Finally, not Tom Cruise

[cyberknight]

View attachment 622843

i liked that post even though im the same height so oyyyy !

 

[yello]

I'm not sure I have an opinion on that question as such, hence me being curious.

There was a link drawn between his success and "what he does" (like one necessarily followed the other) without any reference to what exactly it is that he does to make him successful. He's an actor in movies (no shortage of those) AND he is both undeniably successful and 'box office'. The two clearly don't go hand in hand so I was interested to know why someone might think he has found success.

I'm not quibbling with the statement "he's good at what he does", I'm just wondering what people think it is that he does that makes him so successful. It's obviously not just his acting, so charisma? screen presence? persona? I don't know and I myself don't see it. What is his formula, if you like. What is his X factor.

As an actor, I liked him in Jerry Maguire and Magnolia, but there's nothing else that springs to mind as memorable, despite me having seen him in a number of other films. I haven't seen him in interviews so don't know about him interviewing well or otherwise.

So, in short, I was just interested (without any intended malice or snide) as to what people thought lay behind his obvious box office draw.

 

[matticus]

Why are people so precious and literal about book adaptations? It's a good thing film-makers with imagination exist, or perhaps 20thC Fox made a mistake commisioning this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_+_Juliet

It's got guns in, it's set in 1996, and they couldn't even spell the title correctly! But it made 58million at the box office.

 

[matticus]

As an actor, I liked him in Jerry Maguire and Magnolia, but there's nothing else that springs to mind as memorable, despite me having seen him in a number of other films.

Tell us what you saw in him during Jerry Maguire. (I picked that one as I watched about 30mins worth last week!) Then perhaps we can extrapolate

 

[mistyoptic]

Why are people so precious and literal about book adaptations?

I think, maybe, it's due to the version you've created in your head when you read the book. The visual in the film has to match.

A bit like cover versions; the version of a song you heard first and became accustomed to is the "right" version, whether it's the original or no

 

[yello]

Why are people so precious and literal about book adaptations?

Books, and literature generally, are important to some people and it can be very disappointing, or angering even, to see an adaptation that one feels does not 'do justice' (however one interprets that) to the text - be it literally or more a sense of feeling, or whatever.

Some people are more 'book people' than 'film people' (I tend to be more the latter) and such things can become very personal. We all have our favourite texts, and films. I'm sure you do

 

[matticus]

I think, maybe, it's due to the version you've created in your head when you read the book. The visual in the film has to match.

A bit like cover versions; the version of a song you heard first and became accustomed to is the "right" version, whether it's the original or no

Then I think you are doomed to disappointment whenever you consume these things. Films can NEVER be just like books, and cover versions SHOULD never be the same as the original.
Just ignore them, and let us enjoy them - if they're any good that is. But that's the choice of the individual watching/listening.

 

[yello]

Just ignore them, and let us enjoy them - if they're any good that is. But that's the choice of the individual watching/listening.

Nobody is stopping you enjoying them.

I could turn this around. Why do you get upset because someone gets upset over a film adaptation? It shouldn't impact on your enjoyment.

If people are dooming themselves to disappointment, so what? Personally, I get that, I can share that feeling. It doesn't pertain to everything they/I see/read/listen to but I've been there.

I have favourite books. Would I watch a film adaptation? Yes. Do I know I run the risk of disappointment? Yes. Would I voice my disappointment? If the topic arose, quite probably. But my disappointment is not intended to impact on anyone else's enjoyment.

As you said, subjective

 

[welsh dragon]

I don't get upset at how characters in books are portrayed. However the integral point of Jack Reacher is his size. It's the the very beginning book 1 is based on.

And I am not sure about the latest reincarnation either. The trailer i saw showed a rather wooden character. However it was only 30 seconds worth so hopefully when it is aired, the series will be better. Fingers crossed.

 

[Pale Rider]

There was a link drawn between his success and "what he does" (like one necessarily followed the other) without any reference to what exactly it is that he does to make him successful.

