Tom Cruise's JACK REACHER Unlikely To Get A Sequel Without Hitting $250 Million Worldwide

Tom Cruise's JACK REACHER Unlikely To Get A Sequel Without Hitting $250 Million Worldwide

Overshadowed by big Christmas releases such as Django Unchained and Les Miserables, Christopher McQuarrie's Jack Reacher is unlikely to get a sequel unless it performs well in Asian territories over the next couple of months. Read on for details!

The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Paramount have decided that the fate of the Jack Reacher franchise (based on Lee Child's novel One Shot) now hinges on how well it performs in key Asian territories such as Japan, China and Korea later this year. With a budget of $60 million, the Tom Cruise starrer has grossed $153 million to date, $72.6 million of which comes from North America. Now, you would think that the fact that it has more than doubled its budget would be enough for the studio to give a sequel the green light, but that's not the case according to the site's sources. Instead, Paramount will only consider a follow-up if it reaches $250 million worldwide. Even if it does reach this number, Paramount and Skydance will still reportedly have to "negotiate a deal with Cruise that would keep the sequel's budget at roughly the same price". This may sound like an impossible challenge, but 2008's Knight & Day went on to earn $28.3 million in Japan and $14 million in Korea alone. You can read my 4* review of Jack Reacher by clicking HERE.

When a gunman takes five lives with six shots, all evidence points to the suspect in custody. On interrogation, the suspect offers up a single note: "Get Jack Reacher!" So begins an extraordinary chase for the truth, pitting Jack Reacher against an unexpected enemy, with a skill for violence and a secret to keep.


Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher
Rosamund Pike as Helen Rodin
Richard Jenkins as Alex Rodin
David Oyelowo as Emerson
Werner Herzog as The Zec
Jai Courtney as Charlie
Alexia Fast as Sandy


Posted By:
Josh Wilding
Member Since 3/13/2009
Filed Under "Action" 1/15/2013 Source: The Hollywood Reporter
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
SuperDude001 - 1/15/2013, 7:11 AM
Still haven't seen this. Looks good and if it's based on a book I expect there's a good story, but at the same time all the adverts show it as a simple action movie.
Meh, maybe I'll just wait till DVD is out.
Stumblin - 1/15/2013, 7:22 AM
Good, it was dump.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 1/15/2013, 7:37 AM

TankD:"Its the title to man its so unrecognizable. like John carter."

Like Dirty Harry or RoboCop were once unrecognisable?

INSTANTJUSTICE - 1/15/2013, 7:39 AM

dickbelt: "i have seen movies do way worse like gi joe and get sequels"

GI JOE didn't even make its budget back at the box-office.

msullivan1945 - 1/15/2013, 7:39 AM
This movie was bad ass. If you didn't like the opening scene and the way the story played out you are an D-bag. Give us a sequel nukka!
Jollem - 1/15/2013, 7:40 AM
so, the movie may not be getting a reacher-round? :)
thalidomide - 1/15/2013, 7:54 AM
I saw this movie, it was ok.
Jollem - 1/15/2013, 7:55 AM
Spideyguy94 - 1/15/2013, 7:57 AM
@INSTANTJUSTICE it did its budget was $175 million and it made $302 million.
superotherside - 1/15/2013, 8:35 AM
Sad, I've heard great things about this movie. Can't wait to see it on DVD. :)
Nick56 - 1/15/2013, 8:44 AM
I enjoyed the movie
fr0zt - 1/15/2013, 8:44 AM
I was surprised by this movie. Maybe because I went in with such low expectations but still..... I enjoyed it. Unrelated subject, I'm still highly disappointed Mr. Brooks never got a sequel.
OrsonRandall - 1/15/2013, 8:51 AM
I dislike Tom Cruise.
fortycals - 1/15/2013, 9:11 AM
As far as I know TC actually owns the movie rights, so he could always shop the movie around. That how he got cast in a roll that anybody who read the books knew he didnt fit. Its also how the budget was so low.
SaxoWolf - 1/15/2013, 9:29 AM
I'd rather see a prequel to Training Day with Denzel than a sequel to this piece of crap.
Xandera - 1/15/2013, 9:46 AM
This was a great movie! Tom Cruise's best in a decade IMHO...
poop23 - 1/15/2013, 9:52 AM
Never had any interest in seeing this. If i'm going to watch the same old action flick, it would need to at least be with an actor I can respect, like Statham

Not saying that Tom is a bad actor, but I just don't care for him as an action hero
Simonsonrules - 1/15/2013, 9:56 AM
My old man was an MP and fact my brother-in-law is an MP...both guys on the level who deal(t) with some intense stuff. But not every suspect was / is a "trained killer." Outside of the theater of war, mostly drunk GIs, in fact. Only in Hollywood, and from the mouth of Tommy, do we get this MP ninja stuff. I guess the writer thought Special Forces was all used up? All the same, it was fun taking the piss from my old man over this one.
CapA - 1/15/2013, 10:32 AM
It wasbn't as good as the book but it was pretty good, the sniper scenes were intense and overall Cruise portrayed the role very well.
I'm sure there'll be another adaptation. That 250 millions bar seems exagerated.
Equivocal - 1/15/2013, 10:46 AM
I personally liked the movie, it had a LOT of action scenes and it was very FUNNY at times, and Tom was EXCELLENT as always !!
The reason why Paramount is not to keen of a sequel with this one, is the same reason of Mission Impossible;

MI:3 did good at the cinemas, it didn't underperform, but it was the HUGE chunk of cash that Tom got from the box office, now with the possible sequel Tom might get a bigger paycheck AND part of the box office for himself, that's the reason the studio is not to happy about making a sequel...
Mysterion - 1/15/2013, 11:28 AM
Jack Reacher was actually really good, I enjoyed the hell out of it. But it was a bad decision releasing it in Christmas, it wouldve faired better if it was released in April, which is now like the new extension to Summer movie months.
shadyginzo - 1/15/2013, 12:48 PM
SimyJo - 1/15/2013, 1:02 PM
Its nothing to do with being overshadowed by other films - and everything to do with the public going off of Cruise as a filmstar after he came out as a complete scientology nut-job.
acxel - 1/15/2013, 4:24 PM
Guess what studio's... not every movie needs to be a god damn franchise. We don't all enjoy seeing the same shit over and over again! Rinse and repeat...
NorseGod - 1/15/2013, 5:14 PM
How can it be overshadowed when it just plain sucked? If nothing else had come out, it still wouldn't have been well received.
patnmo - 1/15/2013, 6:02 PM
@WesleyGibson you know him personally?
CapA - 1/15/2013, 8:51 PM
Watch him act in Magnolia, in Tropic Thunder, in Jack Reacher (just for his recent work, not even mentionning Born on a 4th of July). Then say he isn't good. What you may think of a person doesn't interfere with how good they actually are at their jobs !
docgl - 1/16/2013, 5:39 AM
INSTANTJUSTICE you misread the numbers. The movie has only made 80 million world wide. That said the budget was 60 million so it has made it's budget and then some.
patnmo - 1/17/2013, 12:10 PM
@WesleyGibson Man, you really have it out for an actor you've never met who makes a lot of money doing what you say he isn't good at...
patnmo - 1/18/2013, 4:28 PM
@WesleyGibson that it is, but you don't need to be so angry is all I'm sayin'

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.