I was re-reading Worth Dying For, one of my favorite Reacher novels by Child, when I heard the news. There's to be a movie based on the character, and who's going to play the hero? Tom Cruise. Give me a break!
Reacher is six five, two hundred fifty pounds (according to the novel, Tripwire). He usually has a beard that's a couple of days old, and is long past time for his next haircut. His nose has been broken at least three times, and he set it himself the last one (Worth Dying For). He's a straight-ahead, ex-Army MP, as rugged as they come. But Tom Cruise? Nope. If I see anyone as Reacher, it's someone like Richard Norton (pictured), and at that he's probably too good-looking.
That's both the problem and the opportunity for writers of novels. We can describe our characters in great detail or sketchily--the late Donald Westlake said his protagonist, John Dortmunder, had "hair-colored hair." You fill in the blanks. But once a reader gets that mental picture, that's what the character should look like. And in my mind, Tom Cruise will never be Reacher.
Do you have problems when you see a movie adaptation of a novel you've liked, and the characters look nothing like what you pictured? Chime in. I'd love to hear from you.
4 comments:
Reminds me of the FB meme I saw recently, "Please don't judge a book by its movie."
Diana Galbadon is currently "casting" her characters, and the range of suggestions is quite astonishing. I think readers are seldom happy with the casting precisely because few actors can match what we envision. In the long run, it's comes down to whether we can "go with the flow," and let the actor inhabit the role in a new way. Ian Fleming's James Bond looked nothing like Sean Connery, but viewers adopted him.
I had doubts when I heard that Martin Freeman had been cast as Bilbo Baggins, but from the clips I've seen, he's marvelous. But I understand your doubts about Cruise, though, since he so seldom "disappears" into a part (not to mention the physical differences). Let's hope the rest of the adaptation comes closer to par.
Ramona, You're right--at times Hollywood gives me a pleasant surprise, but at other times I'd never recognize the product they produce as coming from a book I enjoyed. However, so long as the name draws people to the box office, that's going to be a big factor in casting, rather than being true to an author's vision.
Of course--check back with me if a producer offers an option on one of my books, and wants to cast against what I crafted. That is, check back with me after the check clears.
Appreciate your comment.
Gone With the Wind threw out characters in the movie, but the ones they left in were just as I pictured them (or became them.) I read the book long before I saw the movie.
Later, an author named Alexandria Ripley wrote the "sequel" to GWTW called, Scarlett. I actually liked that book (it got panned big time by Margaret Mitchell devotees) but the movie! Ugh! It was cast all wrong! Timothy Dalton was Rhett, and he would never, ever be Rhett. The actress (I forget) who played Scarlett couldn't have been worse. Fail.
I still think the best adaptation to the screen and the best cast ever of a book-to-movie was To Kill a Mockingbird.
And yeah, I agree with you on Tom Cruise. The only movie I've EVER seen with Tom Cruise in it that I liked was Night and Day. (Something like that.) I just don't believe he's all that rugged, he's pretty small and maybe I'm just prejudiced....
Anyway, this is such a good post--it's one that's fun to talk to about.
Thanks, Crystal. I guess I should have included a disclaimer--Kay and I almost never go to movies anymore. We get "classics" via NetFlix or cable. Why? Because much of what's out there nowadays seems like junk to us. But when we do see a movie based on a book, it's nice to see characters that look just as we pictured them--and sort of a shock when they don't.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment