Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the second lord of the rings movie at the end of the helms deep scene before gandalf rides in with some reinforcements there is is a scene where a handful of people ride out of the keep and I was wondering if those were the only survivors of the origional defenders or if the rest escaped through the caves with the women and children

IN the movie that is the King and his personal guard along with some others. most were in the caves, potentially bailing.

In the book Gimli returned to the glorious caves.

In the book they rode out with far more men than the film shows and countercharged by themselves,

Gandlalf flanked the army with Erkenbrand, represented quite reasonably by Eomer himself to condense characters.

The tree army dealt with the rest of the orcs

Also there was no elf army at Helms Deep at all, and the Kings company was powerful enough to rout the orcs from the walls of Helms deep before Ganadlf turned up or the trees magickally appeared.

The film shows this very poorly as a handful of knights charging into mass rank heavy infantry would just get squished in short order.

Jackson made some fairly daft decisions with the numbers of the Rohirrim, in Helms deep they had far more, more than enough to sally forth at dawn. At the Pelennor fields they had far less, and rode though Easterling cavalry who had greater numbers but had less skill and valour. Jackson tripled up the numvers to make ther Rohirrim army look impressive, it was going to look impressive anyway but the idea was that the Rohirrim were elite, tghe finest cavalry in middle earth, not some horse horde army.

In short answer: no. The horsemen who rode out with Theoden and Aragorn were his personal guard/honor guard.

There were still many soldiers (relatively speaking) defending the rest of the Keep.

In the Film, they're basically the last of the defenders save a handful who remained in the keep and defending the caves.

In the Book, there were still a ton of people defending both the keep and the caves. And the King had hundreds of guys ride out with him, and they were joined by many more from the caves(whose entrance was actually in the valley behind the wall and not the keep)

Both versions, while different in technical aspects, were quite similar functionally.

The film Uruk-hai are a little more monstrous and nasty than the book Uruk-hai(who were just larger orcs) but I think it was a good call. Otherwise the Uruk's wouldn't have seemed all that scary compared to regular orcs. The book's Uruk-hai were really just Orcs who could walk under the sun and were a little stronger and better at fighting. Not leagues and leagues better than Orcs like they were in the film.

The Battle of the Hornburg was the major turning point for me as far as the LOTR movies. It and the Entmoot are where I went from "These are okay" to "Seriously? F this garbage."

Elf Armies to watching hundreds of Uruk Hai being magically repelled by horses to cavalry charges down stupidly sloped hills into massed pikes...

It was when I realized Jackson was talking completely out of his ass about being a serious Tolkien fan.

I really don't understand why people got so upset about the Elves at Helm's Deep. They were in just a few shots and it did absolutely nothing to mess up the story line, and was a rather elegant way for Peter Jackson to sort of put the Elves to rest without having to go into a bunch of explanation about the Elves leaving Middle Earth.

I'm usually a pretty big stickler for keeping things relatively true to the book, but I really don't get why people are so bothered by the Elf thing. Did it do anything to mess up the overall storyline? And it certainly was done in a way that made sense. The Elves who didn't want to leave Middle Earth went to Helm's Deep to honor the old alliance and die close to their homeland.

Yeah, most of the changes Jackson made were good changes.

Remember that Tolkien was never satisfied with how the books turned out, and he expressly was writing them as "history" books. Not as novels.

The Hobbit changes also more accurately reflect what the book would have been like if Tolkien had actually written it knowing what the LotR were going to be.


The elves at Helms Deep were certainly unnecessary, but not out of place. Remember that "offscreen" from the books the elves were fighting elsewhere, as were the dwarves. It was a good way to get the point across that they weren't alone in the fight.

Tolkien also intended his setting to be living, to have other authors add to it.

Ultimately the LotR as-written would have been a poor film(as the animated films that are more true to the original demonstrate), but Jackson's changes made it into a masterpiece of cinema. Not flawless mind you, but very very good.

