Cannes Film Festival 2013

Is Paramount hobbling a potential franchise by changing 'One Shot' to 'Jack Reacher'?

Has Hollywood learned nothing from 'John Carter'?

<p>Tom Cruise, seen here in last year's 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol,' is set to play the titular character in 'Jack Reacher' this Christmas.</p>

Tom Cruise, seen here in last year's 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol,' is set to play the titular character in 'Jack Reacher' this Christmas.

Credit: Paramount Pictures

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Paramount's been making some odd and potentially expensive choices recently, and no matter what's really going on behind closed doors, it's making them look like they are rudderless and even desperate.

I was not at CinemaCon this year for Paramount's presentation, but that's where they first showed footage from what they hope will be a kickoff to an ongoing franchise based on the Lee Childs novels about Jack Reacher, an ex-military cop who wanders America and frequently finds himself in harm's way.  They're starting with an adaptation of the ninth book in the (so-far) seventeen novel series, "One Shot," and until now, that's the title they've been using for the film itself.  Today, though, it appears that they have decided to retitle the piece.

It will now officially be known as "John Carter."

Oh, wait… I mean they're changing the title to "Jack Reacher."  But my entirely-intentional slip makes a point, and I'm curious how no one brought up Disney's marketing debacle from this spring when they were having meetings about this title switch.  Of course, this is just the latest in a series of strange choices that Paramount's made on this one.

When I started reading the series, I jumped in with "One Shot" and then went back to read the books sequentially after that.  It was just a random coincidence that I started with the same one that Paramount ended up using as their kick-start to the series, and while I don't think you have to read the Reacher novels in order, Child has been very careful about how and when he's revealed things about Reacher's past and his personality, and it's a good example of how an author relaxes into a series, making it richer and more rewarding with each successive book.  There's no special reason Paramount should have decided to use "One Shot" as the first film in the series, but there's also no particular reason this can't be the place they choose to start things.

The casting of Cruise was evidently addressed by Cruise in the CinemaCon presentation, and he talked about how it wasn't important that he be the same size as the character.  In the books, Reacher is 6'5", about 230 pounds, with a 50-inch chest.  He has killed people with a single punch in the novels, and he can break a man's neck one-handed.  He is a gorilla, but a soulful gorilla, and that's no small part of the appeal of the character on the page.  Casting Cruise in the part means they're going to have to write him very different for the films, and while I like Cruise in action movies and really enjoyed him in "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol," it just seems like a weak move to cast him as the character. These books are well-known enough at this point that Paramount could afford to try someone less proven in the role, like Dwayne Johnson, who has rescued enough franchises at this point that he deserves one of his very own, or Joe Manganiello, who has both the physical size as well as the emotional edge.  It seems like they went with a name, even if it makes no sense as originally designed.

But deciding to change the title is a monumentally bad decision.  It's also a remarkably lazy title they've landed on, and one that tells the audience nothing.  If you're a fan of the books, you are not the audience they're going to try to reach with trailers and posters.  They're going to assume you're onboard since you're already a fan of the character, so they need to reach people who are being introduced to the character and the stories.  Now they've managed to saddle the first film in what I'm sure they hope and pray becomes a series with a title that communicates absolutely nothing to a novice audience.

I got criticized heavily when I made the same observation about Disney's decision to call their film "John Carter," but it seems to me that the potential audience for that film just never quite understand the title or the premise based on their early marketing materials.  And calling this series "Jack Reacher" and trying to just sell the notion of Cruise as a wandering badass seems equally wrong-headed.  Sell us on the story.  Sell us on how Jack Reacher interacts with the world around him.  Sell us on anything aside from the character's name.

I would love to be pleasantly surprised by "Jack Reacher" when it finally arrives in theaters, especially with Christopher McQuarrie writing and directing.  I just find myself baffled, choice after choice, by how they're handling things so far.

