Jack Reacher (Lee Child novels)

Despite all those muscles, he can't act himself out of a wet paper bag. Poor guy. He seems nice enough when he's not doing his Rock schtick.

 

I don't want to get into a discussion of intellectual property (it can get rather dry). But the people who got this film made likely wanted to make a Jack Reacher film, not a film like Jack Reacher books. They could have wrote an original screenplay (people do), but the Hollywood business model includes borrowing heavily from existing properties, most notably novels and short stories. What these people did was look at some books of a multiple award-winning and -nominated author and decided to make a movie based on one of his books. Maybe one of the people behind the film read one or two of them; maybe it's a fan. Maybe the book publisher has been pushing it for a while now, and the producers saw it as an opportunity based on timing and other factors.

They then go make the thing, making many of the changes that have to be made to get it to work (i.e., make money).

I don't know enough about the plot of One Shot or about the characterization of Jack Reacher. I don't know much much the book hinges on the fact that he's really big. Is having him just below average height the same thing as taking away Wolverine's regeneration powers, adamantium skeleton, and claws? Is the whole thing about Jack Reacher that he's the only man for the job because no one else his size wants to do it?

I really don't know enough about these things. I get the feeling that people take too much issue with details that aren't actually that pertinent.

Also, depending on the cinematography, people can be made to look taller or shorter than they really are. I'm not sure if they did anything like this for Cruise. Or maybe they do things like this by default for Cruise because of his stature. I mean, Stallone, Chuck Norris, Kurt Russell, and Matt Damon are all like 5'10". They're not that much taller than Cruise.

Bottom line: The book is almost always better than the movie. If you ask me though, it's kinda pointless to compare the two. A book isn't a movie, and a movie isn't a book. Do people compare the Pirate of the Caribbean series to the theme park ride? Do people compare the Transformer movies to the toys or the cartoons? These are extreme comparisons, but the process is the same.

 

Ah, I didn't know that. It also likely means it was he who chose to do a Jack Reacher book specifically. It all starts to make more sense.

Either way, much of what I said above applies generally.

 

*Groan* Really? I think I'll pass.

Would he have been a catastrophic failure if he was taller? Would he have died or something?

I guess my point is that these guys have all played action heroes―most have made their whole careers out of it―and they're all shorter than I am (the opposite of action hero). The thing about film is that anyone can be made to look taller than they really are. I don't think that people fully grasp just how short the likes of Tom Cruise really are until they see them in person. I get that height is made a big deal of in the books, but I still fail to see how it's essential to the character.

Oh I get the comparison in terms of "compare and contrast," but I don't get how people are always saying, "Oh, the book is better than the movie." They might as well say, "Stories are better told in books than in film." While this isn't universally true, there is something to be said about the inherent aesthetic differences between the textual nature of literature versus the audio-visual experience in film. There are, for example, many original films that would suck rather badly as literature. Still others would have a literature adaptation that stands on its own as it does its own thing, and then, of course, people will still say, "That's not the film. The film is better." People will fight until the end of time whether The Shining works better as a novel or a film. They aren't the same. They have substantive differences. And then there's Solaris, which isn't supposed to be a love story in outer space.

I don't really get the point of it. I see it as pointless.

I will always say to people to watch the film version for being a film, for being its own thing. Don't expect it to be a film trying to be a book. If you want the book, read the book.

Not all of them. Sean Astin gained a lot of weight for the role. I suppose you can't expect all actors/extras to do the same, and fat suits just look just silly.

 

Baraka_Guru, the best way I can describe the disconnect in size between Jack Reacher in the books and Tom Cruise would be to ask this. What would be your initial impression of movies that had comedian Gabriel Iglesias playing Pele the soccer star, or Jaleel White starring as Refrigerator Perry in a story of the '85 Bears, or Gary Coleman as Wilt Chamberlain? If you aren't familiar with any of them, Google image each with who they would be playing and compare. Now imagine how hardcore soccer, football, or basketball fans would feel. The way the books are written, Reacher is almost like a superstar built around his physical qualities. As Cayvmann noted, it feels like it is mentioned 100x in every book. They are not deep books, they are more fun reads, with Reacher's height and bulk as critical as Pele's athleticism, Perry's being oversized, and Chamberlain's towering 7'+ stature. To have the movie be the complete opposite would be similar to the comparisons I made above. Maybe someone who knew nothing about soccer, the NFL, or the NBA might watch movies with those stars and take it at face value, a fan of those would be pulling their hair out or laughing in disbelief.

That being said, I may watch it once it hits Netflix or HBO, but I'm not going to pay extra for it.

 

Jesus, Borla

It's Tom Cruise, not Danny DeVito.

By the sound of the book, maybe they should've cast The Rock.

Actually, maybe Dolph Lundgren fits the bill the most at 6'5" and 240 lbs. (not to mention blond hair and blue eyes). I'm just not sure about his performance at the box office in lead roles.

Ah, well. You just can't win. In the end, it's just entertainment.

 

I was just trying to put it in terms that someone who hasn't read the books may relate to. I think The Rock or Dolph would've fit the bill well, and I don't think their lack of acting chops would've hurt the character too much in fans' eyes as compared to TC.

 

I don't feel bad for Dolph. He's done well for himself. (If you don't know that much about him, you really need to read his Wikipedia entry. The guy is amazing. Dolph Lundgren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It includes this little gem: "In early May 2009, Lundgren's Marbella home was reportedly broken into by three masked burglars who tied up and threatened [his wife] but fled when they spotted a family photo and realized that the house was owned by Lundgren.")

He just doesn't get the love he deserves at the box office. I was glad to see him as a part of the Expendables team. He provides some awesome comic relief and is probably the most interesting character in a film decidedly not about character. (Its characterization is so clumsy it's cheezy, and I hope it's intentional.)