Peter Jackson hired to make The Hobbit, in two films

[Jordanis]

I suspect the reason for the changes to Helm's Deep have already been touched on--desire to not introduce another character. Erkenbrand is important to that section of book and no more. Tolkien does that with some regularity, too.

Making a movie, though, I can just imagine all the hair-brained critics and Joe Schmoes complaining about useless characters and being confused and whatnot. It's part of the medium, I guess.

[Deepcrush]

Brief characters? That wouldn't include Haldir's parts in the movies would it? He only showed twice. In truth, Jackson wanted to make it more of a symbol then truth to the book. He didn't show the Elves or Dwarves at war so he sent in Haldir. Of course his concern there he still forgot the dwarves and hobbits. He couldn't have the race of Men fairing in the war on their own. It could kill the need for the hero of Aragorn. He wanted the race of Men to look weak and broken. It would seem to me that jackson has a bit of a love for the elves.

[Jordanis]

Yeah, like Elves weren't 3/4 of the point to Tolkien.

[Captain Seafort]

A bit? Between Arwen, a bit character, turning up continuously, Elrond likewise, the Elves at Helm's Deep, and Legolas' ridiculous antics at the Pelennor Fields it's a wonder Men got any screen time.

With regards to the numbers at the Deep, Tolkein specifically gives numbers as over a thousand cavalry led by Theoden and the same number under Gamling at the Deep itself (although most of the latter were either too young or too old). Saruman's forces were probably well over ten thousand, given that the rule of thumb is that attackers require at least 3-to-1 superiority, and considerably more if attacking fixed fortifications.

[Deepcrush]

Seafort, do you have a numbers count for us to work on?

As for being well over 10,000. I fully agree with you.

Also Men did have a large amount of screen time. It was spent making them look like fools who have never seen a war before and couldn't even make battle plans for their own holds.

[Captain Seafort]

Seafort, do you have a numbers count for us to work on?

At Helm's Deep, the Eorlingas had 1000 cavalry and 1000 infantry, the latter either too old or too young. Erkenbrand had 1000 infantry. The "Atlas of Middle-Earth" states Saruman's forces as 10,000, but it's page references don't match my copy so I can't confirm that.

[Jordanis]

I just finished The Two Towers, so I will confirm: ~10,000 for Saruman.

[Thorin]

At Helm's Deep, the Eorlingas had 1000 cavalry and 1000 infantry

I don't remember that particular part, but 2000 is a number that is well within a good range so that 10,000 attackers could take it, but also so that the defenders could hold it for a while, and so that a further [relatively] fresh group of 1000 soldiers could turn the tide.

I don't count any of this Atlas of Middle-earth (or various other ones) as 'canon' in JRRT's works, though I do accept Christopher T's works, such as the posthumously published HoME series, the Letters, UT and the Silm, and at a push the Children of Hurin (which I have yet to read); just in case the issue of canonity comes up, I know a lot of people have varying degrees of what is canon.

It seems I was one of the few people who enjoyed all three films (very much so) and thought that while there were many glaring mistakes, as films, they were increadible. As accurate portrayals of Lord of the Rings? Maybe not, but that's just impossible, to try and take every person's visions and imaginations from the book and convert it to the big screen accurately.

I'd also like to pick up on this

I am also bothered that Jackson showed the Men of Rohan as unable to defend their own fortress when that was by far not the case.

I really do disagree with regards to the Battle of Helms Deep. You would be correct if the case was the same as in the book - as 2000 Rohirrim defending the keep and then a further 100 (or so) Elves came along. But there were only 300 Rohirrim present. 100 Elves would make hardly a difference to 2000 Men, but to 300 Men it would make quite a big difference.

Although would agree on nearly every other situation, particularly at Osgiliath where the fully armed and trained Gondorians were getting whopped by Orcs who were getting virtually no losses, when they should be able to take them out at a rate of 2:1 at least.

The main thing I disagree with is the weakness of Men in the film, it's just horrific. Especially Gondor, who need some undead army to save themselves, Jackson not realising they did it by themself...

[Mikey]

Especially Gondor, who need some undead army to save themselves, Jackson not realising they did it by themself...