"Jack Reacher" arrives in theaters December 21st.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
Topic Started By Latest Post Replies
sandylewis90
16 days ago
2
sandylewis90
about 1 month ago
1
Discuss In Theaters and Coming Soon on HitFix Message Boards »

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew

    I read an interview with Child where he talked about the various people considered for the role, including Denzel Washington. He said that the reason they went with Cruise is almost solely because he opens films worldwide. Being a long-time fan of the novels, I was pretty bummed about Cruise, but I get it and am sure he will be fine, but your suggestions are pretty great.

    May 29, 2012 at 5:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Seymour

    I don't know why they can't just do this like a Bond movie. To wit; Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher in One Shot. It'll all fit on a poster.

    May 29, 2012 at 5:34PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Phlogo_talkback_profile

      Playhouse This is something a lot of modern marketing departments can take a lesson from. Never once has a Bond film featured the name James Bond in the title and yet they've not only been able to develop a marketing identity for the character -- all the more impressive with the changes in actors and each film's individual styles -- but been able to effectively sell each individual story and attach them to Bond.

      It can be as simple as the "Tom Cruise as [Lee Childs'] Jack Reacher in" tag on all of the marketing materials. Or coming up with something as iconic as the '007' gun logo for Reacher. In any case, there are creative ways to do this. It just takes a marketing department that doesn't want to assume that all audiences are stupid.

      (Now, if we could only convince Marvel and WB/DCE to take more gambles on comic adaptation titles instead of just hanging a number on sequels. Nolan's team made it work.)

      May 29, 2012 at 5:53PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    I'm not saying I think it's a great idea, but movie titles are always different when you have a huge star in the lead.

    "Michael Clayton" made sense as a movie title because George Clooney was playing Michael Clayton. "John Carter" did NOT make sense, because anybody who didn't watch Friday Night Lights (which, sadly, based on the ratings, is most people) had no idea who Taylor Kitsch was and therefore the movie was announcing itself as a star vehicle for an unknown. "Jack Reacher" announces itself as a star vehicle for Tom Cruise, and after the success of MI:4 and the hoped-for success of "Rock of Ages," Tom Cruise may well be back on top of the A-list, so in that way it makes sense from a marketing perspective.

    May 29, 2012 at 5:36PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Brian

    Ooookkay. Very peculiar decision, but I guess we gotta go with it. Big fan of the book series, fan of Cruise, so cautiously optimistic overall.

    May 29, 2012 at 5:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    briguyx

    I disagree with Drew on why they picked "One Shot" to start with. It's not the typical modern day western like most of the books where it pits Reacher against an army that controls a town, so it may be more believable to start with.

    That said, to people that haven't read the books, this is a Tom Cruise movie and that's what will get them out to the theaters. I don't mind the title change if it gets the Reacher name out there. In this case, the character is the books! Although I won't disagree if you say "Raiders Of The Lost Arc" is a great title...

    May 29, 2012 at 5:49PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dave I

    The casting of Tom Cruise for this is like casting a short skinny gymnast for a Conan movie. At least be faithful to the spirit of the source material.

    As for the title? Anybody who is a fan of Terriers knows how important titles of media can be (although to be fair, I think Terriers kind of fit the spirit of the show). "Jack Reacher" tells us nothing of the story. Of course, you could argue neither does "Rambo" or "Rocky" or "Dave." Then there's Superman, Batman, Spider-man, those have all had name-check movies. However they are also known commodities. So marketing is important. As for "John Carpenter," I think it failed for reasons other than the title. I would like to see something more creative. I mean, if we just start calling Bond movies "James Bond: III" or whatever.

    Still, I'm much more concerned with the decision to start with the ninth book and casting somebody who, while an accomplished actor, is horrible for the part. And yes Paramount, we do notice that sort of stuff. But hey, best of luck with the movie franchise.

    -Cheers

    May 29, 2012 at 5:53PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Sumit I think John Carter woudl have done better if it was called John Carpenter.. ;)

      One Shot makes sense for a franchise - they cant call a sequel One Shot 2

      May 30, 2012 at 8:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dave I Sumit; No, they could not call it One Shot 2. C'mon, this is Hollywood. They would call it 2ouble 2hot, and the o's would be bullseyes.

