Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

[NJCardFan]

Better question: Why is a movie being made about Hulk Hogan?

You don't think it would be an intriguing story? He is bar none the biggest star in professional wrestling history and one of the biggest personalities in entertainment history. He pretty much singlehandedly brought pro wrestling into the mainstream. Then there's the controversial side of him and his family between steroids to his son's legal problems to his sex tape with the racial slur and suing Buzzfeed. I think the guy's story needs to be told.

 

[Chaplin]

Did it ever occur to anybody that this movie would never have been made had Tom Cruise NOT played Jack Reacher?

Now, I firmly believe that the first Jack Reacher would have been better served to be a non-Reacher action movie with Cruise instead and we wouldn't be at all upset, since the first movie was pretty good. Tall or not, he was pretty bad ass in it. (The 2nd movie was terrible, regardless of it being a Jack Reacher movie)

Lee Childs can piss and moan all he wants, but he received A LOT of exposure being involved with Tom Cruise. He should just shut up and count his money. If they want to "do it right" with the series, then go ahead, but this complaining about Tom Cruise is ridiculous.

 

[Dback Jon]

Did it ever occur to anybody that this movie would never have been made had Tom Cruise NOT played Jack Reacher?

Now, I firmly believe that the first Jack Reacher would have been better served to be a non-Reacher action movie with Cruise instead and we wouldn't be at all upset, since the first movie was pretty good. Tall or not, he was pretty bad ass in it. (The 2nd movie was terrible, regardless of it being a Jack Reacher movie)

Lee Childs can piss and moan all he wants, but he received A LOT of exposure being involved with Tom Cruise. He should just shut up and count his money. If they want to "do it right" with the series, then go ahead, but this complaining about Tom Cruise is ridiculous.

The first movie was good - as long as I told myself it was just a Tom Cruise action/adventure flick, not a Jack Reacher film.

Would a James Bond movie with Danny Davito as James Bond be any good?

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Did it ever occur to anybody that this movie would never have been made had Tom Cruise NOT played Jack Reacher?

Now, I firmly believe that the first Jack Reacher would have been better served to be a non-Reacher action movie with Cruise instead and we wouldn't be at all upset, since the first movie was pretty good. Tall or not, he was pretty bad ass in it. (The 2nd movie was terrible, regardless of it being a Jack Reacher movie)

Lee Childs can piss and moan all he wants, but he received A LOT of exposure being involved with Tom Cruise. He should just shut up and count his money. If they want to "do it right" with the series, then go ahead, but this complaining about Tom Cruise is ridiculous.

Simply not true. It would have been made at some point just because of the character's popularity. Read something about the sales of Child's books the other day and it was well over 100 million copies sold. The stat they dropped into the story was "A Reacher book is purchased every 20 seconds somewhere in the world." That's pretty impressive. And half or more than half of his readership is made up of women.

As for the author's feelings on Cruise and the backlash?

Two of the Reacher books have been turned into films, the 5ft 7in Tom Cruise, 54, taking the role of the 6ft 5in, 250lb hero. Would Child have chosen him? "Honestly? I don't care. To me, the book is the ultimate thing. I've never regarded any of them as a chrysalis waiting to become a movie."

It appears that he didn't really care who played Reacher because he didn't set out to write books in order for them to be made into films. So when a tiny big star wants to play your giant of a character you sign off on it and likely sell even more books because of it and then people get to experience the real Reacher.

Now that he's done that route and seen the backlash I think he wants to make it up to the readers by putting together a show with a more lifelike representation of Reacher. Completely understandable.

 

[Chaplin]

Simply not true. It would have been made at some point just because of the character's popularity. Read something about the sales of Child's books the other day and it was well over 100 million copies sold. The stat they dropped into the story was "A Reacher book is purchased every 20 seconds somewhere in the world." That's pretty impressive. And half or more than half of his readership is made up of women.

As for the author's feelings on Cruise and the backlash?

Two of the Reacher books have been turned into films, the 5ft 7in Tom Cruise, 54, taking the role of the 6ft 5in, 250lb hero. Would Child have chosen him? "Honestly? I don't care. To me, the book is the ultimate thing. I've never regarded any of them as a chrysalis waiting to become a movie."

It appears that he didn't really care who played Reacher because he didn't set out to write books in order for them to be made into films. So when a tiny big star wants to play your giant of a character you sign off on it and likely sell even more books because of it and then people get to experience the real Reacher.

Now that he's done that route and seen the backlash I think he wants to make it up to the readers by putting together a show with a more lifelike representation of Reacher. Completely understandable.

Then why is he also upset about Tom Cruise? If he didn't care, why is he being a jerk about it now?

I know you're taking all this personally, but it shouldn't.

 

[Chaplin]

The first movie was good - as long as I told myself it was just a Tom Cruise action/adventure flick, not a Jack Reacher film.

Would a James Bond movie with Danny Davito as James Bond be any good?

Really? That's the analogy you come up with??

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Really? That's the analogy you come up with??

I'm surprised he didn't say Nicolas Cage as Bond... Jon's a huge Nic Cage fan.

 

[Dback Jon]

Really? That's the analogy you come up with??

What is wrong with it? Jack Reacher's size and brute strength are just as much a part of his character as Bond's good looks and suave demeanor.

 

[Covert Rain]

What is wrong with it? Jack Reacher's size and brute strength are just as much a part of his character as Bond's good looks and suave demeanor.

Huh? Jack’s military background and resourcefulness I would agree. That’s his persona verses a physical description.

Even James Bond’s description isn’t the same as every actor that has played him. Craig is a great Bond because he captures the spirit of the character.

What if Idris Elba became bond? Are you saying even though he doesn’t fit the physical description he couldn’t possible be a good Bond and therefore you would have to pretend it’s an IE movie?

