Jack Reacher

flyswatter

Hemsworth would suit to an extent but is too young.

Vorrtexx

Like others, I'm a huge fan of the books and the character, and Tom Cruise is the last person fans would have pictured in their heads to portray Jack Reacher on screen.

As for the trailer, I think I need to see some more. I spotted some familiar scenes from the book there but I have a hard time seeing Tom playing Jack right now.

There was a TV interview with Lee Child several months back on TV3 Morning Ireland about it too, where Mark asks him about why they chose Tom for the role and what he thought about it.

You can check it out here, about 4 minutes in for those interested:

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=41053&locID=1.65.74&page=1

Littlehorny

flyswatter wrote: »

Hemsworth would suit to an extent but is too young.

Well in the books Reacher is between 35 and 38 so its not that big a stretch, dont know how old Hemsworth is but i like alot of others cant get our heads around the fact that they picked a 5ft 6 inch, dark haired, 50 year old.:)

flyswatter

Littlehorny wrote: »

flyswatter wrote: »

Hemsworth would suit to an extent but is too young.

Well in the books Reacher is between 35 and 38 so its not that big a stretch, dont know how old Hemsworth is but i like alot of others cant get our heads around the fact that they picked a 5ft 6 inch, dark haired, 50 year old.:)

He is around 45-early 50s in the books. He's around 25 in one of the prequels.

Littlehorny

flyswatter wrote: »

He is around 45-early 50s in the books. He's around 25 in one of the prequels.

In which of the books is Reacher 45 to 50? I have read 10 Reacher novels so far and he wasnt that old in any of them.

Pushtrak

Littlehorny wrote: »

In which of the books is Reacher 45 to 50? I have read 10 Reacher novels so far and he wasnt that old in any of them.

I seem to recall mid 40s whenever age was brought up specifically, but couldn't point to particular instances. Will try to find specifics...

flyswatter

Littlehorny wrote: »

In which of the books is Reacher 45 to 50? I have read 10 Reacher novels so far and he wasnt that old in any of them.

He's over 50 in the later books such as The Hard Way. (Actually not sure about that, could be younger in The Hard Way but definitely 50+ in latest books)

He was born in 1960. Pretty sure the books use modern time. So he'd be 52 now.

He was possibly late thirties in the very early books.

But also the age range I said in many of the books.

Kur4mA

I'm willing to give this a watch but having read a lot of the Reacher books it really is a terrible casting choice. For those that are saying it's just a character, you really have to read the books to get an understand of just how much of the characters background, personality, confidence and other traits are driven and tied into his physical presence and strengh.

In fact, across all of the books I have read, there are so many scenes that just would not have worked if not for the fact that he's a big, strong mofo. Examples would be when he's tied to a chain as mentioned by a previous poster and his claustrophobia which surfaces when he's forced to escape by squeezing and scraping his way through a tiny tunnel then killing someone with a single punch, squeezing someone to death and taking out whole gangs of guys through sheer brute force.

As I said, I'll watch this but will try to put out of my mind that it's supposed to be the character I know on the big screen.

indough

they sound like terrible books going by this thread

Jame Gumb

Haven't read the books but my other half and my Mum have and they are shocked / incredulous at Tom Cruise being cast as Jack Reacher.

EDIT: They suggested that Liam Neeson would be more suitable.

flyswatter

indough wrote: »

they sound like terrible books going by this thread

Even though they have many many fans including great writers like Stephen King, and are critically acclaimed?

Kur4mA

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Haven't read the books but my other half and my Mum have and they are shocked / incredulous at Tom Cruise being cast as Jack Reacher.

EDIT: They suggested that Liam Neeson would be more suitable.

I think Liam would be better suited in terms of his size, but I can't see Liam roundhouse kicking someone any time soon. Actually then again, it's Liam ****ing Neeson. One angry glance down that amazing nose and they'd be running!

flyswatter

kyub wrote: »

I think Liam would be better suited in terms of his size, but I can't see Liam roundhouse kicking someone any time soon. Actually then again, it's Liam ****ing Neeson. One angry glance down that amazing nose and they'd be running!

