Surviving the apocalypse is a hugely popular science fiction trope at this point. The key is doing it differently that everybody else. You can have wastelands, the undead, nuclear fallout, you name it — but these are overdone, right? You know what isn’t overdone? A talking cat in a tiara. That’s exactly what to expect from the cult science fiction series that’s heading straight for a new streaming service, from the twisted mind of Seth MacFarlane.

Dungeon Crawler Carl, the cult-favorite science fantasy book series from author Matt Dinniman, has been given a straight-to-series order. The series has been in development at Peacock and will be written for television by Chris Yost, whose work spans film, TV, and comic books. Dinniman will serve as a co-executive producer, while Yost executive produces alongside MacFarlane, Erica Huggins, and Rachel Hargreaves-Heald.

Dinniman confirmed the news on social media, writing, “Me, Chris Yost and Seth MacFarlane and his team at Fuzzy Door are all really excited to get to work.” He also teased that more details are on the way, including an upcoming Dungeon Crawler Carl panel at San Diego Comic-Con.

What is ‘Dungeon Crawler Carl’ About?

Based on Dinniman’s popular LitRPG book series, Dungeon Crawler Carl begins after an alien invasion wipes out most of humanity. The survivors are then forced into a sadistic intergalactic game show, where they have to fight monsters, aliens, artificial intelligence, and even each other to stay alive.

At the centre of the story is Carl, a Coast Guard veteran who finds himself trying to survive the end of the world with his ex-girlfriend’s award-winning show cat, Princess Donut the Queen Anne Chonk. Unfortunately for Carl, Princess Donut is not just a cat anymore. She can talk, she wears a tiara, and she has opinions. Lots of them.

The official synopsis reads: “Welcome to Dungeon Crawler World: Earth, where the apocalypse will be televised … and Coast Guard vet Carl finds himself stuck with his ex-girlfriend’s award-winning show cat, Princess Donut the Queen Anne Chonk, as they try to survive the end of the world, fighting monsters, aliens, an insane A.I. and even other survivors … all for the sake of good TV. Survival is optional. Entertainment is not.”

Stay tuned to Collider for more updates on the future of Dungeon Crawler Carl.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

2017 – 2022-00-00

Network

FOX

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 1 second ago

The X-Files is many things to many fans. For some, the show is a fun way to explore the possibilities of the unknown, probing for truths that have been hidden from us. For others, the show is a chance to bask in some utterly fantastic sci-fi and horror storytelling. Of course, for some people, the show is just a chance to stare at David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, arguably the absolute hottest people to grace ‘90s television. While I enjoy all those things, my favorite aspect of The X-Files is the paranoia at its core. This is a show that constantly reminds us that it’s downright dangerous to trust the government and the military.

Weirdly enough, a forgotten episode of The X-Files connects this show to one of the strangest and most famous anti-war movies of all time. In the Season 2 episode “Firewalker,” Mulder encounters a brilliant researcher who has been driven crazy by his horrific surroundings. Writer Howard Gordon later confirmed that Mulder’s relationship with this man was inspired by the relationship between Marlow and Kurtz in the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness. Meanwhile, that book inspired one of the greatest movies ever made: the Francis Ford Coppola classic Apocalypse Now.

An Errand Boy, Sent By Grocery Clerks

“Firewalker” is a Season 2 X-Files episode about a volcanic research project gone wrong. A robot (the titular Firewalker) discovers evidence of a possible murder, and Mulder and Scully are sent to investigate. As it turns out, researchers on the project had discovered a creepy new form of silicon-based life that can infect and kill humans. Mulder spends some time with project leader Daniel Trepkos, a man who has been driven a little kooky by the horrors he has seen. At the end of the episodes, he chooses to stay behind and face almost certain death rather than return to civilization.

According to The Truth is Out There: The Official Guide to the X-Files, “Firewalker” writer Howard Gordon compared Mulder’s interactions with Trepkos to the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness. In that book, a man named Marlow is hired by a Belgian trading company to find Kurtz, who has been exporting Ivory from the Congo. Kurtz is reportedly a brilliant man with ideas about how to improve the lives of the natives. But when Marlow finds him, Kurtz has gone completely native and enslaved the locals to his cult-like will. Kurtz is also sick and, while being reluctantly brought back to civilization, dies en route.

