The 2nd one would have been good.

@Master_YODA said:

I really liked the first 2/3 of the movie. I wasn´t expecting the whole moral dilemma of Jim´s and Auroras relationship. That was great!

But then came the perfect Hollywood Ending. He saves everybody and she chooses by free will to stay with him - pretty lame.

What I would have preferred:

1) (small change) As mentioned in the movie, putting somebody to hibernation requires a complicated medical procedure. So the pod seemed like a deus-ex-machina.

They should have left that option out and give the end a dark shadow.

Jim and her saved everybody - but she had no option to go back to sleep. She HAS to stay.

It would be a morally more ambiguous ending.

2) (big change) (read something similar in a thread)

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

Still a 7 out of 10 for me.

I was curious about the script ending and looked it up. Apparently the original ending wasn't all that great.

http://www.slashfilm.com/passengers-ending/

Not sure how to do URL links in here so you'll have to copy and paste that. It's an incredibly difficult movie to pinpoint. I have a feeling that it would have probably made a better science fiction book than a movie. It's a hard story.

@simian_ninja Great link. Thanks!

Yeah, the second ending would elevate the film a lot. Aurora waking someone up would indicate that the morality of humans is defined by circumstances. (My first comment here, good to have the boards back... bye bye iMDb!!)

I like both endings you listed. Number two is great though.

Yes, I can take both those endings, really. But I think, a good movie doesn't have to be sad by default. I know, the typical happy hollywood cliches that's always been like that. But I actually think all kinds of endings are ok, happy, sad or neutral, just a long as they are made in a good way, (whatever that is).

What kept my mind going after had seen this movie was how I would have solved his situation in a smarter way. The movies sets out a set of rules, he can't break in to the captains bridge. He can't break in to the crew sleeping quarters, he can't basically do anything other than die. It seems like. We know that the ship breaking apart disaster will come, and it's just by luck it seems like him waking her up was a good thing.

But what if he had decided with the captain to turn the ship around instead?That would have meant 30 years older back at earth, but they all would sue that damned company for not giving them better chances to fix such an emergency. Problem was though, they had this trouble with the ship and the captain was dying all the time. So, the story was kind of locked into this one single scenario.

@Larswad said:

Yes, I can take both those endings, really. But I think, a good movie doesn't have to be sad by default. I know, the typical happy hollywood cliches that's always been like that. But I actually think all kinds of endings are ok, happy, sad or neutral, just a long as they are made in a good way, (whatever that is).

What kept my mind going after had seen this movie was how I would have solved his situation in a smarter way. The movies sets out a set of rules, he can't break in to the captains bridge. He can't break in to the crew sleeping quarters, he can't basically do anything other than die. It seems like. We know that the ship breaking apart disaster will come, and it's just by luck it seems like him waking her up was a good thing.

But what if he had decided with the captain to turn the ship around instead?That would have meant 30 years older back at earth, but they all would sue that damned company for not giving them better chances to fix such an emergency. Problem was though, they had this trouble with the ship and the captain was dying all the time. So, the story was kind of locked into this one single scenario.

I get what you are saying. In some movies I crave for a good ending - but here... for me, it didn´t fit the tone of what was before. It felt like a cop out good feel ending. But I still I like this film.

@Larswad said:

Yes, I can take both those endings, really. But I think, a good movie doesn't have to be sad by default. I know, the typical happy hollywood cliches that's always been like that. But I actually think all kinds of endings are ok, happy, sad or neutral, just a long as they are made in a good way, (whatever that is).

What kept my mind going after had seen this movie was how I would have solved his situation in a smarter way. The movies sets out a set of rules, he can't break in to the captains bridge. He can't break in to the crew sleeping quarters, he can't basically do anything other than die. It seems like. We know that the ship breaking apart disaster will come, and it's just by luck it seems like him waking her up was a good thing.

But what if he had decided with the captain to turn the ship around instead?That would have meant 30 years older back at earth, but they all would sue that damned company for not giving them better chances to fix such an emergency. Problem was though, they had this trouble with the ship and the captain was dying all the time. So, the story was kind of locked into this one single scenario.

I agree with you on ending as long as they're done well. I've greatly enjoyed movies where the main character died at the end because the point was how one person can come into your life and change it for the better. I just have to point out though that they would have been over 62 years older if the turned around when the captain woke up. Jim woke up 30 years into the trip and they had two years before the captain woke up, then 30 years travel back home. So, depending on the start age, they likely would not have made it home alive.