That's a symptom of the syndrom I've been discussing. Jackson seems to have taken license with Tolkien's works, ostensibly to create effect, when being true to the source would have created as much (if not more) such effect. The Dead (in the book) were able to do what the did without actual physical engagement - to have shown that accurately in the film would have added to the ambience, not detracted from it.

[Thorin]

Especially Gondor, who need some undead army to save themselves, Jackson not realising they did it by themself...

That's a symptom of the syndrom I've been discussing. Jackson seems to have taken license with Tolkien's works, ostensibly to create effect, when being true to the source would have created as much (if not more) such effect. The Dead (in the book) were able to do what the did without actual physical engagement - to have shown that accurately in the film would have added to the ambience, not detracted from it.

Couldn't agree more. My point is that as films, independant of anything, they are masterpieces. As portrayals of Tolkien's world, they aren't. But, instead of just saying it's not accurate thus it's not good, I prefer to see why Jackson did things, and in some cases I agree, and in some cases I disagree. Which is why, even though I know they're not accurate portrayals, I can appreciate that things had to be done. I agree with Helms Deep's portrayal. I vastly disagree with Gandalf's, Faramir's and Denethor's characters. I vastly disagree with virtually the entire portrayal of the later half of RotK - mainly the Dead's physical presence, coming on the ships and into Minas Tirith, Gondor bringing no more troops, only 200 men present at the Black Gate, Gandalf getting beaten by the Witchking (this one particular, it was my favourite part of the book), and a whole lot of other things. But I see why Tom Bombadil wasn't included, why the Scouring of the Shire wasn't included, why Erkenbrand wasn't.

To be honest, when I'm watching the film, I'm doing it to be entertained. When I want to analyse, I don't even put the film into consideration - it's the books all the way. I just try not to compare them and think of them as independant works, one inspired by the other rather than one coppied [badly] by the other.

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, the films taken on their own are very good. As representations of Tolkiens world, however, they are not.

[Jordanis]

Ahh, Thorin, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Captain Seafort]

Indeed, as stories in their own right they were excellent. The problem is that they aren't - they were presented as the visual representations of J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, not Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. While in the latter sense they were interesting and well done, as the former they were a complete failure.

Thorin, regarding Helm's Deep I must say that while the battle was well done (Elves aside), Jackson destroyed the very character of Rohan by the background to it. In the film they were retreating to the Deep, running from Saruman's forces, while the book had them advancing to join forces with Erkenbrand's army, and even the decision to make a stand at the Hornburg was somewhat agressive given the disparity of forces and the poor state of those forces already present.

[Thorin]

I see what you're saying, but regardless of what they're presented as, I still prefer to think of it as an inspirated film rather than a copy, otherwise you just don't appreciate how good a film (in its own right) it really is.

Though I don't really see why out of anyone, you'd complain about Rohan's character being destroyed, when there is Denethor and Gondor in particular who are utterly annihilated. Of course, Rohan's was changed, but just not to the extent of some others at which I would more adamantly agree. To do with Rohan, it was to quite an extent Gandalf's poor portrayal (McKellen's brilliant acting aside) why Rohan was also poorly portrayed. In the book, it was Gandalf who urged them to ride out to war, and then it was he who urged them to defend Helms Deep - yet in the film they didn't just not mention this, they completely and utterly contradicted it, with him saying something like 'Helms Deep has no other way out, they will be trapped'. Almost the exact same thing in RotK - in the book, Gandalf says they should go the Black Gate. In the film, not only was it Aragorn who suggested it, Gandalf says 'Sauron will not take the bait'! And then there's the Witchking stuff. Their confrontation at the gate was the pinnacle of the books for me, true good v evil, Manwe v Morgoth. The true power of Gandalf, Maia of the West, halting the Witchking, greatest servant of Sauron. It was just increadibly dramatic, the great gates of Minas Tirith broken and shattered, the Witchking rides in and all fled, 'all save one'; and how the horns of Rohan blasted across the fields of Pelennor. In the film - oh we won't bother with that, let's just have the Witchking ride his Fell Beast into the city, and make Gandalf look like a 4 year old girl.

I'm glad I let that out