most definitely rape, kiddo.

How old are you?
I'm 51 so if you want to call me kid or "kiddo" go ahead, but then I must assume you are 60 or older and call you "granny"??
If not please refer from calling me a kid.
And don't speak in absolute truths, if you think she was raped,fine with me that's your oppinion, if that's your thing go ahead and indulge yourself.

---

Did you look at another movie or what??

---

Embarking on a discussion with Umbrage and expecting reasoned responses is an exercise in futility. In her alternate universe, every single male action towards a female is the equivalent of rape.

Dude, he's screwing with you, you're wasting your time arguing on this.

___________
Britta : I don't think police should be heroes.
Annie : Britta, pay your rent.

---

The film has a message of rape justification, . . .

---

I'm afraid Jim isn't going to get much respect in the rapist fraternity - only eyerolls. You're not really supposed to wait until your 'victim' makes the first move.
BTW - if it had been a female colonist waking a dude because she was going crazy from the solitude - and then having sex with him . . . would that have been rape too?

Rape and abduction have zero to do with gender. It's about power, kid. You're a sexist, double-standardering rape apologist. Burn in perv hell.

---

It's about power, kid. You're a sexist, double-standardering rape apologist.

---

Wow - you know all the jargon, don't you? Very impressive - did you learn it by heart? Still can't answer a simple question though, can you?

I just did. Rape has zero to do with gender, kid, thus your "question" is negated. Does it hurt? Awww, need a tissue.

It's going to be okay, you're just ignorant is all.

Rape has nothing to do with common sense or legal definitions in your head either, does it? Do you actually think the Homestead Attorney General would bring rape charges in this kind of case?

Attempting to start a new argument, hah! What a worthless piece of crap you are, your original argument got utterly destroyed so you deny your failure long enough to hopefully get me to argue about something else.

You're an owned, lying jackass, kid. A sexist rape apologist. Welcome to Ignore.

Bye bye Umbrage, old gal

In Umbragons mind she wins every argument by putting someone on ignore. She's a peach ain't she?

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

---

In Umbragons mind she wins every argument by putting someone on ignore.

---

In addition to that, Umbrage hurls a couple of childish insults as a parting gift. That's the sum total of her sophisticated debating technique. I'm surprised she doesn't resort to the ultimate weapon of intellectuals all over the world: ALL CAPS!!!

---

That's the sum total of her sophisticated debating

---

These boards used to be for rational people to discuss films. I know you did not like the movie, but I can totally respect your reasoning and arguments against it. I on the other hand enjoyed it, 7/10, but then I saw this a few months ago in preview screenings, before I had seen trailers so I knew nothing going in and was pleasantly surprised considering I'm not a big fan of JLaw. Opinions like mine don't sit well with Umbragon and her ilk. These kind of people do nothing but spew bile about films, usually sight unseen. Not one post of theirs on any board is ever to post about anything positive, they only post replys of hate and geared to evoke a response. Others seem to keep starting new threads about the same subject over and over, seemingly just to get attention. I think you're on the right track with Histrionic personality disorder.

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

You sound such a reasonable person, it makes me want to like Passengers more. Unfortunately I can't - I see only laziness and formulaic impulses. Both my GF and myself were deeply bored when we watched it. It frustrates me we don't have a Kubrick to do something soaring, mysterious, gripping and profound in this genre like 2001. All these technical resources wasted on facile adventures and romance.
I'll concede I'm hard to please, but I feel that's the way it should be - otherwise Hollywood will send us more dreck. Recently I saw Nocturnal Animals and assess it the best film I've seen for a couple of years. IMO it has a redemptive narrative concealed in a bleak tale - a theme which appeals to me. It also requires reflection, which I also consider important. A great work of art should have hidden layers.
I also differ with you re. JLaw. I see a tremendous talent. In The Burning Plain she effortlessly conveyed the impression of a person holding a dark secret - it was just something in the eyes. I'll always admire her for that. She also did something unique with her Silver Linings character you rarely see in a Rom-Com.
Thanks for your post. I feel we could have very pleasant differences of opinion long into the night and remain amicable.
As for Umbrage - meh. I should know better.

Hey, its in no way, shape or form anything close to a great movie, but like I said, I saw it in previews (twice), it was free, and I got paid $10 for my survey form. I wasnt expecting much and it was an agreeable way to spend 2 hours before I went to work. I loved the look of the film - production design and cinematography - and Pratt got and kept me interested in the story. My favorite parts of the movie was the 1st act, just him alone on the ship. It did fall apart in the 3rd act though. One of the screenings i saw left out the last scene entirely, ending with them at the pool, looking out into space, toasting to a wonderful life. Pretty stupid. I imagine that ending tested pretty poorly.

Its not that I dont acknowledge jLaws acting ability, as a matter of fact I watched Joy recently, and she was the best thing about a pretty blah movie. (also her scene when she found out Jim's secret was very well done) I guess its that her popularity stems from the Hunger Games, movies i dont care much for.

Thanks for the Nocturnal Animals referral, the GF wants to see that one too.

I also miss Kubrick

It feels weird actually having an adult conversation here.

it rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

Nocturnal Animals does have some edgy content - nothing in the slasher category, but somewhat disturbing nonetheless.
If your GF is displeased, you're welcome to blame me.

---

In Umbragons mind she wins every argument by putting someone on ignore. She's a peach ain't she?

---

Umbragon admitted on another thread to being a 32 y.o. dude. Had they been a rape survivor or at least a woman, I'd be able to sympathise, because past trauma can make people particularly sensitive to certain things and I've experienced that for myself, but this makes him basically a troll making feminists look bad and blatantly triggering rape survivors (for the lolz?).


It's the question that drives us. I know the answer is 42.

Useful bit of info. there. In Jim's position, he presumably would have stepped out of the air-lock.

Fancy setting up a crowdfunding page ?
http://www.space.com/2654-space-adventures-offers-15-million-spacewalks-iss-visitors.html

Double posting loser, heh. I can feel the rage.

---

Post ignored

This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list: tigerfish50

---

"A drowning man will always try to drag you down with him" - Gus explaining Jim's actions in waking her early.

That basically sums it all up right there.

No one knows what they would do in the dark. So are you.
And there is a reason solitary confinement is used as a punishment in jail. The man is just so broken he was going to throw himself out the airlock.

The point is what he did in the beginning of the movie (waking her up) was not right. And the movie never suggested it was right.
But at the end when he discovers a way to rehibernation, he did offer her the choice to go back to her normal life plan. And she didn't want to. That's the point. In the end, she was okay with it

---

But at the end when he discovers a way to rehibernation, he did offer her the choice to go back to her normal life plan. And she didn't want to. That's the point. In the end, she was okay with it

---

But according to these morally twisted a$$holes, it's all due to Stockholm Syndrome. Just forget the psychosis Jim was experiencing.

Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

Oh, so you're saying it's healthy to be in a relationship someone who lied to you and sufcers from psychosis.

I didn't say that you fcking moron. Nothing about the situation in Passengers is healthy. BUT, I don't want every romance to be made to cater strictly to feminist ideology, because any other way is "EVIL." Men and women got together for any number reasons and in any number of situations throughout history. Just because you say the feminist way is the right way doesn't mean it's the only way. Movies like Loving will get old fast if every movie is just like it.

And humans are far messier than the one-dimensional goody-goodies like your hero from Lights Out. There's nothing interesting about a human doormat.