The Horror, The Horror

You may or may not have read or even heard of Heart of Darkness. But chances are that you are very familiar with the film it inspired: Apocalypse Now. This Coppola movie changes some of the particulars. Instead of being a hired gun, the Marlow character is Captain Willard, a soldier in the Army. Kurtz is transformed into a Colonel who has gone rogue, sending an army of sycophants who worship him against foes like the Viet Cong. Willard’s mission is to terminate Kurtz’s command “with extreme prejudice.”

Now, X-Files writer Howard Gordon was clear that “Firewalker” was inspired more by Heart of Darkness than Apocalypse Now. Accordingly, Mulder has a more sympathetic relationship with Trepkos, someone who (like Kurtz) was a brilliant man driven mad by the insanity of his surroundings. He intended Trepkos to be a kind of cautionary tale for Mulder, one that explained how “the natural endpoint of this quest for the truth is madness.” Mulder is, of course, characterized by his relentless search for the truth. This episode shows that this crusade, regardless of whether or not it’s successful, might very well drive the FBI agent crazy.

Still, the writer has effectively created a surprise link between The X-Files and Apocalypse Now. While both the show and the movie have offered some strident criticisms of the military and the government, most people have never clocked a real connection between these two very different projects. That connection is very fitting, though. After all, when I think about the X-Files revival, all I can do is utter the same iconic phrase Kurtz speaks in both the novel and the film: “the horror! The horror!”

Marvel Studios isn’t playing it safe with the long-awaited X-Men reboot.

Recent comments from writer Lee Sung Jin suggest that Marvel is aiming for a fresh start, one that won’t be tied down by the previous X-Men films and will instead embrace bold ideas and a new creative direction.

While discussing the project, Lee revealed that Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige is encouraging the team to think bigger than what has come before.

“Truthfully, it’s same parameters on this project, which is so exciting. I’d say there were actually more parameters on Thunderbolts because it was plugging into an existing arc and existing characters, whereas with X-Men, Kevin [Feige]just wants to take a big swing and start anew, not be beholden to any of the movies that have come before.”

That approach appears to fit perfectly with director Jake Schreier’s vision for the film. According to Lee, Schreier wants to focus on what made the classic X-Men comics resonate with fans in the first place.

“And Jake Schreier has such a clear vision in terms of wanting to get back to character first, and to what is exciting about those early Chris Claremont-run comics, which was all about team dynamics. There were a lot of soapy elements to those comics.”

The upcoming reboot is expected to serve as a true fresh start for Marvel’s mutants. Rather than recreating the Fox era, the studio appears focused on introducing a new generation of heroes while placing a stronger emphasis on character relationships and team chemistry.

Lee also spoke about how exciting it has been to help shape this new version of the franchise.

“I’m such a big fan of that IP of the comics. My dad and I, every Saturday morning, used to watch the show on television, so to be able to look around this Marvel conference room and have every X-Men character on the board and be able to spitball and freestyle on, ‘What about this person?’ it’s so emboldening, because you’re like, ‘Oh, wow, this isn’t going to be a safe movie. This is actually going to be a really exciting new take.’”

Before the reboot arrives, fans are expected to see familiar mutant faces return in Avengers: Doomsday, helping bridge Marvel’s past with its future. But when the MCU’s X-Men finally assemble, it sounds like audiences should expect something completely different.

If Lee Sung Jin’s comments are any indication, Marvel isn’t interested in playing it safe. The studio is taking a major creative swing, and that could make the MCU’s X-Men one of the franchise’s most exciting new chapters yet.

What a year it was in 2025 for Amy Madigan, who became one of the rare horror stars to take home an Oscar for Supporting Performance in Weapons. The critically acclaimed horror film earned scores of 93% from critics and 85% from audiences on the aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes on its way to grossing $270 million at the box office against a relatively modest $38 million budget. It has since been confirmed that a Weapons prequel focused on Madigan’s Gladys is in the works, and it’s even been set for release on September 8, 2028. After winning an Oscar on her first nomination, though, Madigan isn’t slowing down, and is still busy starring in some high-profile projects.