 Hordini wrote:
I really don't understand why people got so upset about the Elves at Helm's Deep. They were in just a few shots and it did absolutely nothing to mess up the story line, and was a rather elegant way for Peter Jackson to sort of put the Elves to rest without having to go into a bunch of explanation about the Elves leaving Middle Earth.

I'm usually a pretty big stickler for keeping things relatively true to the book, but I really don't get why people are so bothered by the Elf thing. Did it do anything to mess up the overall storyline? And it certainly was done in a way that made sense. The Elves who didn't want to leave Middle Earth went to Helm's Deep to honor the old alliance and die close to their homeland.

Because it was a change to one of the fundamental themes of LOTR - Men couldn't depend on other things/supernatural forces to bail them out. They were on their own. This is the age of men. Apparently Peter Jackson did not get this theme at all because at every turn humanity surrendered control of their destiny to any and all supernatural forces willing to work in concert with them. He turned the valiant defense of the Hornburg into garbage - Theoden wasn't a hero, he was a dupe and an arrogant coward. Same with Boramir and Faramir. The sacrifice of the Rohirrim at Pellenor Fields was turned into a farce. It would have been better for everyone concerned had the Rohirrim simply arrived late. The Black Gate? Don't even bother, the earth will magically swallow up the orcs and eagles will fight off the Nazgul.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, most of the changes Jackson made were good changes.

Remember that Tolkien was never satisfied with how the books turned out, and he expressly was writing them as "history" books. Not as novels.

The Hobbit changes also more accurately reflect what the book would have been like if Tolkien had actually written it knowing what the LotR were going to be.


The elves at Helms Deep were certainly unnecessary, but not out of place. Remember that "offscreen" from the books the elves were fighting elsewhere, as were the dwarves. It was a good way to get the point across that they weren't alone in the fight.

Tolkien also intended his setting to be living, to have other authors add to it.

Ultimately the LotR as-written would have been a poor film(as the animated films that are more true to the original demonstrate), but Jackson's changes made it into a masterpiece of cinema. Not flawless mind you, but very very good.

Entmoot, bro. Entmoot.

The Elves didn't bail anyone out though, that was the point. A tiny contingent of them came to honor the old alliance, and they all got killed.

A big part of the theme of both Boromir and Theodin is corruption followed by redemption, and I think Peter Jackson captured that pretty well.

 Hordini wrote:
The Elves didn't bail anyone out though, that was the point. A tiny contingent of them came to honor the old alliance, and they all got killed.

A big part of the theme of both Boromir and Theodin is corruption followed by redemption, and I think Peter Jackson captured that pretty well.

Except that it was pointless and just done to show that humans couldn't look out for themselves. Jackson took great pains to show that the human defenders of the Hornburg were useless old men or boys. When you are adapting someone else's work, if you cut even a single scene for time, you should not add new scenes that you invented. That is sheer unfettered arrogance.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The Elves didn't bail anyone out though, that was the point. A tiny contingent of them came to honor the old alliance, and they all got killed.

A big part of the theme of both Boromir and Theodin is corruption followed by redemption, and I think Peter Jackson captured that pretty well.

Except that it was pointless and just done to show that humans couldn't look out for themselves. Jackson took great pains to show that the human defenders of the Hornburg were useless old men or boys. When you are adapting someone else's work, if you cut even a single scene for time, you should not add new scenes that you invented. That is sheer unfettered arrogance.

I disagree with your interpretation. How is the inclusion of a maybe 100 Elves, basically all of who die in the battle, meant to show that humans can't look out for themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the battle and the reasons for showing up that the Elves even state themselves. If the Elves had basically turned the battle around for the men at Helm's Deep, then you would be on to something, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. The Elves were basically there for a sacrificial last stand. While there were old men and boys shown during the battle, that wasn't because that was all the human defenders had, but rather an indication that every able body was needed to defend the keep because the stakes were so high. There were plenty of other defenders who were able-bodied and far from useless. At the end of the day, the Elves didn't win the battle, and if anything their contribution was quite minor in the grand scheme of things. The battle was won by the human defenders of the keep (who made up the vast majority of the defenders), and the Rohirrim who arrived with Gandalf in the morning.

