Jack Reacher Franchise (McQuarrie/Zwick, 2012-2016)

Message

flyonthewall2983 · #1 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:02 pm

First look at Jack Reacher.

Aspect · #2 Post by **Aspect** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:04 pm

For those interested, Werner Herzog plays

Spoiler

the main baddie in this: an old Russian mobster who perpetrates the scam that Reacher foils.

Bumps this up to a rental in my opinion. The trailer proves to me that Cruise won't be entirely believable in the role, even though I held out hope.

warren oates · #3 Post by **warren oates** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:32 pm

Didn't it have a much better title before? Jack Reacher? That's like calling The Hunt For Red October... Jack Ryan. I get that it's a book franchise and they are hoping to turn it into a recurring film franchise (wait, so why did they cast a super-expensive loopy 50 year old in the lead again), but man couldn't they just advertise it more like "Jack Reacher in One Shot." Are they that afraid of confusing the so-called built in audience? Not to mention that the name sounds about 10 times more ridiculous for a film character and featured as the title seems likely to turn off folks who have no familiarity with the books and don't want to see something that sounds like a porn name.

flyonthewall2983 · Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:36 pm

You think they would have learned from Disney's mistake.

HistoryProf · #5 Post by **HistoryProf** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:54 pm

Aspect wrote:For those interested, Werner Herzog plays
Spoiler
the main baddie in this: an old Russian mobster who perpetrates the scam that Reacher foils.
Bumps this up to a rental in my opinion. The trailer proves to me that Cruise won't be entirely believable in the role, even though I held out hope.

one of the single most ludicrous casting decisions in history. could they not find someone at least six feet tall to play the roll? I mean the guy is a 6'5" brick shithouse of a mercenary....and you cast Tom Cruise? Anyone who has read even one of the books will be incapable of taking this seriously. Cruise's dialog in the trailer had me in stitches it's so absurd.

#6 Post by **mfunk9786** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:46 pm

FYI... Cruise doesn't stand in a police lineup or next to a Wikipedia article during the film

knives · #7 Post by **knives** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:50 pm

Yeah, what does the book matter for the movie?

flyonthewall2983 · #8 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:34 pm

Cruise can play a bad-ass to the tee when the material is good (I still maintain Collateral as his best performance, mostly for making me forget I was watching Jerry Maguire on the screen), so maybe if it is here it won't make a difference.

HistoryProf · #9 Post by **HistoryProf** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:34 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:FYI... Cruise doesn't stand in a police lineup or next to a Wikipedia article during the film

did I say he did? No. I said "Anyone who has read even one of the books will be incapable of taking this seriously." Which is true, and all you have to do is read any discussion of this silly movie on any forum anywhere for ample evidence.

Tom Cruise is essentially the polar opposite of Jack Reacher as he has been written by his creator for years. Therefore the decision to cast him in that role is quite silly to those who are familiar with the books - who I assume the movie is supposed to appeal to, since each and every one has been a best seller.

knives · #10 Post by **knives** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:39 pm

You forget though that the books don't matter a cent for the movie.

HistoryProf · #11 Post by **HistoryProf** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:43 pm

knives wrote:You forget though that the books don't matter a cent for the movie.

I guess I did. silly me...thinking the foundation of the film matters. I'm such a cuckoo bird!

HistoryProf · #12 Post by **HistoryProf** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:46 pm

They should totally do a series of movies based on Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta series - the wonder woman forensic anthropologist. I think Shia Labeouf would be perfect for the roll - he could really invigorate those stories for a new generation.

knives · #13 Post by **knives** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:47 pm

Adaptations have always changed from the source radically with the exceptions being very rare. The book is if anything just a piece of suggestion for how to mold the adaptation.

warren oates · #14 Post by **warren oates** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:55 pm

In this case, though, knives the studio is pushing the book franchise to the forefront by stupidly titling the film after the hero's silly name. So in that way the book seems to matter very much to the money men and the marketers.

#15 Post by **Jeff** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:56 pm

HistoryProf wrote:
knives wrote:You forget though that the books don't matter a cent for the movie.
I guess I did. silly me...thinking the foundation of the film matters. I'm such a cuckoo bird!

I'm of the opinion that if a source novel is the foundation of a film, then the film is already a failure. It's a completely different medium and a story retold from a new person's perspective. The book should be the inspiration for an idea and nothing more. A film succeeds or fails on its own merit, not on faithfulness to its source. It cannot be "good" or "bad" based on fidelity.

HistoryProf wrote:They should totally do a series of movies based on Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta series - the wonder woman forensic anthropologist. I think Shia Labeouf would be perfect for the roll - he could really invigorate those stories for a new generation.

I'd pay to see that, as it would be an original take on the material that would hold interest for its novelty alone whether the film was successful or not.

knives · #16 Post by **knives** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:57 pm

warren oates wrote:In this case, though, knives the studio is pushing the book franchise to the forefront by stupidly titling the film after the hero's silly name. So in that way the book seems to matter very much to the money men and the marketers.