One of the projects in question is Bull Street, a new character-driven drama set in the south and focused on legacy, resilience, and generational conflict. Collider is thrilled to partner with the distributor of Bull Street, Buffalo 8, to exclusively preview the first official trailer for the film, and also share some exciting details. Bull Street is coming to VOD platforms such as Fandango at Home on July 17, but the film will be available for pre-order this weekend, on June 19. Starring alongside Madigan in the film is Loretta Divine, and additional cast members include Malynda Hale, Arielle Prepetit, and Gary Ray Moore. Lynn Dow directed the film.

What Is ‘Bull Street’ About?

Buffalo 8 has released an official synopsis for Bull Street, which reads as follows: “Bull Street follows LouEster Sadie Gibbs (Hale), a small-town lawyer raised by her formidable grandmother, Mrs. Big-Gal (Devine). When an Ivy League attorney (Prepetit) challenges the family’s longstanding claim to their home and land, LouEster is thrust into a high-stakes courtroom battle where privilege collides with legacy. Presiding over the case, Judge Motley (Madigan) must determine whether generations of history are enough to secure her birthright.” Weapons has become known as the biggest project of Amy Madigan’s career, but she does have experience acting opposite other famous stars such as Kevin Costner, whom she teamed up with all the way back in 1989 for Field of Dreams. Madigan is also known for her role as McCoy in Streets of Fire, the 1984 romantic action thriller written and directed by Walter Hill.

Check out the official trailer for Bull Street above and stay tuned to Collider for more updates on the film and coverage of Amy Madigan’s future projects.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

June 7, 2024

Runtime

118 minutes

Advertisement

Director

Lynn Dow

Advertisement

Cast

• 

  Loretta Devine

  Advertisement

  Mrs. Big-Gal

• 

  Malynda Hale

  LouEster Gibbs

  Advertisement
• 

  Arielle Prepetit

  Kendra Reed

  Advertisement
• 

  Gary Ray Moore

  Mayor Bucky

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 31 seconds ago

One of the first signs that Star Trek: The Original Series had become a pop culture phenomenon was the success of its theme song. People who barely even knew what the show was about could hum its iconic opening tune. Equally famous was William Shatner’s monologue describing the mission of the starship Enterprise: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man had gone before! The whole thing felt like pure television magic. It wasn’t magic, though: a lot of work went into this intro, including earlier attempts most fans have never seen.

Before the final version of the Original Series opening (“final” being relative, since it was tweaked slightly for Season 2 and again for Season 3), there was a completely different opening. This was attached to the version of “Where No One Has Gone Before” (Trek’s second pilot episode) that Gene Roddenberry showed to NBC executives. They were pleased with what they saw and gave this seminal sci-fi show the green light. Once they did, one of the first things Roddenberry set out to do was to create a new intro. That’s a good thing, because the intro that never made it to air is one of the worst things in the entire franchise!

An Intro Straight Out Of The Mirror Universe

When you watch this unaired Star Trek: The Original Series title sequence, the first thing you’ll notice is how spooky it is. The show did not yet have its iconic, soaring score that hinted at all the high adventure our heroes would encounter on the final frontier. Instead, we get a mostly muted score, one that makes way for William Shatner’s very different narration. The music only really comes to life when the words “Star Trek” pop up onscreen. Even then, it sounds less triumphant and more like something you’d hear when one of the Red Shirts was busy getting himself killed on an exotic alien planet.

This version of the show’s intro sequence is relatively short. Once the narration ends, we get the title of the show and the words “Starring William Shatner.” After that, it jumps right into the opening of the episode. The whole thing is just over a minute long, which is slightly longer than the final intro we ended up with (which lasts for about 49 seconds). Ironically, though, this unaired intro feels much longer because of the muted, ominous music and the somewhat plodding nature of Shatner’s narration.

William Shatner’s Narration Was Completely Different

What does Captain Kirk say in this unaired intro? “Enterprise log, Captain James Kirk commanding. We are leaving that vast cloud of stars and planets which we call our galaxy. Behind us, Earth, Mars, Venus, even our sun, are specks of dust,” he says. “The question: What is out there in the black void beyond? Until now, our mission has been that of space law regulation, contact with Earth colonies, and investigation of alien life. But now, a new task: A probe out into where no man has gone before.”

