Helm's Deep BAttle specifics

[samrohan]

Firstly, I have to admire Peter Jackson for a formidable battle, with very good action scenes and a good interpretation in general of the book. But as an avid LOTR fan I have my own views on how things should be and don't like most deviations from the book.<P>Correct me but I certainly don't remember a troup of elves from the Lothlorien, especially not the commanding elf who welcomed them to the forest come marching into Helm's Deep.<P>And though the scene where our favorite Legolas comes surfing down the steps is good for the movies, I reckon it cheapens the image of the book.<P>As a whole, the battle is fabulous and my favorite part of the Two Towers.<P>There is also no mention about Gandalf and the Huorn clearing the battle field of the dead orc bodies the following days, that would have been a nice touch.<P>However I lift my little hobbit hat to you PJ....

[Idunn]

samrohan, it's not surprising that you don't remember a group of elves from Lothlorien helping in the battle, because there were no elves at all. As Legolas said somewhere in the book to Gimli, dwarfs and elves had their own troubles to meddle in there. Humans had to get by by themselves...with a little help from the dead. <P>As for the battle, it was done really well. Definitely one of the best parts of the film.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is also no mention about Gandalf and the Huorn clearing the battle field of the dead orc bodies the following days, that would have been a nice touch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am happy to say that the Huorns will be in the Extended Edition. The trailer on the TTT DVD shows them marching out of Fangorn with Treebeard saying something like "Their business is at Helm's Deep, ours is at Isengard". Then, there is also a sequence at Helm's Deep, with Orcs running towards a forest that was not there before and Gandalf shouting to the Rohirrim "Stay away from the Trees!".

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There is also no mention about Gandalf and the Huorn clearing the battle field of the dead orc bodies the following days, that would have been a nice touch.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Huorn are in the Special Edition.<P>H.C.<P>Editted to add: Oops, too slow. <p>[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Jinx!

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The trailer on the TTT DVD shows them marching out of Fangorn with Treebeard saying something like "Their business is at Helm's Deep, ours is at Isengard".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent. I tip my own rarely-tipped hat to PJ at the mention of this.

[Horse-Maiden of the Shire]

Ah, yes. The elves. How I ranted and raved in the theater when I saw them. How I was stared at...<P>And I was unbelievably happy when I watched the EE trailer and saw that the Huorns were involved. When Gandalf shouted "Stay away from the trees!" I think I said something like "Yeah, 'cause they'll EAT YOU!" That and the Entdraught made my day.

[nPiLL]

Id say that the whole surfing scene was done to add a little spice to the battle for the non-LotR fans. About the elves appearing, i think PJ just wanted to make the story a little bit easier to follow and more believable for the non-LotR fans. I dont think that someone watching the movie who is not into the LotR would think that those men could hold off all of those orcs. Just my opinion.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I dont think that someone watching the movie who is not into the LotR would think that those men could hold off all of those orcs. Just my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why I thought it'd have been better if PJ just would've stuck to the book with Helm's Deep. You know, have Eomer & 2000 (or was it 3000?) men there & then have Erekenbrand & the Hurons show up later with Gandalf. It's just a lot more believale that 2000 (or 3000) men could hold the Uruks off until sunrise then 300 men & 300 elves accomplishing that feat. But again, that was something I can live with...it'd just have been more believable if PJ had made it more booktual (I know that's not a word but oh well). <p>[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think Erkenbrand was left out because Jackson doubted that the non-book audience would like the introduction of a new hero in The Towers that wasn't going to feature in The Return...<P>I don't think there was any reason to showcase the Rohan army as being a bunch of kids though.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think Erkenbrand was left out because Jackson doubted that the non-book audience would like the introduction of a new hero in The Towers that wasn't going to feature in The Return<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I should clarify my position a bit. I don't mind to much that Eomer was subed for Erkenbrand, since all that really did to me was delay me from seeing him in any clear action scenes until RotK . But I'd rather that PJ'd have given Theoden 2,ooo men, instead of exaggerating the odds (3oo/6oo against 1o,ooo? That's just a bit to much for me. ).

