Jack Reacher franchise hangs in the balance

News Simon Brew 16 Jan 2013 - 06:36

If you're holding out hope for Jack Reacher 2, the odds aren't looking too great at the moment...

We quite enjoyed Christopher McQuarrie's movie of Lee Child's Jack Reacher character. Whether you felt that Tom Cruise was the right choice for the title role, he gave a solid performance in the movie, and we were expecting it to be a bigger hit than, thus far, it's turned out to be.

As things stand, the film's international box office total is around the $150m mark, which does suggest that - outside of the Mission: Impossible franchise - Tom Cruise's box office pulling power is on the wane (although that's been said before). However, Jack Reacher was quite an economical film to make by modern standards, with a budget around the $60m mark.

So what's needed to kickstart another film? According to The Hollywood Reporter, a worldwide gross of $250m is the magic number, although the chances of that being hit aren't high. That said, there are three key territories to go in the film's release schedule, namely Korea, China and Japan. Those countries contributed around $50m to the worldwide gross of the last Tom Cruise film to perform at a similar level - Knight And Day - and they'll need to do that and more to get Jack Reacher 2 moving.

We hope it happens, primarily because we're keen to see Christopher McQuarrie directing another instalment. That said, McQuarrie and Cruise are also set to come together again for Mission: Impossible 5, which may yet press ahead later this year, or early next.

For now, Tom Cruise's next big blockbuster is Oblivion, followed by All You Need Is Kill. He'll be hoping that one of those, at least, hits big.

The Hollywood Reporter.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Possible spoilers (though the screenwriters already did most of that) Terrible film.. they forgot to add the special effects.. the opening scene was like something from "let's pretend" and the bathroom fight was akin to "dumb and dumber". I've rarely seen such utter rubbish. And what was with the pointless Lethal Weapon scene grafted in at the end.. "Uh-oh, this 12(!!!) rated film doesnt have ANYTHING happening, lets crowbar in a stupid extra fight and... um... it probably should spontaneously start raining.."

I would have seen it IF Tom Cruise wasn't in it

I vaguely remember "lets pretend" from when I was a kid, but I have *no* idea what you are going on about. Personally I thought it was a damn good comic book style thriller, that knew just how pulpy & silly the books are and played with it. Good, pulpy fun, and well made to boot. As for the fight? It was meant to be funny, and it was.

I quite liked it...

The casting of Cruise was a massive mis-hit with the multitude of Jack Reacher book fans. Seriously miscalculated. The tens of thousands of Lee Child fans opted to stay away rather than go. They would be fairly keen for there not to be a 2nd instalment of Tom Cruise trying to play a character whose whole persona is centred around him being a 6'4" "built like a shed" hero.

No blood was a big issue for me. I just can't believe a sniper rifle doesn't make any mess. (Hence the "let's pretend" comment, the actors just sit or lie down on queue). The "funny" fight scene.. well even Reacher's character didn't seem to acknowledge the comedy.. it was out of place (for me). Reacher (from the books) would never have been caught off guard by idiots who walk through a doorway with a baseball bat sideways... Glad you enjoyed it, but for me it sacrificed it's soul for the 12 rating. It should have been hard, bloody and visceral. The other thing that really jarred was the desperate attempts to make him look tall.. bizare filming angles and just plain stupid height changes dogged the film.. If Peter Jackson could show us a person playing a hobbit, i'm sure they could have reversed the technology to show us a hobbit playing Reacher.. Either way, horses for courses! I wouldnt be sad to see another, but not a 12 this time..

Outside of the why's and wherefores of TC being in this, and the 12 rating, what gets my goat is that they consider a film made for $60m that grosses $150m a failure?

Really?

Come on something stinks about this surely? If the film cost $60m to make, I assume the marketing costs need to be added on top which possibly doubles that budget figure. Then the needing to make $250m takings starts (but only just) to make sense.

