Just read my first Jack Reacher novel. I loved it and plan to read all the others. But I have a question to put out there. HOW THE FUCK COULD TOM CRUISE PLAY JACK REACHER IN A MOVIE?????
I do recall a thread last year but I hadn't read any of the books yet. But Tom Cruise... They could have gotten a guy that would have been good for multiple movies. A BIGGER and TALLER guy.
Liam Neeson could've done it. Jim Caviezel could've done it. Ron Perlmann could've done it. Alex O'loughlin (Steve MacGarrett on Five-O) could've done it. Hell, just about anybody 6' tall over over could've done it. Tom Cruise? Fuck no! And the reason I refuse to watch the film.
You don't have to be a great actor. But you do have to fill the shoes of Jack Reacher. You need to be big and bad enough to LOOK like you can take on 5 guys at once.
IIRC, the novel author was asked about the casting of the rather short unimpressive Tom Cruise to play Jack Reacher when Reacher in the novels is often described as IIRC about six foot seven and "massively built". The author said that if he insisted on an actor similar to the novel Jack Reacher's physical dimensions he has no chance of getting a quality actor for the role. Much less one with the Tom Cruise name recognition.
Reacher is 6'5" in the books. And solid, honed-steel type, but I don't specifically recall "massively build".
Yeah, 6'5''. But IIRC in one book he lifts a 400 lb. thug over his head and drops him. So "massively strong" obviously if not "massively built".
Picked up a paperback (Tripwire) at a second hand store last week and I concur it's an excellent read. I had the same thought - NO WAY Cruise is even close to right for the part. This is more suited for Dewayne-fucking-Johnson that Cruise.
He's described that way in Tripwire. I don't have it right beside me but it was something along the lines of having worked at digging pools by hand in KeyWest he'd bulked up to around 250 pounds...all the descriptive language says "linebacker" or whatever.
I know he's not "big name" enough to ever win a movie franchise like this buuuut..... Adam Baldwin is 6'4" and would be absolutely perfect. If Reacher was ever a TV series... Edit - albeit he's about 10 years too old, but so is Cruise.
The movie was quite enjoyable, though I've never read the books. Does the character's height really matter?
IIRC, the author liked to emphasize Reacher's height, weight, and raw strength (and lack of emotions) because he wanted Reacher to be more a "force of nature" than a man. So yeah, his physical characteristics matter.
Dude.....I can find hundreds of porn stars who take on five guys at once! oint: Oh, you mean in a physical fight. Remember, Bruce Lee was just a lightweight.
I try to take movies made from books on their own terms. Books and films are different media, after all. Not everything that works in one will in the other. If the film is a good adaptation of the story, what difference does it make how tall the actor is? Can't you accept that the novel Jack Reacher and the film Jack Reacher look different?
If they do a movie on the life of Michael Jordan, don't you think they need a tall guy to play the role? Jack Reacher is not a midget. When Swarzenegger played Conan and Terminator, he was the perfect fit. Could Cruise be those guys??? Hell no!
depends on the plot of the movie. In Tripwire, at least so far, a lot of the actiony sequences depend on Reacher just being a helluva lot of physical force to both attempt and accomplish the action in the scene.
There are at least 13 novels, and only a single movie. I've read half of the books, but not seen the flick.
They would be better off getting an actor who could convincingly play the role and, if he wasn't tall enough to be a convincing professional basketball players, using camera angles, stunt doubles, and other cinematic trickery to make him appear so. While height MAY be critical to the portrayal of a pro basketball star, it's far less so IMHO to a character like Jack Reacher. Most people seeing the movie have never--and will never--read the books. Does the Reacher character NEED to be 6'4"? Does the story still work if he's played by an actor of average height? And where do you draw the line? Does an actor have to have (or be made up to have) the same hair color/style, eye color, facial features, etc. as a character from a book, even if those characteristics are not essential to the story? In my opinion, this gets perilously close to "Wrong font" territory. Neither is Cruise. And I thought he was a credible bad-ass in the film. I don't know if Cruise would be right for those roles--and, yes, Conan must be played by an actor with plenty of muscles--but certainly a smaller actor could've played the Terminator. In fact, they went with a smaller actor--Robert Patrick--for the bad guy in the second film because his size made for a good contrast with Arnold.
Arnold was originally supposed to be Kyle Reese in the first one, actually. OJ Simpson was one of the names batted around for Terminator.
O.J. Simpson as a relentless killing machine trying to kill a young, blonde woman? Oh, Hollywood! Where do you get these outlandish ideas?
That actually made sense as I've heard that physically, Arnold is not nearly as tall and physically imposing has is publicists and studio promotional material makes him out to me. In truth, because of the nature of two dimensional movies and television, there are not that many actors who are very large physically. Anyone remember Brad Garrett playing Jackie Gleason in a TVMovie IIRC? Jackie Gleason was rather short and small. Garrett is more than 6'6'' (6'8'' IIRC). So the production department manufactured lots of "oversized" furnishings to appear on camera with Garrett to make him look noticeably smaller.
Paladin, having not read the books, it's easier for you to go into the movie with no preconceived notions of how the character should be. And it's easy to say you can separate book characters from their associated movie characters, but I wonder exactly how true that is. Especially once a film comes out, it's easy to see the movie character in your mind as you re-read the book, even if the movie character isn't exactly how you'd pictured him/her prior to seeing the movie. That's the power of images.
True. Here's the problem. There's exactly ONE vision of a film: that created by the filmmakers. But there are as many visions of a book as there are readers; all readers envision the book differently. So, inevitably, the film will depart from readers' expectations. Is it fair to say a film is bad simply because an expectation you had as a reader isn't met? I would say no. The film has to be judged on how well it works as an independent piece of art. I've never had a problem with different interpretations of the same characters. I can accept Adam West as Batman and also accept Michael Keaton or Christian Bale. They're all Batman to me, but each is unique also. Does any Batman compare to the character in the comic books? Well, first I'd ask which version from the comic books? But I'd say, no, none of the screen interpretations is the same as the comics. And that's fine. I don't see why someone who likes the Reacher books has such a hard time accepting that Reacher looks like Tom Cruise in the film. Okay, he's not what you envisioned. He isn't even what the author described. But why not put aside your expectations and take the film on its own terms?
Why not get the CENTRAL CHARACTER RIGHT? No, I agree with Castle. If you don't want to do it right, if you want to just take the name and then invent a totally unrelated character, then write something original. Don't butcher the source material.