I would say that only the marketability of the title interests them. It is not rather unlike Starship Troopers which has less to do with the book then this one will inevitably be.

HistoryProf · #17 Post by **HistoryProf** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:59 pm

warren oates wrote:In this case, though, knives the studio is pushing the book franchise to the forefront by stupidly titling the film after the hero's silly name. So in that way the book seems to matter very much to the money men and the marketers.

Exactly. This is not just a movie based on a book, it's a movie based on a character from a series of books from which they are actively basing all the marketing. It would be like calling the Lord of the Rings "Gandalf" and then casting Leonardo DiCaprio in the roll because he's a big star and they can.

and for the record I'm not in the legion of Lee Child fans - i have read one of the books and it is what you expect it to be...even with that slight intro I instantly laughed at the trailer and thought it a considerable, uhm, reach.

Brian C · #18 Post by **Brian C** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:27 pm

HistoryProf wrote:
warren oates wrote:In this case, though, knives the studio is pushing the book franchise to the forefront by stupidly titling the film after the hero's silly name. So in that way the book seems to matter very much to the money men and the marketers.
Exactly. This is not just a movie based on a book, it's a movie based on a character from a series of books from which they are actively basing all the marketing. It would be like calling the Lord of the Rings "Gandalf" and then casting Leonardo DiCaprio in the roll because he's a big star and they can.

It seems very odd to say that a movie should conform to its marketing, and not the other way around. Maybe you're not saying this and I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like your complaints ought to be with the marketing folks for misrepresenting the movie.

warren oates · #19 Post by **warren oates** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:40 pm

Name a single movie staring Tom Cruise made in the last couple decades (including Eyes Wide Shut) that wasn't very much about his image's engagement in the pacakaging/marketing from the moment he was cast in the lead?

I think there are two very different arguments going on here. On the one hand, there are those who speak the abstract truth: movies should be judged on their own, no matter what source material they may be inspired by or based upon. On the other hand, there are those, myself included, who are saying that Jack Reacher is begging to be apprised within the context of a fictional universe that already exists and has a large fanbase and the way in which the studio (mis)understands this universe vis-a-vis the casting of Cruise.

Brian C · #20 Post by **Brian C** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:56 pm

warren oates wrote:Name a single movie staring Tom Cruise made in the last couple decades (including Eyes Wide Shut) that wasn't very much about his image's engagement in the pacakaging/marketing from the moment he was cast in the lead?

I'm not sure precisely what this means. Of course he's a big star and the marketing will prominently feature his image. And of course any role any big star does will have that star quality as attendant baggage. What this has to do with how much Cruise resembles the book character is hazy to me, though.

I understand full well that many fans of the book will want the movie to be as faithful as possible, as with any well-known source material (which is a desire I don't generally share, but anyway). As was noted by knives, though, film adaptations are inherently different and ought to be judged on their own merits. And wrt Cruise specifically, any adaptation he does is bound to be an ill fit in these kinds of terms, because few roles are written for four-foot-tall guys. But dude's gotta work!

flyonthewall2983 · Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:16 pm

Surprised no one has brought up Jennifer Garner as the next Mrs. Marple so far...

warren oates · #22 Post by **warren oates** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:31 pm

I don't like the books or care about this movie. But isn't it kind of a legitimate gripe that Cruise not only looks nothing like Reacher, he doesn't even remotely feel like him? A better, bolder choice and one still truer to the material would have been an African American action hero with real chops, somebody like Denzel but younger. I just can't believe Cruise kicking anyone's ass out of anger in anything less cartoonish than, say, Mission Impossible.
This isn't a case where there's a character of lasting literary quality like George Smiley, and the casting choices are about subtly drawing out different aspects of his complexity. This about a big dumb action novel franchise with a whitebread America hero that shouldn't be a problem to cast if they were truly smart about it and looking for a relatively fresh face along the lines of Chris Pine, Hemsworth or Evans.

Brian C · #23 Post by **Brian C** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:39 pm

warren oates wrote:I just can't believe Cruise kicking anyone's ass out of anger in anything less cartoonish than, say, Mission Impossible.

This seems like a subtly different complaint - not so much "he's nothing like the character in the novel!" but more "he's wrong for this type of role, regardless of whether it's based on a novel".

flyonthewall2983 · Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:03 am

warren oates wrote:A better, bolder choice and one still truer to the material would have been an African American action hero with real chops, somebody like Denzel but younger.

Dwayne Johnson comes to mind. He's someone in need to make his own mark with this kind of franchise, as opposed to consistently doing sequels like he has.

warren oates · #25 Post by **warren oates** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:09 am

Yeah, though I keep hoping he'll make a The Rock Obama movie.

Site Menu