If not, this potentially has a knock on effect. We're already plagued with unnecessary sequels and reboots due to Hollywood only wanting 'sure things'; but this just gives them an excuse.

I too am sick and tired of Tom Cruise, his little man syndrome and his desire to run fast in every movie. Time to go back in the closet Tom.

The only issue with this film for me was Rosamund Pike.

She seemed to keep the same annoying expression for the entirety of the film. Just a look of confusion through out. It never seemed to change.

I would not have driven backwards towards a sniper for that annoying woman!

If freako,Scientology boy had not been involved in it, i might of been tempted to watch.

How is this different than not seeing a movie because an actor is Christian, Muslim or Jewish?

You are right in that the marketing costs is probaly double what the feature costs in this case, so $120 million so far before profits are reached. After that, the profits are split many ways at this point, between the individual Producers, to Tom Cruise himself, to the theaters exhibiting the movie, to the Production Company, etc etc. So the profit is getting split in plenty of ways, hence why the parties involved feel $250 million in revenue is what it's going to take to make this venture feel worthwhile for them. Foreign (non-US and Canada) box office is also always further diluted because a significant share usually goes to the foreign distribution company involved.

i can't remember any play on trying to make him look tall. on the countrary, in the first fightscene he is filmed as clearly shorter than the other guys he is fighting

Do you know nothing about Scientotology? The whole idea terrifies me.

All of those religions have a contingent of mad people. Scientologists ARE the mad people.

While I agree that Scientology is unpopular, it is still considered a religion and being so openly discriminatory against an unpopular religion smells of hate speech a wee bit.

Anyway, I shouldn't have brought it up. DoG is for ranting and discussing films. I thought the film was a pretty action film/whodunit. But I'm sure fans of the books were displeased by a short guy playing Reacher.

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in the UK and many other places, the closest thing it could be described as is a cult.
Plus Cruise looks NOTHING like the picture i have in my head of Reacher at all.

Haven't seen the film or read the book.
Although walking past a book shop today I saw the movie tie in book and thought to myself, ah, a book about Tom Cruise...
Herein lies the problem, I think he is just too big a star (not to mention the baggage that others have mentioned) and done too many similar roles like that.
Personally, I think he needs to stick to cameo (tropic thunder) or really different roles...

I love Christopher McQuarrie but he's never done anything in the same league as The Usual Suspects, which was one of the best screenplays of the 90s. I'd love to see him do low budget crime thrillers again.

Fair enough - still, it wasn't a bad film if you could get past the "crazy Scientology boy" thing. I'm not familiar with the source material, so I'm spared the dissonance.

I was ecstatic to hear that they were making a reacher movie. Then I was absolutely furious, disappointed, disgusted,and shocked, at the arrogance of all parties in casting a 5' 7" spastic munchkin as a 6' 5" 250 lb tough guy. When Lorenzo Di Bonaventura and Antoine Fuqua did Stephen Hunter's Point of Impact as Shooter, they moved up the war from vietnam to a more modern day setting, but remained true to the book. tommy boy cruise might ought to have thought of that. However, he is too arrogant, and him and lee child didn't factor in the feelings of the fans of the books. Of which I am no longer one. I'll stick with Stephen Hunter from now on, may he live long and write many more novels. lee child/jim grant you're not getting any more of my money, sell out. tom cruise, I didn't waste my money, and lobbied every one that I know to not support this travesty.

It just is so funny to see him drive the car sitting so low...they should've given him phone books to sit on.! Also the street scene with the thugs is so ridiculous my wife had a coronary from hysterics. We also couldnt keep track of all of his facial closeups....was a mission impossible....

Re-watched it on a plane trip to Oz. There are definitely a couple of extremely awkward "arty" camera angles looking at him from below.
Either way, I didn't like it and to be fair, when you don't like something it's easier to get hung up on little flaws :) Glad it found an audience anyway.

Sponsored Links