 Hordini wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The Elves didn't bail anyone out though, that was the point. A tiny contingent of them came to honor the old alliance, and they all got killed.

A big part of the theme of both Boromir and Theodin is corruption followed by redemption, and I think Peter Jackson captured that pretty well.

Except that it was pointless and just done to show that humans couldn't look out for themselves. Jackson took great pains to show that the human defenders of the Hornburg were useless old men or boys. When you are adapting someone else's work, if you cut even a single scene for time, you should not add new scenes that you invented. That is sheer unfettered arrogance.

I disagree with your interpretation. How is the inclusion of a maybe 100 Elves, basically all of who die in the battle, meant to show that humans can't look out for themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the battle and the reasons for showing up that the Elves even state themselves. If the Elves had basically turned the battle around for the men at Helm's Deep, then you would be on to something, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. The Elves were basically there for a sacrificial last stand. While there were old men and boys shown during the battle, that wasn't because that was all the human defenders had, but rather an indication that every able body was needed to defend the keep because the stakes were so high. There were plenty of other defenders who were able-bodied and far from useless. At the end of the day, the Elves didn't win the battle, and if anything their contribution was quite minor in the grand scheme of things. The battle was won by the human defenders of the keep (who made up the vast majority of the defenders), and the Rohirrim who arrived with Gandalf in the morning.

How many healthy, fit and brave Rohirrim were focused on in the 'Helm's Deep' scenes. Go back and watch it. None. Not a goddamned one. They focus on the Fellowship, the kid, and maybe that old man who accidentally shoots the uruk hai. And yet there is time for the elves to show up, declare their willingness to die for their pact - which wasn't with Rohan at all - and the elves feature front and center in nearly every shot of the defenders of 'Helm's Deep'. Aragorn gives his motivational speech in Elven, for the gods sake. Just because in your perception the elves are a minor part, doesn't mean they are actually a minor part. They are major. Go watch the scene. Count the number of commands, orders what have you in elvish vs human. Seriously, don't depend on your memory of the scene. Go watch it again. The humans are second fiddle characters, aside from Aragorn.

It was surprising to me that only something like 15 guys road out with Aragorn and Theoden and they made it as far as they did, then again untrained and disorderly troops (which regardless of their endurance or strength, they are) can't stand in the face of cavalry.

From what I remember, the Knights of Dol Amroth held Minas Tirith until the Rohirrim showed; another badass set of riders that kicked all sorts of ass.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The Elves didn't bail anyone out though, that was the point. A tiny contingent of them came to honor the old alliance, and they all got killed.

A big part of the theme of both Boromir and Theodin is corruption followed by redemption, and I think Peter Jackson captured that pretty well.

Except that it was pointless and just done to show that humans couldn't look out for themselves. Jackson took great pains to show that the human defenders of the Hornburg were useless old men or boys. When you are adapting someone else's work, if you cut even a single scene for time, you should not add new scenes that you invented. That is sheer unfettered arrogance.

I disagree with your interpretation. How is the inclusion of a maybe 100 Elves, basically all of who die in the battle, meant to show that humans can't look out for themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the battle and the reasons for showing up that the Elves even state themselves. If the Elves had basically turned the battle around for the men at Helm's Deep, then you would be on to something, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. The Elves were basically there for a sacrificial last stand. While there were old men and boys shown during the battle, that wasn't because that was all the human defenders had, but rather an indication that every able body was needed to defend the keep because the stakes were so high. There were plenty of other defenders who were able-bodied and far from useless. At the end of the day, the Elves didn't win the battle, and if anything their contribution was quite minor in the grand scheme of things. The battle was won by the human defenders of the keep (who made up the vast majority of the defenders), and the Rohirrim who arrived with Gandalf in the morning.