There's a danger of over analysing it.

Cruise is probably best known for playing action heroes.

I can't think of anyone currently acting who does a better job of such roles.

Has he ever made a duff film?

I'd never heard of Jack Reacher until the Cruise films popped up on Sky.

I got what I expected, two more excellent thrillers.

Goodness knows what makes him so watchable, but the fact he's a likeable guy in real life is a good foundation.

When he was filming the latest Mission Impossible in Northumberland a few months ago, he came into contact with lots of locals.

Every tale that emerged from those interactions said what a top man he is.

 

[a.twiddler]

I think, maybe, it's due to the version you've created in your head when you read the book. The visual in the film has to match.

A bit like cover versions; the version of a song you heard first and became accustomed to is the "right" version, whether it's the original or no

Books, and literature generally, are important to some people and it can be very disappointing, or angering even, to see an adaptation that one feels does not 'do justice' (however one interprets that) to the text - be it literally or more a sense of feeling, or whatever.

Some people are more 'book people' than 'film people' (I tend to be more the latter) and such things can become very personal. We all have our favourite texts, and films. I'm sure you do

Took the words out of my finger as I was typing them. A book requires you to construct a reality in your mind from the author's words. Cover versions? i've learned to love some cover versions, sometimes the originals may be good but for some reason, an event in your life perhaps, a cover version may come to mean more to you.

Generally a film presents you with a finished image based on the production team's interpretation and they might build in some ambiguity so you can interpret some of it your way.

It's not always true that the film version comes a poor second to the book. No one can doubt Tolkien's imagination and erudition for example, but having waded through his "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy I have to admit that some of his work is a bit turgid in places. The Peter Jackson film trilogy clarified the story and made it watchable to millions who might not have read it and to me it seemed as close to what was written as is possible in film format, others of a more scholarly bent might disagree but it seemed a pretty impressive feat to me.

When films great and small can be done so well, it annoys me when so many aren't made in the best way they can be, in a spirit of wholeheartedness. Someone might be motivated to go and read a book having seen a film and it would be good for them to see that the characters are true to type rather than compromised in some way.

 

[matticus]

When films great and small can be done so well, it annoys me when so many aren't made in the best way they can be, in a spirit of wholeheartedness. Someone might be motivated to go and read a book having seen a film and it would be good for them to see that the characters are true to type rather than compromised in some way.

Whereas I think that life is enriched when adaptations do something different.

(I also understand that different media are different - why not play to their strengths?)

 

[mistyoptic]

Then I think you are doomed to disappointment whenever you consume these things. Films can NEVER be just like books, and cover versions SHOULD never be the same as the original.
Just ignore them, and let us enjoy them - if they're any good that is. But that's the choice of the individual watching/listening.

In “The Killing Floor” Reacher describes himself:

“I am a white man. I am very tall. My hair is fair”.

That’s not hard for a producer to understand. I don’t think artistic interpretation is an excuse.

I don’t have a problem with films not following the book exactly but miscasting the principal character so badly is a different matter.

we will have to differ

 

[matticus]

I don't get upset at how characters in books are portrayed. However the integral point of Jack Reacher is his size. It's the the very beginning book 1 is based on

okay okay ... I give in !

Although I'm not prepared to concede that adaptations should be judged on how they conform to every little detail, I DO concede that Reacher fans are often quite passionate about the Size Thing. And of course I can't make you like the bloody films by shouting at you, so being a jolly nice chap I shall permit your opinions on this one

[... but I still think one should *consider* that adaptations that tear-up your preconceptions are *sometimes* A Good Thing. And certainly better than an adaptation that is crap in every other way - they could have got Dolph Lundgren! )

 

[T4tomo]

when is it released on amazon? Will look out for it, should be decent uncomplicated viewing. I do like the books but never read 2 in a row. need to read one or two other books in between otherwise too samey.

The TC film was decent enough despite casting a midget in the role of a Giant!