      -Cheers

      May 30, 2012 at 10:20AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Brown

    Maybe they felt the title ONE SHOT lent itself too much to being anti-franchise.

    May 29, 2012 at 6:39PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Inside

    Drew, I know you've been in town long enough to know that they wouldn't make this decision lightly. They've been testing the movie, and it has tested remarkably well. What didn't test well was the name (as well as one other thing...) but overall the name was something they could change. Average people didn't get it. It was vague. Now maybe Jack Reacher: One Shot would have been better.. but it was clear they needed to make the title something audiences would grasp. A man's name, and Tom Cruise being that man, works. It isn't quite like John Carter where a tv actor was representing a brand. This is Cruise. Cruise is Reacher. Audiences can at least understand that.

    May 29, 2012 at 7:00PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chris You know, situations like this make me think of an interview I read with Louis CK, where he said bad decisions often come out of focus groups because they don't ask the right question. If the question is something along the lines of "Does a movie called One Shot sound like a franchise for a character called Jack Reacher?", then of course the answer is going to be no. But unless the audience actually told you they refused to see the movie unless it was given a generic character name, I don't see what the issue is. I'm sure I know less about the process than you, but it seems to me like people get the answers they want out of these things by asking leading questions.

      May 31, 2012 at 1:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dave Let me guess, it was Rosamund Pike that didn't test well either.....

      May 31, 2012 at 1:58AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Michael Shawn

    I agree that Jack Reacher is a terrible title for a movie, especially a potential franchise-starter...Jack Reacher 2: Coming for You? But One Shot is a pretty generic and awful title, too. Sounds like one of those 90s movies with Seagal or Lundgren.

    May 29, 2012 at 7:04PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DougMac I agree. However, it shouldn't be glossed over how badly cast this movie is too. It's like a modern Producers where they are trying to make a flop

      May 30, 2012 at 12:55AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    CinemaPsycho

    I'm sorry, but "Jack Reacher" sounds like the beginning of a series... a gay porn series.

    Somebody had to say it.

    May 30, 2012 at 1:20AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    briguyx

    I just remembered... in the books, they make a big deal of how no one ever calls Reacher by his first name. It's always just Reacher!

    May 30, 2012 at 4:57AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Gamera1_talkback_profile

    KlarkKent

    They hobbled the film more than any title change could by casting a midget in the role of a giant.

    May 30, 2012 at 10:48AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Batboy_talkback_profile

    Rev. Slappy

    He's too young now, but in a few years Chris Hemsworth would make a great Reacher.

    May 30, 2012 at 1:17PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tom

    It's obvious. Movies with "Mars" in the title don't make money. Now Paramount realized after "One for the Money" that movies with "One" in the title must be box office poison.

    If a series is going to have any chance of taking off, you have to make sure the audience knows the character's name, like the mega-hit V.I. Warshawski.

    May 30, 2012 at 4:37PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Chris

    As someone who's never read the books I don't really care too much about the mis-casting, but I have to wonder who reads a series about a mute, hulking loner who can knock a man's head off with a punch and goes "This would make a perfect vehicle for Tom Cruise!"

    I do like the Joe Mangianello suggestion, though.

    May 31, 2012 at 11:52AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ron

    Hey Drew, I think someone's been reading your article. Or great minds think alike!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/01/one-shot-jack-reacher-tom-cruise

    June 1, 2012 at 3:07PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Antz

    Yup, it's a doubly bad move. People who know the character will hate it when they see Tom Cruise on the posters, and people who don't know the character will not care about a name.
    I would still LOVE to see Dwayne Johnson playing the role. I'll probably pass on the movie with cruise in it, maybe a rental out of morbid curiosity at best.

    June 3, 2012 at 3:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    richardlawless

    the title jack reacher will doom the film which looks like the borne identity anyway. i can't go to a movie with that title. h'wood is getting lazy, or no imagination.

    December 11, 2012 at 10:40AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web