Don't think he'd be in it for the long haul.

indough

flyswatter wrote: »

Even though they have many many fans including great writers like Stephen King, and are critically acclaimed?

reality tv also has lots of fans and despite his ability to write interesting stories lets just say king is no hemingway, and i would consider that argument quite a poor appeal to authority.

but if the comments in this thread are to be believed then these stories revolve around a 7 foot tall 50 something behemoth who still possesses the ability to break chains with his bare hands and punch people to death with one blow. i wouldn't be surprised to hear that he also washes down a breakfast of shattered glass with sulphuric acid before brushing his teeth with nitroglycerin in the morning. it just reminds me of that dreadful trent story that did the rounds a while back and perhaps for once a movie adaptation might add realism to a ridiculous story rather than the usual reverse situation.

flyswatter

indough wrote: »

reality tv also has lots of fans and despite his ability to write interesting stories lets just say king is no hemingway, and i would consider that argument quite a poor appeal to authority.

but if the comments in this thread are to be believed then these stories revolve around a 7 foot tall 50 something behemoth who still possesses the ability to break chains with his bare hands and punch people to death with one blow. i wouldn't be surprised to hear that he also washes down a breakfast of shattered glass with sulphuric acid before brushing his teeth with nitroglycerin in the morning. it just reminds me of that dreadful trent story that did the rounds a while back and perhaps for once a movie adaptation might add realism to a ridiculous story rather than the usual reverse situation.

He didn't actually break chains with his bare hands if you actually read the books or indeed this thread.

Are you saying you can't kill someone with one blow? Of course that's possible.

Thanks for the exaggeration and farfetchedness in that post.

indough

flyswatter wrote: »

He didn't actually break chains with his bare hands if you actually read the books or indeed this thread.

Are you saying you can't kill someone with one blow? Of course that's possible.

Thanks for the exaggeration and farfetchedness in that post.

first of all, you said

flyswatter wrote: »

Reacher is chained along with a woman and kicks himself off the wall with as much force as he can to break free?

so yeah, apparently he breaks chains without using anything but his own strength, that's is to say, with his bare hands

and yes i am saying that it is far fetched that a 40 or 50 something guy will be able to just kill people with a single punch. i don't know what manner of kung fu movies you have been watching but people don't just go around killing people with one punch just like they can't actually fly up walls and do all the wire fu stuff in real life and one punch finishing move is not a module they teach you in super secret army school either.

i am also saying that if the books are that reliant on an old man's ability to knock seven shades of **** out of all and sundry and break free of metal chains using nothing but body power then their literary value is a little bit questionable.

it's just a little bit bizarre. tom cruise gets the main role in an adaptation of a glorified airport book series and people are acting like he just took a slash on the mona lisa. anyway, i will reserve judgement until I see the finished movie.

FanadMan

indough wrote: »

first of all, you said



so yeah, apparently he breaks chains without using anything but his own strength, that's is to say, with his bare hands

and yes i am saying that it is far fetched that a 40 or 50 something guy will be able to just kill people with a single punch. i don't know what manner of kung fu movies you have been watching but people don't just go around killing people with one punch just like they can't actually fly up walls and do all the wire fu stuff in real life and one punch finishing move is not a module they teach you in super secret army school either.

i am also saying that if the books are that reliant on an old man's ability to knock seven shades of **** out of all and sundry and break free of metal chains using nothing but body power then their literary value is a little bit questionable.

it's just a little bit bizarre. tom cruise gets the main role in an adaptation of a glorified airport book series and people are acting like he just took a slash on the mona lisa. anyway, i will reserve judgement until I see the finished movie.

Lee Childs books have been way up the charts whenever a new one is released so your assumption that his material is glorified airport book series is totally unfounded.

As for your other points - it is more than possible to kill someone with on punch. And it doesn't even have to be hard.

And if you read the posts properly, he didn't break the chain with his bare hands, he "is chained along with a woman and kicks himself off the wall with as much force as he can to break free". Did it anywhere there say that he broke the chain with his bare hands?

Try reading any one of the books with an open mind (though that's doubtful after reading your comments) and then come back and tell us whether you think Tom Cruise is the wrong actor for the part. But you'll probably just go to the cinema to see the film and think "Wow". In saying that, have you ever seen a film that was better than the book on which is was based?

flyswatter

indough wrote: »

first of all, you said



so yeah, apparently he breaks chains without using anything but his own strength, that's is to say, with his bare hands

and yes i am saying that it is far fetched that a 40 or 50 something guy will be able to just kill people with a single punch. i don't know what manner of kung fu movies you have been watching but people don't just go around killing people with one punch just like they can't actually fly up walls and do all the wire fu stuff in real life and one punch finishing move is not a module they teach you in super secret army school either.

i am also saying that if the books are that reliant on an old man's ability to knock seven shades of **** out of all and sundry and break free of metal chains using nothing but body power then their literary value is a little bit questionable.

it's just a little bit bizarre. tom cruise gets the main role in an adaptation of a glorified airport book series and people are acting like he just took a slash on the mona lisa. anyway, i will reserve judgement until I see the finished movie.

