REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

The first problem was that Tom hanks was totally unsuited to the role, I think Pierce Brosnan would have been a much better choice.
The next problem was the same one that the Harry Potter films suffered from. The book(s) are so well known that the directors/producers feel that they cannot change unwieldy sections. This leads to scenes being put in that are not needed and which make the films slow going.

When Peter Jackson made LOTR fans were up in arms over the cast and the scripts (Why no Tom Bombadil???). Jackson argued that, while the scenes were well loved they did not belong in the films and I don't think many people would argue with the end result.

[QUOTE="ovverbruv, post: 2093325, member: 64962"] The first problem was that Tom hanks was totally unsuited to the role, I think Pierce Brosnan would have been a much better choice. The next problem was the same one that the Harry Potter films suffered from. The book(s) are so well known that the directors/producers feel that they cannot change unwieldy sections. This leads to scenes being put in that are not needed and which make the films slow going. When Peter Jackson made LOTR fans were up in arms over the cast and the scripts (Why no Tom Bombadil???). Jackson argued that, while the scenes were well loved they did not belong in the films and I don't think many people would argue with the end result. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?