For Star Trek lorehounds, this is a lot to process. For one thing, this narration seems to conflate leaving the solar system with leaving the galaxy. While Star Trek has gotten fuzzy about things like galactic barriers and galactic centers, every single show and movie takes place firmly within our own galaxy, so that part of Shatner’s unused narration is pure nonsense. The rest of it is fascinating (as Spock might say) from a canon perspective because it implies that Starfleet has, up to this point, mostly played the role of space police who occasionally investigate aliens. Now, he says, they are tasked with exploring the final frontier.

Does This Intro Fit With The Current Canon?

Interestingly, this contradicts parts of later franchise lore while lining up with other parts. For example, Star Trek: Enterprise takes place about a century before The Original Series, and it portrays Captain Archer making first contact, discovering strange new life, and generally going where no man had gone before; all of this would contradict this original narration. But it does line up with Discovery emphasizing that Pike and other captains of Constitution-class ships were charged with deep space exploration, something Starfleet considered more important than staying home and playing cowboy.

All of this makes the unaired intro to Star Trek: The Original Series a fascinating part of franchise history. It’s also, surprisingly enough, part of national history, as Gene Roddenberry was invited to submit this, Trek’s first pilot, and other production materials to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. He did so back in 1967 and, in prime Roddenberry tradition, made a big show of it to make himself and his new series look better. A bit of shameless self-promotion? Sure. But Roddenberry certainly deserved a victory lap for creating something that truly went where no TV show had gone before!

Actress and singer Jamie Lynn Spears is opening up about her difficult decision to leave Hollywood at the height of her career after getting pregnant with her daughter, Maddie. In a new interview, the “Zoey 101” alum also reflected on some of the difficult conversations she had with people who were against her becoming a teen mom.

Speaking with PEOPLE, Jamie, the younger sister of megawatt pop star Britney Spears, recalled some of the nasty things she heard from those closest to her after revealing she was pregnant at 16.

“I was called the biggest letdown in the world,” she said, adding that people wanted her to believe that her “life was over.”

She added, “It was really, really tough not to believe those things.”

Why Jamie Lynn Spears Decided To Leave Hollywood Behind And Relocate To The South

While Jamie wasn’t releasing chart-topping singles like her sister, she was becoming one of the more prominent child actors at the time of her pregnancy.

She starred in the Nickelodeon sitcom “Zoey 101” from 2005 to 2008 before making the difficult decision to walk away from Hollywood to raise her daughter in “the middle of nowhere” Mississippi.

“It really was just me and her,” she said. “I had to be like, ‘Look, this little girl needs you. You better figure it out.’ I wanted to create a good, stable life for my daughter.”

Jamie Lynn Spears’ Daughter Says She’s Not The Reason ‘Zoey 101’ Was Canceled

During the interview, Jamie’s daughter, Maddie, spoke about her life as the daughter and niece of two major celebrities.

Now that she’s older, Maddie said she’s dealt with people telling her she’s the reason “Zoey 101” ended for most of her life.

“My TikTok is all like, ‘You’re the reason ‘Zoey 101’ is over. I can’t believe you made my show end,’” she said. “I’m not the one that ended ‘Zoey 101,’ I promise.”

Jamie then chimed in, saying, “I’ll repeat it until I’m blue in the face: We were wrapped! The contract ended Zoey.”

Jamie Lynn Took ‘Responsibility’ For Her Pregnancy When She Was A Teenager

In a previous interview with Hannah Brown on her “Better Tomorrow” podcast, Jamie got candid about her teenage pregnancy, revealing that she decided to take “responsibility” for conceiving at a young age.

“That was something I took responsibility for the way that made sense for me,” she said. “That doesn’t make sense for everyone else, but it made sense for me and the whole world came down and told me I was the worst human alive for doing so and that every young girl who ever watched my show was going to be ruined because of me and my personal decision.”

As she mentioned earlier, Jamie said that she relocated to the South with nothing but a house phone. Her reason? To focus on the things that truly mattered at the time.

“I think being in a small town and going into a store [where the clerk] who’s checking you out doesn’t care about who you are, what you’re doing or who’s taking your picture, she’s trying to get home to her kids,” Jamie said. “Interacting with people like that on a daily basis makes you have a much different outlook whenever a newspaper writes a bad headline about you that’s not true. Like, you know what, that doesn’t matter. These are the people that matter.”