No, that is incorrect. I believe he is chained to a wooden wall and uses force to push himself of it with his strength. Yes, according to you, someones strength is contained entirely within their hands. That's basically what you are saying there.

He's not really an old man is he? He is/was a military cop, trained to be better than a soldier in order to outsmart rogue soldiers who commit crimes.

Are you a military consultant or something? You seem to know a lot of what is taught in combat training.

indough

FanadMan wrote: »

Lee Childs books have been way up the charts whenever a new one is released so your assumption that his material is glorified airport book series is totally unfounded.

As for your other points - it is more than possible to kill someone with on punch. And it doesn't even have to be hard.

And if you read the posts properly, he didn't break the chain with his bare hands, he "is chained along with a woman and kicks himself off the wall with as much force as he can to break free". Did it anywhere there say that he broke the chain with his bare hands?

Try reading any one of the books with an open mind (though that's doubtful after reading your comments) and then come back and tell us whether you think Tom Cruise is the wrong actor for the part. But you'll probably just go to the cinema to see the film and think "Wow". In saying that, have you ever seen a film that was better than the book on which is was based?

plenty of airport books sell well. that is pretty much the whole idea behind them. and it's okay to enjoy schlock, i enjoy reading or watching crap just like everybody else but there is no point in pretending it is high art or something.

do you actually know what the phrase 'with bare hands' means? i'll give you a clue, it doesn't necessarily involve the use of hands.

of course anyone can accidentally kill a person with a single punch, just like someone can drown in a puddle of water. because anything is possible. but the idea that a 50 year old man possesses the ability to kill other men (presumably other big men who know how to fight?) with a single punch at will is just beyond stupid.

and yes, i have seen a good few films which were better than the books they were based on. fight club, planet of the apes, the prestige just to name those on the tip of my brain.

indough

flyswatter wrote: »

No, that is incorrect. I believe he is chained to a wooden wall and uses force to push himself of it with his strength. Yes, according to you, someones strength is contained entirely within their hands. That's basically what you are saying there.

He's not really an old man is he? He is/was a military cop, trained to be better than a soldier in order to outsmart rogue soldiers who commit crimes.

Are you a military consultant or something? You seem to know a lot of what is taught in combat training.

you're absolutley right, the train MPs to be able to kill other soldiers with a single punch - judge, jury and executioner style. jesus wept. and again, with bare hands does not mean they used their hands, it simply means without the aid of any tools

flyswatter

indough wrote: »

plenty of airport books sell well. that is pretty much the whole idea behind them. and it's okay to enjoy schlock, i enjoy reading or watching crap just like everybody else but there is no point in pretending it is high art or something.

do you actually know what the phrase 'with bare hands' means? i'll give you a clue, it doesn't necessarily involve the use of hands.

of course anyone can accidentally kill a person with a single punch, just like someone can drown in a puddle of water. because anything is possible. but the idea that a 50 year old man possesses the ability to kill other men (presumably other big men who know how to fight?) with a single punch at will is just beyond stupid.

and yes, i have seen a good few films which were better than the books they were based on. fight club, planet of the apes, the prestige just to name those on the tip of my brain.

You've contradicted yourself there in your second paragraph. Anyone does include a 50 year old man.

It's not even as if he kills everyone he does with one punch.

Never heard the book described as an airport book, usually a crime book or similar.

Hang on a second, would you not just read some of the books and make up your own mind rather than close yourself off to them by reading a thread which vaguely describes a couple of scenes from a series of 17 books?

FanadMan

indough wrote: »

plenty of airport books sell well. that is pretty much the whole idea behind them. and it's okay to enjoy schlock, i enjoy reading or watching crap just like everybody else but there is no point in pretending it is high art or something.

do you actually know what the phrase 'with bare hands' means? i'll give you a clue, it doesn't necessarily involve the use of hands.

of course anyone can accidentally kill a person with a single punch, just like someone can drown in a puddle of water. because anything is possible. but the idea that a 50 year old man possesses the ability to kill other men (presumably other big men who know how to fight?) with a single punch at will is just beyond stupid.

and yes, i have seen a good few films which were better than the books they were based on. fight club, planet of the apes, the prestige just to name those on the tip of my brain.

I don't think anyone here even suggested that Childs work is classed as high art - it's good fun reading with interesting plot lines and a central character that is complex and highly intelligent. And as a former military policeman, is well trained in unarmed combat.