How many healthy, fit and brave Rohirrim were focused on in the 'Helm's Deep' scenes. Go back and watch it. None. Not a goddamned one. They focus on the Fellowship, the kid, and maybe that old man who accidentally shoots the uruk hai. And yet there is time for the elves to show up, declare their willingness to die for their pact - which wasn't with Rohan at all - and the elves feature front and center in nearly every shot of the defenders of 'Helm's Deep'. Aragorn gives his motivational speech in Elven, for the gods sake. Just because in your perception the elves are a minor part, doesn't mean they are actually a minor part. They are major. Go watch the scene. Count the number of commands, orders what have you in elvish vs human. Seriously, don't depend on your memory of the scene. Go watch it again. The humans are second fiddle characters, aside from Aragorn.

The only part where the Elves take center stage in the battle is when the Uruks breach the walls and they fight with Aragorn, which is also when most of them get killed. And of course the focus is going to be on the Fellowship. The battle is like twenty minutes long, if not longer. The part with the old man and the arrow is at the very beginning. Just because most of the non-old men and children defenders aren't focused on doesn't mean you don't see them fighting throughout the whole battle. If you look at the shot of the old man, every other human fighter around him is not an old man.

It makes sense for Aragorn to give his speech in Elvish, because he is fighting at the Elves' position on the walls. If you watch the battle, Theodin is the one giving the commands to the human defenders for the most part, passed on by one of his officers. At the part of the battle where the Uruks breach one of the gates with a shield wall, it's all human defenders on the other side, with no old men and children in sight (and by this point Haldir is dead and the Elves are basically out of the fight).

The Elves get basically a few good volleys on the wall, and take one good charge when the wall is breached in their area, and then are out of the fight before the halfway point of the battle. During this time and for the whole second half of the battle, it's all Rohan defenders.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, most of the changes Jackson made were good changes.

Remember that Tolkien was never satisfied with how the books turned out, and he expressly was writing them as "history" books. Not as novels.

The Hobbit changes also more accurately reflect what the book would have been like if Tolkien had actually written it knowing what the LotR were going to be.


.

My thoughts exactly. The only change from the books I actively dislike is the removal of the Scouring of the Shire, but I can see why that was done, as otherwise RotK would have had to be nearly 4.5 hours long. The rest of the changes, from the elves at Helm's Deep to the Warg Attack in LotR and the White Council and Azog stuff in The Hobbit all made them more interesting films, and make sense in the context of an adaptation.

Also, to those suggesting the HD elves were there to show men couldn't stand alone, I think the fact they are killed to the last elf (the largest loss of Elven life since the second age) represents the passing of the Age of the Elf, and how men must stand for themselves, and in a much more interesting and dramatic way than a bunch of them getting on boats.

Ultimately, the films utterly capture the feel and spirit of the books and the setting, and that's probably more important than sticking rigidly to a narrative.

Other than machine gun elf, I liked the changes in Two Towers. I liked the changes in the Uruk Hai, and those madse to the defenders made them seem much more desperate.

ROTK however, I didn't like the super green killing machine army of death at all. It was just cheesy.

 Bromsy wrote:
Because it was a change to one of the fundamental themes of LOTR - Men couldn't depend on other things/supernatural forces to bail them out. They were on their own. This is the age of men.

Tolkien is a crap writer then, because the books themselves completely contradict this theme.

Last I checked, the characters' asses were saved by ghost armies, giant eagles, shape-shifters, wizards, and tree-people a plethora of times, not counting the Elves and Dwarves holding the line in the North and the World being saved nominally by Hobbits.

 Frazzled wrote:
ROTK however, I didn't like the super green killing machine army of death at all. It was just cheesy.

Neither did Peter Jackson, apparently. According to an interview he thought they were "too unbelievable" but left them in the script because he felt they were too iconic in the LotR fandom to write out.