 

[Dback Jon]

Huh? Jack’s military background and resourcefulness I would agree. That’s his persona verses a physical description.

Even James Bond’s description isn’t the same as every actor that has played him. Craig is a great Bond because he captures the spirit of the character.

What if Idris Elba became bond? Are you saying even though he doesn’t fit the physical description he couldn’t possible be a good Bond and therefore you would have to pretend it’s an IE movie?

No, for Bond skin color is the least of his attributes - his debonair persona, handsome, ladies man - that transcends color.

And yes, Reacher's size (both height and bulkiness) are a huge part of the books.

 

[Covert Rain]

No, for Bond skin color is the least of his attributes - his debonair persona, handsome, ladies man - that transcends color.

And yes, Reacher's size (both height and bulkiness) are a huge part of the books.

I have read the books now. I disagree that it’s as important as who the character is. A physical description is a physical description. After a brief mention it doesn’t even cross my mind again as much as the dialogue or actions of the character.

Oh and let’s put the description aside for a second. It’s infinitely more interesting for someone who appears more un-assuming to kick ass compared to a guy that already has size. In martial arts that it also more realistic.

 

[cardncubfan]

Having not read the books I enjoyed both Reacher movies.

 

[Chaplin]

What is wrong with it? Jack Reacher's size and brute strength are just as much a part of his character as Bond's good looks and suave demeanor.

I just could't believe you said what amounted to a comparison between Tom Cruise and Danny DeVito.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I just could't believe you said what amounted to a comparison between Tom Cruise and Danny DeVito.

DeVito and Cruise are closer in height than Cruise and Reacher !!

 

[Dback Jon]

I just could't believe you said what amounted to a comparison between Tom Cruise and Danny DeVito.

That is not what I said...just showed how bad the casting of Cruise in a Jack Reacher movie was.

 

[Covert Rain]

That is not what I said...just showed how bad the casting of Cruise in a Jack Reacher movie was.

Bad casting because of his height??!?! You know how many hollywood movies wouldn't have been cast the way they were if height determines bad casting?!!?

 

[NJCardFan]

Huh? Jack’s military background and resourcefulness I would agree. That’s his persona verses a physical description.

Even James Bond’s description isn’t the same as every actor that has played him. Craig is a great Bond because he captures the spirit of the character.

What if Idris Elba became bond? Are you saying even though he doesn’t fit the physical description he couldn’t possible be a good Bond and therefore you would have to pretend it’s an IE movie?

Actually, an unofficial theory is that the name James Bond is as much of a code name as 007 is. Hence the explaining away of the different Bond's(Sean Connery, Roger Moore, David Niven, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig). Another fan theory is that in the movie The Rock, Sean Connery's character of John Mason was James Bond who got ahold of U.S. secrets and was locked away, untried, in prison until he returned those secrets. Again, these are unofficial theories but they kinda make sense.

Oh, and not for nothing but Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond was brilliant.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Bad casting because of his height??!?! You know how many hollywood movies wouldn't have been cast the way they were if height determines bad casting?!!?

Not just height. Poor casting because there are so many Reacher books (I'm reading #22 right now) and he starts out in his mid-30's in the first book (not counting the prequel-style books where he's even younger). Why not cast a younger person and have a chance at making many more films with the same actor? Instead you go with a guy that is nothing like the character and he's already 50. Not going to be long for the series regardless of the reviews. Also - poor choice to go with book #9 and then book #18 as movies 1 and 2. Meh.

 

[Covert Rain]

Not just height. Poor casting because there are so many Reacher books (I'm reading #22 right now) and he starts out in his mid-30's in the first book (not counting the prequel-style books where he's even younger). Why not cast a younger person and have a chance at making many more films with the same actor? Instead you go with a guy that is nothing like the character and he's already 50. Not going to be long for the series regardless of the reviews. Also - poor choice to go with book #9 and then book #18 as movies 1 and 2. Meh.

This isn't Harry Potter. There is no way they will ever do all the books with one actor so that isn't a valid excuse. You go with any good actor that is billable. Period. That's how movies work. TC is still a huge draw at the box office and the MI films prove that. You can't have a franchise of films if nobody goes and sees some guy who looks like him but either doesn't have the acting chops or isn't a box office draw.

By the way you will get no argument from me on the choice of books. I thought they did a piss poor job of deciding how they were going to do that.

 

[Covert Rain]

Actually, an unofficial theory is that the name James Bond is as much of a code name as 007 is. Hence the explaining away of the different Bond's(Sean Connery, Roger Moore, David Niven, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig). Another fan theory is that in the movie The Rock, Sean Connery's character of John Mason was James Bond who got ahold of U.S. secrets and was locked away, untried, in prison until he returned those secrets. Again, these are unofficial theories but they kinda make sense.

Oh, and not for nothing but Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond was brilliant.

I have read that theory and I have always been a fan of it. They have alluded to it in the films when you hear that a 00X has died and then in later films that person has been replaced. It's weird because they have never really made it official and yet it would be such a cool thing to do that fans could accept.

I would LOVE IT if they made that official.

By the way, never considered Woody Allen a James Bond. I still don't. I consider if a parody of James Bond and not a very funny one at that. That movie was terrible IMO. The new Casino Royale is vastly superior.

 

[AZCrazy]

Here's a better idea. Chris Hemsworth as Jack Reacher. Cruise can play Hulk Hogan.

 

[oaken1]

Terry Crewes as Jack Reacher.....or is he too old?

 

[Bada0Bing]

DeVito and Cruise are closer in height than Cruise and Reacher !!

BIM, you are very consistent; I will give you that.

I thought it was a decent spy flick with some cool scenes. However, I thought it was weird Reacher used yards rather than meters. Seemed strange for a military guy.