The whole point behind this thread was about casting Cruise, which fans of Lee Childs work mostly seem to agree, is a poor choice. Personally I'd almost prefer if they hadn't made a film adaptation of even one of the books as it could never live up to it.

Pushtrak

indough if you actually care for the content of the books, I'd recommend you read them. If you want to get a taste of any/all the books, then you can read an excerpt from them here. His first one is Killing Floor.

indough

flyswatter wrote: »

You've contradicted yourself there in your second paragraph. Anyone does include a 50 year old man.

It's not even as if he kills everyone he does with one punch.

Never heard the book described as an airport book, usually a crime book or similar.

Hang on a second, would you not just read some of the books and make up your own mind rather than close yourself off to them by reading a thread which vaguely describes a couple of scenes from a series of 17 books?

no i have not contradicted myself. the phrase 'with bare hands' is an (evidently almost) universally known one which means without using anything, ie tools. it does not literally mean he used his hands. i can't believe i am actually having to explain this to two people who don't already know it in all honesty.

and yes i am aware it is possible for anyone to kill another human being with a perfectly placed punch, however unlikely. but that also means it is not unbelievable for tom cruise to do it. he would have the same chance of doing it as anyone else would.

also you would do well to remember that this is a film and an adaptation. the first means that they can make him look bigger than he is if it is really all that important, the second means it does not have to be and in fact has a duty not to be a literal translation of the source material.

indough

Pushtrak wrote: »

indough if you actually care for the content of the books, I'd recommend you read them. If you want to get a taste of any/all the books, then you can read an excerpt from them here. His first one is Killing Floor.

ill have a read of it thanks.

Pushtrak

I'm not so quick to accept one using their body weight is still under the classification of "bare arms" and I think we'll need more than your say so to think it is the case.

indough

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm not so quick to accept one using their body weight is still under the classification of "bare arms" and I think we'll need more than your say so to think it is the case.

with your bare hands
without using any type of tool or weapon

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/with+bare+hands

its actually insane that i have to not only explain this but provide a source

Adverb
barehandedly (not comparable)
With one's bare hands; without any tool or weapon

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barehandedly

Pushtrak

That is using only your hands, in the absence of a weapon. So, using body weight isn't exactly the same thing. So, you are still wrong.

Opinicus

Don't feed the troll

FanadMan

indough wrote: »

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/with+bare+hands

its actually insane that i have to not only explain this but provide a source

Adverb
barehandedly (not comparable)
With one's bare hands; without any tool or weapon

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barehandedly

Oh gee, thanks!!! Don't think I'd have ever know that without your help

indough

you lot are actually being beyond ridiculous. if i kicked one of you in the head and you died then it would not be out of place to say i'd killed you with my bare hands. this is exactly the same thing, but then i suppose you lot would embarrass yourselves by arguing until you were blue in the face that technically it was bare feet.

i read a couple of excerpts from those books and they are indeed rubbish if that's the very best they have to offer. i can see they might be entertaining enough in a dan brown-esque turn the page type way but it reads like a bad 80's action movie and it's not something i'd be getting bent out of shape about as if they stand to ruin something great.

FanadMan

okey dokey.......bye bye then

mongdesade

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher...are you fúcking serious ???

'Reacher is 6' 5" tall (1.96m) with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 210 and 250 pounds (100–115 kg). He has ice-blue eyes and dirty blond hair.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher

bodyhead

Tom Cruise as an actor will always be a big draw no doubt about that. But the guy is simply too small for the role. The one thing about the Jack Reacher character is his size and physicality, if you read the books its the one thing thats mention over and over again.


They only saving grace for the movie is the director, have to agree with a previous poster about the "Way of the Gun" such an amazing movie and very underrated.

flyswatter

It's such a shame they have a totally unsuitable actor playing Reacher cos there does seem to some good talent writing and producing the film.

DrumSteve

mongdesade wrote: »

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher...are you fúcking serious ???

'Reacher is 6' 5" tall (1.96m) with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 210 and 250 pounds (100–115 kg). He has ice-blue eyes and dirty blond hair.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher

Sounds like Thomas Jane should have played him.

JP Liz V1

Second trailer is out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV6Z5KUja4k

Littlehorny

As a film in itself that trailer looks good, but i'm a fan of the books and Cruise just doesnt look tough enough to play Reacher, never mind the fact he is too small but that debate has been done several times all ready. Actors like Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig are not massive men but they look like hardy basterds, sorry but Cruise is still too pretty for me. Maybe he's too well known to pull off the Reacher charactor.

Deliverance XXV

They could have least auto-tuned his voice to something more masculine.

