Has Cruise lost it?

[Buck]

It's an old question: How important is it to stay true to the source material?
Change a detail from comic book, and the nerds get upset. That has to be anticipated, but you also have to bear in mind that those fans make up a portion of your movie audience - a big portion of your repeat viewers if your movie is good.

Make all the changes you want to a great book like 'Bonfire of the Vanities,' and no one bats an eye. The movie stunk, in part, because it got away from the source.

Look at 'The Shining.'

Jackson's made changes to 'The Hobbit.'

That's why I don't watch movies about books I have read.

If it's a book I really love, like 'Life of Pi,' 'Even Cowgirls get the Blues,' 'The Hobbit' or 'Bonfire of the Vanities,' I worry about how they're going to butcher it, but most of the time I end up watching it.

It also makes a difference for me if the book was entertainment reading or whether it had a deeper aesthetic resonance for me.

I read 'The Hobbit' when I was 8, and what constitutes aesthetic resonance at one age doesn't always translate to a later age. Now I wouldn't argue in favor of a lot of larger artistic merit for it, but my attachment to it is still very strong. So when I hear about Jackson changing elements of the story, I cringe.

 

[Bradley Guire]

I'm neutral on Cruise. Never heard of a "Jack Reacher" book. That said, the previews made it look like any run-of-the-mill cop movie post-Bourne.

They could have at least come up with a better title. Unless it's a widely known character like Superman or Lincoln, names as titles don't work, at least until the sequel. Consider "First Blood" and "Dr. No." Okay, so Dr. No was a name, but it wasn't your average name, like "Michael Clayton."

Jason Statham is about to be in a movie called "Parker." Big damn deal, until I tell you that he's playing a 60s book character most recently played by Mel Gibson in a movie called "Payback." (Note: The character was renamed Porter in the Gibson movie.) But who the heck is going to make that connection without either A) having read the original book or B) reading Wikipedia?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Saw the movie... Thought it exceeded my low expectations...

 

[Buck]

Saw the movie... Thought it exceeded my low expectations...

Let's get this into the ad copy.

 

[EStreetJoe]

Did Cruise ever have it in order to lose it?

 

[Bradley Guire]

Cruise was never in "Legend." He was just high on PCP and imagined the whole thing.

 

[Small Town Guy]

Saw Reacher today -- Django was sold out. And Reacher was actually packed too by the start of it, probably the people like me who needed something else to go to. That said, I liked it. The size ultimately didn't bother me. I still have the image of Reacher in my head from the books so the vision of tiny Tom won't intrude when I read the next one. I don't think it mattered in the film (for those who did read the books) because it'd be hard anyway to express intimidation on screen. Thought he got enough of the other traits right to make it work.

 

[Pilot]

Or "The Scarlett Letter."

How close are the Bourne books to the movies?

Pretty close. I have read the Ludlum Bourne books plus the one after he died and the character seems very close to what is portrayed in the movie.

There's very little in common between the movies and books. Actually, Bourne stands as a fine example of a way to make a movie from a book: take the character, then forget everything else. Maybe the character stays true, but beyond that, several other character names and the actual names of the movies, they are completely, utterly different. That's not a knock on the movies, either. They clearly didn't even attempt to remake the books. I loved the movies, but they break away about 1/3 of the way through the first movie and in absolutely no way drift back toward the same storyline.

 

[Pilot]

Oh, and Knight and Day was sweet.

And Top Gun is my all-time favorite movie.

Cruise hasn't done too bad for himself. First, very few actors ever rise to the level he was at in his prime. And most of those who have aren't still reeling off blockbuster movies 30 years after they were in that prime. He's alive and has mostly avoided simply dreadful movies, and that's probably difficult to do.

 

[Versatile]

Or "The Scarlett Letter."

How close are the Bourne books to the movies?

Pretty close. I have read the Ludlum Bourne books plus the one after he died and the character seems very close to what is portrayed in the movie.

There's very little in common between the movies and books. Actually, Bourne stands as a fine example of a way to make a movie into a book: take the character, then forget everything else. Maybe the character stays true, but beyond that, several other character names and the actual names of the movies, they are completely, utterly different. That's not a knock on the movies, either. They clearly didn't even attempt to remake the books. I loved the movies, but they break away about 1/3 of the way through the first movie and in absolutely no way drift back toward the same storyline.

I agree with all this. I haven't seen the Bourne movies, but I have read the first two books and plot summaries from the movies and they are wildly different.

And they had to be for the movies to work.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Saw the trailer for Oblivion the other day and it just looks stupid. Reacher, on the other hand, was a pretty cool movie. But then, as I noted on the last movie you watched thread, I haven't read the books.

 

[Boom_70]

Went to see Reacher over the weekend. Really enjoyed it and thought Cruise did a great job portraying Reacher. Height was not an issue.

Highlight though was Robert Duval in small role. I can never see enough of his work.