@Master_YODA said:

I really liked the first 2/3 of the movie. I wasn´t expecting the whole moral dilemma of Jim´s and Auroras relationship. That was great!

But then came the perfect Hollywood Ending. He saves everybody and she chooses by free will to stay with him - pretty lame.

What I would have preferred:

1) (small change) As mentioned in the movie, putting somebody to hibernation requires a complicated medical procedure. So the pod seemed like a deus-ex-machina.

They should have left that option out and give the end a dark shadow.

Jim and her saved everybody - but she had no option to go back to sleep. She HAS to stay.

It would be a morally more ambiguous ending.

2) (big change) (read something similar in a thread)

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

Still a 7 out of 10 for me.

That's a really interesting take, on both scenarios. My husband had an interesting "shoulda did" ending too. They would take turned sleeping for six months at a time while spending six months together in between. Buying them 45 years and making them able to at least see Homestead 2 and possibly have a few good years there. I tell you one thing, her book would have been better if that's what they did, even if it took 90 years to get published.

@jenx42 said:

@Larswad said:

Yes, I can take both those endings, really. But I think, a good movie doesn't have to be sad by default. I know, the typical happy hollywood cliches that's always been like that. But I actually think all kinds of endings are ok, happy, sad or neutral, just a long as they are made in a good way, (whatever that is).

What kept my mind going after had seen this movie was how I would have solved his situation in a smarter way. The movies sets out a set of rules, he can't break in to the captains bridge. He can't break in to the crew sleeping quarters, he can't basically do anything other than die. It seems like. We know that the ship breaking apart disaster will come, and it's just by luck it seems like him waking her up was a good thing.

But what if he had decided with the captain to turn the ship around instead?That would have meant 30 years older back at earth, but they all would sue that damned company for not giving them better chances to fix such an emergency. Problem was though, they had this trouble with the ship and the captain was dying all the time. So, the story was kind of locked into this one single scenario.

I agree with you on ending as long as they're done well. I've greatly enjoyed movies where the main character died at the end because the point was how one person can come into your life and change it for the better. I just have to point out though that they would have been over 62 years older if the turned around when the captain woke up. Jim woke up 30 years into the trip and they had two years before the captain woke up, then 30 years travel back home. So, depending on the start age, they likely would not have made it home alive.

Hmm wait. Maybe I'm missing something, but you can't count the first 30 years before waking up, they had been in stasis for those years and they are not supposed to age in those. So, after the two years awake (going in direction away from earth) they'd turn around and go back to earth taking 32 years back meaning a total of 34 tears of actual aging. Not counting the time to slow down the ship which likely would take a considerable time since it's probably accelerated quite a lot.

@Master_YODA said:

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

As I was watching it, I was really, really rooting for that exact ending. But movies like this almost never have the main characters make a sacrifice of any substance. They always get to have their cake and eat it too -- in this case they saved the ship and got to live out their lives in a garden of eden of their own making. Nobody they cared about died, nobody was crippled, they had a little bit of conflict but they came out the other end fully intact with no real loss to speak of.

The last mainstream movie I can think of where the heroes lost anything of substance was Cowboys & Aliens - the hero didn't get the girl because she dies. And the movie flopped. So now the bean-counters keep the movies light and inconsequential because money...

@jenx42 said:

@Master_YODA said:

I really liked the first 2/3 of the movie. I wasn´t expecting the whole moral dilemma of Jim´s and Auroras relationship. That was great!

But then came the perfect Hollywood Ending. He saves everybody and she chooses by free will to stay with him - pretty lame.

What I would have preferred:

1) (small change) As mentioned in the movie, putting somebody to hibernation requires a complicated medical procedure. So the pod seemed like a deus-ex-machina.

They should have left that option out and give the end a dark shadow.

Jim and her saved everybody - but she had no option to go back to sleep. She HAS to stay.

It would be a morally more ambiguous ending.

2) (big change) (read something similar in a thread)

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

Still a 7 out of 10 for me.

That's a really interesting take, on both scenarios. My husband had an interesting "shoulda did" ending too. They would take turned sleeping for six months at a time while spending six months together in between. Buying them 45 years and making them able to at least see Homestead 2 and possibly have a few good years there. I tell you one thing, her book would have been better if that's what they did, even if it took 90 years to get published.