I'd probably argue that Jackson still didn't need to portray the green killing machine as quite that OOT, though. That sounds like an excuse on his part.

For the most part their changes were positive. In particular, I think Aragorn not accepting Anduril until later lent a lot to his character, making him a reluctant leader and creating room for his character to show some growth over the course of the films.

I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember thinking that the TT director's cut was much better than the theatrical release.

I have always thought the Lord of the Rings films were awesome, and I like most of the changes Jackson made, and I think they make for a far better film than if he had stayed completely true to the books. Books don't always translate into movies very well.
The only things I really missed was all the stuff the Hobbits went through before reaching Bree and the scouring of the Shire. I also like the Hobbit movies, even if Jackson deviates much farther from the books there than with LOTR. It goes a bit too far imo. Still, the only thing I really don't like is how Thorin Oakenshield looks more like a Klingon than a Dwarf.

As for the defenders of Helm's Deep, apart from the King's guard in the keep, most defenders are supposed to have retreated to the caves (in the book, Gimli, Éomer and Gamling are also there).

The army of the dead do not appear in the battle of the pelennor fields in the book. Aragon uses them to relieve the Gondor forces along the coast and then bring the thousands of men to Minas Tirith. Then they hack their way all the way to the city and fight them off.

To me, that is far more epic, and closer to the book, than all the orcs dying in a sea of green goo because they can't swim.

Still, the only thing I really don't like is how Thorin Oakenshield looks more like a Klingon than a Dwarf.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Sigh. I will accept dissenting opinions on overall themes and even the Hornburg.

Are any of you going to defend that gakfest of an Entmoot? That's my line in the sand. That was the scene that made me give up on the movies. Well, ROTK made me give up even harder, but that was terrible.

I stand with Bromsy on this one.

I'm all for changes to the films to make them better films- streamlining characters, cutting scenes that were non-essential or didn't work on film.

What I really dislike is scenes added to the movie (further bloating it) that add nothing or detract from the story, or pointless changes to the original that do not improve things.

Elves at Helm's Deep and the Entmoot both fall into the latter, stinky, category to me. Whereas stuff like cutting out chunks of the start of Fellowship (and the entire character of Tom Bombadil) just makes sense to keep the movie flowing at the appropriate pace, and get it over and done with in a reasonable time.

What is the issue with the Entmoot?

 Paradigm wrote:
What is the issue with the Entmoot?

In the book the Entmoot is basically "Sauramon has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."

In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Sauramon has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
What is the issue with the Entmoot?

In the book the Entmoot is basically "Sauramon has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."

In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Sauramon has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.

You are aware he's called Saruman?

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
What is the issue with the Entmoot?

In the book the Entmoot is basically "Sauramon has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."

In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Sauramon has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.

You are aware he's called Saruman?

It's early and I haven't had coffee. It's also irrelevant.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
What is the issue with the Entmoot?

In the book the Entmoot is basically "Sauramon has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."

In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Sauramon has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.

I see what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree, but I do see it

 Bromsy wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
What is the issue with the Entmoot?

In the book the Entmoot is basically "Sauramon has been cutting down the forest that we have been protecting for millennia and are magically connected with. Weird, he used to be a good friend to us. What should we do? Oh, these Hobbits say he's evil now, let's go to war with him."

In the movie, for some reason the Ents have no idea that Sauramon has been cutting down their forest. They decide not to go to war. The hobbits trick them into carrying them south, Treebeard walks south for like a day and then sees the cut down trees. He gets mad, yells, and every single Ent in the forest emerges from it in a single giant wave, despite Treebeard having spent a day walking south by himself. It added nothing to the movie. It took longer and made less sense than if they'd have gone with the book version. It made the Ents look weaker/stupider and the hobbits dishonest.

But otherwise we wouldn't have gotten Treabeard's epic yell.
Also, the Ents not going to help at first adds tension for people who haven't read the books.