Jamie Got To Say Goodbye To ‘Zoey 101’ In The Most Perfect Way

While “Zoey 101” wrapped in 2008, Jamie reprised her role as Zoey Brooks in the Paramount+ picture, “Zoey 102” in 2023.

Speaking with Entertainment Tonight, the actress called the moment she returned to the set “surreal,” adding that she had to “pinch myself.”

“… it’s something we’ve worked on really hard for years to get, being patient to make sure it’s right, putting the right things in place,” she said. “And then it’s like a dream come true. It’s this thing you’ve been talking about and working on and trying to bring to life.”

Jamie credited the show’s fans for bringing the series back to life before reflecting on what it meant to be reunited with a character she played at such a young age.

“I was so ingrained in that character, so revisiting her was something I always dreamed of. But I was like, ‘Can that really ever happen? In what world, dude?’ Who gets to do something like that twice? It’s one of those things that I wasn’t sure if it could ever happen, but I always dreamed of being able to do it and see where she is,” she said.

Docuseries continue to reign supreme on Netflix this June, including the return of America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and the third season of the Outlast series, which features 16 new contestants competing for triumph in the Panama Islands jungle. Sweet Magnolias, created by Sheryl J. Anderson, flies the flag for fiction content, taking second place in the current U.S. Netflix top 10. So, heading into a new weekend, what should you be watching? To help you decide, and with an overwhelming list of content currently on the streamer, here’s a breakdown of three shows you should binge-watch on Netflix this weekend.

For more recommendations, check out our list of the best shows and movies on Netflix.

Disclaimer: These titles are available on US Netflix.

1

‘I Will Find You’ (2026)

Of all the many great minds to have working collaborations with Netflix, one of the most fruitful is mystery author Harlan Coben. Several of his most-watched adaptations, from Missing You to Fool Me Once, have aired to great success on the streamer. This weekend, he’s back for more, as Robert Hull adapts his 2023 novel of the same name into a twisting eight-part puzzle, waiting for you to solve.

I Will Find You stars Avatar‘s Sam Worthington as David, a man imprisoned for his son’s murder, whose life is about to change as he receives news that his child may still be alive. He escapes from prison and works alongside his sister-in-law, played by Severance fan-favorite Britt Lower, to uncover the truth. An indulgent, easy-to-watch mystery, I Will Find You has been called “a solid way to pass the time” by Collider’s Taylor Gates.

2

‘Black Rabbit’ (2025)

Rotten Tomatoes: 66% | IMDb: 7.3/10

When looking for something to watch this weekend, you can’t go wrong with one of the most underrated miniseries currently on Netflix. Black Rabbit, created by Zach Baylin and Kate Susman, follows a restaurant owner and his troubled brother as they become swept up in a maelstrom of trauma and trouble against the backdrop of a busy New York nightlife. Will they lose everything they own?

When a miniseries boasts the headline talent of Jason Bateman, Jude Law, and Abbey Lee of Mad Max: Fury Road fame, it’s already a must-watch. Add to that Cleopatra Coleman, Bodies‘ Amaka Okafor, Ṣọpẹ́ Dìrísù, and Troy Kotsur, as well as a selection of eight gripping scripts and some terrific, visually-impactful direction, and you simply can’t afford to let Black Rabbit pass you by.

3

‘One Piece’ (2023–Present)

Rotten Tomatoes: 93% | IMDb: 8.3/10

Sure, you could begin your dive into the anime, but a much more attainable streaming binge goal this weekend is the live-action adaptation of One Piece, which returned for its second season earlier this year. Based on Eiichiro Oda‘s seminal manga, the series follows a crew of young pirates led by Monkey D. Luffy (Iñaki Godoy) as they sail treacherous waters and face evil obstacles on the hunt for treasure.