Never thought of that! Would've been an awesome idea!

@Master_YODA said:

I really liked the first 2/3 of the movie. I wasn´t expecting the whole moral dilemma of Jim´s and Auroras relationship. That was great!

But then came the perfect Hollywood Ending. He saves everybody and she chooses by free will to stay with him - pretty lame.

What I would have preferred:

1) (small change) As mentioned in the movie, putting somebody to hibernation requires a complicated medical procedure. So the pod seemed like a deus-ex-machina.

They should have left that option out and give the end a dark shadow.

Jim and her saved everybody - but she had no option to go back to sleep. She HAS to stay.

It would be a morally more ambiguous ending.

2) (big change) (read something similar in a thread)

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

Still a 7 out of 10 for me.

I try to avoid knowing what a movie is about before watching it (something almost impossible), and I was quite pleasantly surprised by this one. The idea of waking up all alone and having to face a life of pure loneliness (no contact with earth or even a pet) is horrific. Condemning another person to (almost) the same fate is a terrible thing to do. But what would I have done? I agree with you that the ending was lame, and extremely rushed. It felt like a different movie. Not fitting at all. I like your second alternative ending. How desperate would Aurora have been to put another person through the same ordeal? Plus, I think it's safe to say that whoever she wakes up could never replace Jim...

@Larswad said:

@jenx42 said:

@Larswad said:

Yes, I can take both those endings, really. But I think, a good movie doesn't have to be sad by default. I know, the typical happy hollywood cliches that's always been like that. But I actually think all kinds of endings are ok, happy, sad or neutral, just a long as they are made in a good way, (whatever that is).

What kept my mind going after had seen this movie was how I would have solved his situation in a smarter way. The movies sets out a set of rules, he can't break in to the captains bridge. He can't break in to the crew sleeping quarters, he can't basically do anything other than die. It seems like. We know that the ship breaking apart disaster will come, and it's just by luck it seems like him waking her up was a good thing.

But what if he had decided with the captain to turn the ship around instead?That would have meant 30 years older back at earth, but they all would sue that damned company for not giving them better chances to fix such an emergency. Problem was though, they had this trouble with the ship and the captain was dying all the time. So, the story was kind of locked into this one single scenario.

I agree with you on ending as long as they're done well. I've greatly enjoyed movies where the main character died at the end because the point was how one person can come into your life and change it for the better. I just have to point out though that they would have been over 62 years older if the turned around when the captain woke up. Jim woke up 30 years into the trip and they had two years before the captain woke up, then 30 years travel back home. So, depending on the start age, they likely would not have made it home alive.

Hmm wait. Maybe I'm missing something, but you can't count the first 30 years before waking up, they had been in stasis for those years and they are not supposed to age in those. So, after the two years awake (going in direction away from earth) they'd turn around and go back to earth taking 32 years back meaning a total of 34 tears of actual aging. Not counting the time to slow down the ship which likely would take a considerable time since it's probably accelerated quite a lot.

No, I'm the one missing something. Duh! ;)

@richbordoni said:

@jenx42 said:

@Master_YODA said:

I really liked the first 2/3 of the movie. I wasn´t expecting the whole moral dilemma of Jim´s and Auroras relationship. That was great!

But then came the perfect Hollywood Ending. He saves everybody and she chooses by free will to stay with him - pretty lame.

What I would have preferred:

1) (small change) As mentioned in the movie, putting somebody to hibernation requires a complicated medical procedure. So the pod seemed like a deus-ex-machina.

They should have left that option out and give the end a dark shadow.

Jim and her saved everybody - but she had no option to go back to sleep. She HAS to stay.

It would be a morally more ambiguous ending.

2) (big change) (read something similar in a thread)

Jim dies saving everybody. Aurora is all alone. We get a sequence with Aurora mirroring Jim´s phases of being alone. Film ends with her waking somebody up. End.

Still a 7 out of 10 for me.

That's a really interesting take, on both scenarios. My husband had an interesting "shoulda did" ending too. They would take turned sleeping for six months at a time while spending six months together in between. Buying them 45 years and making them able to at least see Homestead 2 and possibly have a few good years there. I tell you one thing, her book would have been better if that's what they did, even if it took 90 years to get published.

Never thought of that! Would've been an awesome idea!

Yeah, it makes me wish movies made multiple endings sometimes. Like those choose your own adventure books.