[Dimaldaeon]

I'm a bit ticked off at the whole 8 year old boys fighting. PJ you do realise the term "strong lad able to bear arms" means 16 years at the youngest. I know that this is to show how desperate the situation is but come on.<P>Also did anyone notice the the order to release the arrows is given as FIRE. "Fire what?" should have been the reply because you are not setting fire to anything whren you use a bow. The term fire dates from the seventeenth century when muskets were used and you had to FIRE the powder to get it to shoot.<BR>I personally have tosay i'm a bit disappointed in John Howe for this. He gave out to some armourers for using welding because it wasn't correct for the period and he had a rant on the FOTR commentary for the noise that a sword being drawn makes in a film yet the missed tis the most common mistake with films containing medieval style battles.

[Brinniel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm a bit ticked off at the whole 8 year old boys fighting. PJ you do realise the term "strong lad able to bear arms" means 16 years at the youngest. I know that this is to show how desperate the situation is but come on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Actually, it is known in history (and maybe even in some countries today, though I wouldn't know) that boys as young as twelve or thirteen have taken part in battles. I know those boys in the movie looked young, but I don't think any of them were supposed to be any younger than age twelve.

[Sauron 666]

Yeah in all those savage African civil wars that are going on right now if you're 8 years old you're considered an old timer

[Maéglin]

Dimaldaeon, that was very interesting info about the term 'fire.' I always thought that term sounded too 'modernised' for the medieval period. And yes it was all very exaggerated, 300 against 10000? But I also thought the Elves were not 'powerful' enough or the Uruk-hai were too tough. I remember a scene where one of the Uruk-hai jumps over the battlement and starts hacking Elves left and right <P>And for consistency's sake what are they going to do with the Battle of the Pelennor Fields... I mean Theoden is supposed to ride with 6000 to Gondor but in TTT, they only have 2000 led by Eomer (even less now, assuming they sustained some casualties, which they should have.)<P>However after the wall section being blown up, 300 soldiers, with many of them being children would not last a whole night against 10000 heavily armed troops, no matter how good the defense, realistically IMHO.

[dragoneyes]

As they got all the young boys and old men out for battle, I couldn't help but think "What about the women? Surely and 20 year-old woman is a better fighter than a 12 year-old boy?". If they thought the battle was so hopeless, why didn't they just get everyone out their fighting? It would have evened the odds up a little.

Not including some women in defence of Helm's Deep is a pet peeve of mine. Clearly any healthy women between 18 and 40 would be far more useful than some 12 year old boy.<P>I imagine it didn't happen because of the incessant hostile reaction to increasing Arwen's role in the 1st movie. <P>That said, the battle is put together very well. Unlike Lucas and his Star Wars filmes, one gets the impression of not only how our heroes are fairing in the battle, but also the big strategies in place by both sides. <P>PS<BR>I actually love Jackson's decision to include the elves.

[Brinniel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As they got all the young boys and old men out for battle, I couldn't help but think "What about the women? Surely and 20 year-old woman is a better fighter than a 12 year-old boy?". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think the main reason women were not included in the battle also relates to history. Years and years ago, women were thought as weak. It was not their duty to fight, but instead to raise a family. <P>Two hundred years ago, men didn't even consider putting a woman in battle. During the American Revolution, boys as young as thirteen volunteered for the militia and died fighting, but women were not allowed to sign up. Rare it was to see a woman participate in a battle (in fact, I can only think of one account where one did). Fighting was not considered suitable for a woman.<P>Another reason I think women were not involved at the battle of Helm's Deep is because of the fact that most women did have a family to raise. If the father of a child dies, they will still have their mother. But if both their parents died, where would they go? So, in the end the choices are do you want an all men or all women army? Obviously, men were thought stronger, so they were the ones forced to fight.<P>If it helps, there were some female extras playing Uruk Hai...

[Dimaldaeon]

As for children fighting in wars we must think of then and not now. Now the only real qualification to fight is the ability to use a gun and that really only needs index finger muscles. If anyone has ever held a sword, axe or other medieval weapon you will realise that you need reasonable upper body strength to use one. We must also blame hollywood for the belief that a bow is easy to use. In films we see the bow being the weapon of women, this may stem from the ancient Greek belief that the bow is a cowardly and effiminate object of course this was also the view towards trousers until the middle ages.<BR>In films actors use injected silicon bows whch bend with (fairly) little effort however to use an ash or rowan longbow you would need shoulders like a bullock's.<BR>As to women taking part in battles this may have something to do with the Catholic Church banning it in the Early Middle Ages. The sight of women having their breasts sliced off and being impaled on barbed poles and dragged never did go down well with most people.Donal O'Neill mentions this in his novel Crucible about St Patrick and St Columcille