FanadMan

Littlehorny wrote: »

As a film in itself that trailer looks good, but i'm a fan of the books and Cruise just doesnt look tough enough to play Reacher, never mind the fact he is too small but that debate has been done several times all ready. Actors like Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig are not massive men but they look like hardy basterds, sorry but Cruise is still too pretty for me. Maybe he's too well known to pull off the Reacher charactor.

Deliverance XXV wrote: »

They could have least auto-tuned his voice to something more masculine.

Watched Knight and Day tonight. Cruise is a decent enough actor but there is no way he can do a Reacher. They should have thought it through and filmed all the books with a decent actor. Then again, they might try and do a Bond and change the actor over the years.

Kess73

Littlehorny wrote: »

As a film in itself that trailer looks good, but i'm a fan of the books and Cruise just doesnt look tough enough to play Reacher, never mind the fact he is too small but that debate has been done several times all ready. Actors like Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig are not massive men but they look like hardy basterds, sorry but Cruise is still too pretty for me. Maybe he's too well known to pull off the Reacher charactor.

Yeah I think the size thing is an issue given how often it gets highlighted in each of the books.

For me someone like Ryan Hurst (played Opie in Sons Of Anarchy) had the right mix of size and masculinity for the role without having the sort of profile that would make him a household name.

If people look at his build during seasons four and five of SOA, then you pretty much get a guy who is close to the right size in build and height, but who also can portray that "kick your face in" edge.




He is on the left in the gif and that is him a few years before the more muscled version I mentioned earlier in the post.

Mr E

Having read all of the Jack Reacher books, I've always thought the casting of Cruise was horrible.

Having said that, I'm very surprised to have read a very positive review this morning. I'll reserve judgement until I see it, but now (for the first time) I'm actually looking forward to it.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59895

speedboatchase

There's only one actor with any box office bankability to portray the book's decision of the character and that's Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Snow White and the Huntsman). Cruise is a great actor though in any role so I wouldn't rule him out.

wrmwit

speedboatchase wrote: »

There's only one actor with any box office bankability to portray the book's decision of the character and that's Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Snow White and the Huntsman). Cruise is a great actor though in any role so I wouldn't rule him out.

Not sure if Chris Hemsworth would fit the Jack Reacher character. I imagine Reacher in his mid 40's and rough around the edges so I think Russel Crowe would fit the character perfectly.
Just saw the official trailor. Even though I'm disappointed Tom Cruise is playing Reacher, the movie looks good.

Ken.

I use to be a member of the Lee Child forums and a poll on their had Michael Clarke Duncan as the overwhelming winner to play Reacher in a film(He got 85% of votes with the other 15% shared between 9 other actors,Liam Neeson came second). This was way back in '06. Although he was a black guy he would still have been more believable than Cruise.

speedboatchase

ken wrote: »

I use to be a member of the Lee Child forums and a poll on their had Michael Clarke Duncan as the overwhelming winner to play Reacher in a film(He got 85% of votes with the other 15% shared between 9 other actors,Liam Neeson came second). This was way back in '06. Although he was a black guy he would still have been more believable than Cruise.

Director Christopher McQuarrie had an interesting quote in this month's Empire Magazine in which he said that all of the forums which people speculate on their ideal actor are films that just couldn't have happened. This is only McQuarrie's second film (his first was 12 years ago) and it seemed like there would've been no chance the project would get off the ground with him as director and the budget provided were it not for Cruise's involvement and his bankability.

Anyway 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'm optimistic.

johnny_ultimate

They cast Werner Herzog as the villain.

Therefore they can cast whoever the **** they want as the hero as far as I'm concerned :pac:

MagicMarker

I've read Killing Floor which was good fun. When I think of the character I can't help but think of Ray Stevenson, I think he'd be absolutely perfect for the role.

Littlehorny

ken wrote: »

I use to be a member of the Lee Child forums and a poll on their had Michael Clarke Duncan as the overwhelming winner to play Reacher in a film(He got 85% of votes with the other 15% shared between 9 other actors,Liam Neeson came second). This was way back in '06. Although he was a black guy he would still have been more believable than Cruise.

In the six years since that poll, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has come on the scene and he certainly has the physicality to play Reacher, have watched the trailer a few times now and even when Cruise is trying to talk tough he sounds about as menacing as yorhshire terrier.
Even during the street fight he looks tiny, when Reacher walks into a room he should cast a shadow and have a small air of menace about him. A younger Clint Eastwood comes to mind, a guy that you would fear a little just looking at him.

Mrkennedy

Was looking forward to this film, but Tom Cruise is so miscast alot of people won't bother seeing it now.