A simple concept packed with heart and humor, One Piece is a great watch for anyone of any age. Called “one of Netflix’s all-time best originals” in Collider’s David Caballero review of Season 2, this epic fantasy series continues to go from strength to strength, with no sign of slowing down yet. Season 3 of One Piece is scheduled for release in 2027 and has already been described as “incredible.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

August 31, 2023

Network

Advertisement

Netflix

Showrunner

Matt Owens, Steven Maeda, Joe Tracz

Advertisement

Directors

Tim Southam, Marc Jobst, Josef Kubota Wladyka

Advertisement

Writers

Tiffany Greshler, Diego Gutierrez, Allison Weintraub, Lindsay Gelfand

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 38 seconds ago

When Passengers came out in 2016, it caused a relatively minor blip on the pop culture radar. The movie starred two different Marvel icons, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, so there was plenty of hype before the movie premiered. While it made okay money at the box office, it was a critical bomb (a freaking 30 percent on Rotten Tomatoes!) that almost everybody hated. That’s because it was a sci-fi movie without any real action, adventure, or exploration. Of course, the studio couldn’t market Passengers for what it really is: a horror movie where Chris Pratt’s penis is the monster trying to kill you.

Well, not you, personally, but Jennifer Lawrence. You see, this is a film where Pratt’s character wakes up 90 years early on a sleeper ship. As his loneliness mounts, he eventually awakens Lawrence’s character early. He’s just hoping for companionship, but he doesn’t seem to realize the moral ickiness of dooming someone else to crippling, soul-crushing isolation. Because of this, Passengers (now streaming on Netflix) makes for a pretty terrible sci-fi movie. However, it’s weirdly perfect to show other people for exactly one reason: how they react to Pratt’s decision to wake up Lawrence early reveals whether or not you can actually trust your friends and family!

Creepers Gonna Creep

The idea of using Passengers as a Rorschach test for friends is important to me because I did it completely by accident. Years ago, I was discussing this film with a younger friend who had previously made the bold choice to move in with an older woman and become a father figure to her three children (I promise, this factoid will be important later). My buddy claimed that the decision made by Pratt’s character was understandable; after all, the character was so lonely and depressed that he contemplated suicide. However, I maintained that waking Lawrence’s character up early was both manipulative and cruel, effectively dooming someone else to a life of depression and isolation. 

Our debate over Passengers effectively became a debate over empathy. My friend empathized with Pratt’s character and imagined how he would feel about going the rest of his life without human interaction. To my buddy, waking up a woman for companionship was an understandable act of desperation. Meanwhile, I empathized with Lawrence’s character, arguing that I’d hate to be the one forced into a life of isolation because someone couldn’t keep it in their pants. Months after our debate, my friend got a new job far away, and his girlfriend drove him hundreds of miles, where they actively planned to buy a house together. A happy ending, right?

A Movie That Rewards Bad Choices

Nah. He fell for a girl at his new gig less than a week after moving and dumped the woman (the one with three kids who saw him as a father figure) he had been dating for years. When it happened, my first thought was our argument over Passengers. As it turns out, he really was like Pratt’s character at the end of the day: someone who would screw over anyone if he simply got lonely and horny enough.

Now, the internet is filled with countless different ideas for testing those in your life with weird scenarios. This includes everything from nonsensical stuff (“would you still love me if I was a worm?”) to weirdly controversial stuff (“do you choose the bear or the man?”). However, most of these hypotheticals are a very stupid way of learning anything useful about my friends and family. But the scenario in Passengers is so meaty and compelling that it’s like an ethics word problem brought to life. For Pratt’s character, the question is whether he’s justified in waking up Jennifer Lawrence’s character because he is on the verge of suicide.

An Argument That Makes You Wanna Scream

To me, Pratt is not justified. Sure, I felt bad for the guy, but he’s making a deliberate choice to inflict his own misery on someone else. That’d be bad enough if he had just woken up another man so he’d have someone to bro out with, making himself the only human contact the other guy would ever have.  However, he deliberately wakes up somebody that he found attractive in hopes of them having sex. It’s textbook manipulation and, spoilers, they do end up hooking up. The movie presents this as a happy ending, but this is the It’s Always Sunny “because of the implication” thing played out to its darkest extreme.

Anyway, my buddy who so passionately defended Pratt’s character? Soon afterward, he ended up making his own selfish decision in the name of getting some strange, destroying an existing relationship he had spent the better part of a decade developing. Basically, Passengers revealed something dark about this dude’s personality, and it didn’t take him long to prove his character. Want to figure out which of your own friends and family you can actually trust? Then grab the remote and brace yourself because Passengers is currently streaming on Netflix.