PDA

View Full Version : Haldirs Elves



Munting
23-01-2010, 13:45
Hey guys,

I'm reading LOTR, and I have just finished the battle of helms deep. However Haldirs elves were not present- are they involved with any conflicts outside of Lorien? I'm guessing not, but it seems a pointless thing to add to the films.....

Suicide Messiah
23-01-2010, 15:32
So far as i remember they were added into the films. Probably just to show how awesome they and Aragorn were.

Condottiere
23-01-2010, 17:45
Jackson probably thought there wasn't enough Elf action in the film; too bad he didn't add in a Dwarven contingent.

Hero adamite
23-01-2010, 17:51
It was good to see the Elves in action in the movies :D I agree with Condottiere, i wanted to see more about the dwarves in the movies :D

Munting
23-01-2010, 19:26
yeah thats what I figured. Would love there to be more elf fightyness in the book. Awesome though they are :)

Thorin Hubertson
23-01-2010, 21:30
I didn't like Gimli being the "funny little guy". A dwarf should be so much more serious. Nonetheless, the same happened in "Dungeons and Dragons".
But we may look forward to "The Little Hobbit" in 2011/2012. There should be many dwarves in these films, and the mighty dragon Smaug, too. I don't think the dwarves appearing in "The Little Hobbit" will make people laugh... As far as I know, Peter Jackson will produce these films, with Guillaume del Toro as regisseur (some kind of XO?!). I saw some spots from "Pan's Labyrinth". Del Toro has good - and dark - style in telling a story.

Whitwort Stormbringer
23-01-2010, 23:47
yeah thats what I figured. Would love there to be more elf fightyness in the book. Awesome though they are :)

I say this with a little caution, since I've heard it compared to a history text book, but if you're into elves I would recommend reading The Silmarillion.

While I do think it was an OK choice to have Haldir and an army come from Lorien to Helm's Deep in the movies, therefore strengthening the role of the elves and their relationship with humans, a major theme in the books is that the age of the elves has ended, and they're essentially handing over stewardship of Middle Earth to men. A standing army the likes of the one in the Two Towers movie probably didn't exist in Lorien at that time in the books (given that Lorien had to defend itself against orc raids as well). Mirkwood may have had such an army, since they did show up at the Battle of Five Armies in full force, but Mirkwood seems a) somewhat more isolationist even than other elven nations, and b) too far away to have contributed armies in time.

Anyways, if you're in for some heavy reading, The Silmarillion is full of elves in action, and IMO very interesting.


I didn't like Gimli being the "funny little guy". A dwarf should be so much more serious. Nonetheless, the same happened in "Dungeons and Dragons".
But we may look forward to "The Little Hobbit" in 2011/2012. There should be many dwarves in these films, and the mighty dragon Smaug, too. I don't think the dwarves appearing in "The Little Hobbit" will make people laugh... As far as I know, Peter Jackson will produce these films, with Guillaume del Toro as regisseur (some kind of XO?!). I saw some spots from "Pan's Labyrinth". Del Toro has good - and dark - style in telling a story.
I think Guillermo Del Toro is directing, which will probably be good - I like his other stuff and if you can say anything, it's that he's relatively faithfull to his source material. He also has a flair for creating monsters, so his input in conjunction with WETA's excellent work in the LotR trilogy should be promising.

Good point too, that The Hobbit will definitely give us plenty of dwarf action, and a full-size elven army too.

canucklhead
24-01-2010, 17:07
Del Toro does some stunning work, and has his characters with senses of humour, rather than comic relief. That has always been a sign of poor producer/ director ability, and is rampant in Star Wars, (to give an example).

I'm looking forward to the Hobbit. If only for the amy of Dwarfs led by Dain. I was terribly dissapointed in the portrayal of Gimli as the comic relief, when the books show him as a very wise and proud.

Dunedain
26-01-2010, 02:07
The elves were included because they were awesome. And every major battle in a sci-fi/fantasy battle must be as awesome as it can be.

i wanted to see more about the dwarves in the movies

It's a pity there weren't a group of dwarves in there somewhere. Would have been really awesome then.

Nuada
26-01-2010, 09:11
I didn't mind the elves turning up in the film. But i do remember my reaction when i first saw them was ..."hang on, it's about 300 miles to helms deep, which will take about 9 days if travelling with haste. Theoden only decides to retreat for Helm's Deep a few days before the battle of hornburg"

Also, the first battle of the fords of isen is 25th feb, only 8 days before the battle of hornburg.


......but it's visually appealing, and you could also argue that the elves saw it coming, and were on the way to help rohan in general.

Condottiere
26-01-2010, 10:54
Non-canonically, you could say that the Elven General Staff had already set up contingency plans a millenia ago and updated them every century.

The Marshel
27-01-2010, 05:25
as mentioned earlier, one of the themes within lotr is that the elves time is over. The story does involve a great deal of sacrifice by the elves. A prime example is galadriels ring. with the one ring destroyed lothlorien would never survive, yet the elves were ready to sacrifice that for the good of all middle earth.

As I've heard it, peter jackson didn't feel the sacrifice and passing of the elves would be well enough portrayed within the movie, so adding the elves at helms deep was a great way to clearly and visually highlight all that the elves were ready to put on the line dispite their time on middle earth already being over, sauron rising to power or not

Munting
28-01-2010, 20:33
as mentioned earlier, one of the themes within lotr is that the elves time is over. The story does involve a great deal of sacrifice by the elves. A prime example is galadriels ring. with the one ring destroyed lothlorien would never survive, yet the elves were ready to sacrifice that for the good of all middle earth.

As I've heard it, peter jackson didn't feel the sacrifice and passing of the elves would be well enough portrayed within the movie, so adding the elves at helms deep was a great way to clearly and visually highlight all that the elves were ready to put on the line dispite their time on middle earth already being over, sauron rising to power or not


This explanation is perfect I think.
Thanks mate (Y)
Yeah the stuff with the goldenwood is, to me, the best part of the books (so far, not finished yet!)

Thanks guys :)

tezdal
29-01-2010, 09:18
Non-canonically, you could say that the Elven General Staff had already set up contingency plans a millenia ago and updated them every century.

LOL the elven general staff? In my head I see Elrond in a spiked helmet and prussian uniform drawing up the plans to circle around Minas Trinth.

Thorin Hubertson
29-01-2010, 17:29
LOL the elven general staff? In my head I see Elrond in a spiked helmet and prussian uniform drawing up the plans to circle around Minas Trinth.

Why not, after having defeated the Frenc... oh, excuse me the Sauronic Empire the Germ... oh, excuse me the Elvish Empire is founded and some centuries later tries to conquer all of middle earth, but is defeated by an alliance of dwarves and Moria-goblins :D

Dragon Prince of Caledor
30-01-2010, 19:03
I thought the addition of the scene was cool but impractical. As they tell the story the Galadriel/Elrond communication happens during the march on Helm's Deep. That and the fighting sequences were simply insulting to the Elvish fighting abilities. They may have been fragile but should have fought like dexterous ninjas :P
Peace peeps :)

Suicide Messiah
07-02-2010, 20:23
They may have been fragile but should have fought like dexterous ninjas

I fear japan has lied to you. Ninjas wouldnt have lasted ten seconds and samurai swords cant cut through concrete. :p

R-Love
08-02-2010, 02:07
I fear japan has lied to you. Ninjas wouldnt have lasted ten seconds and samurai swords cant cut through concrete. :p

WHAT!?:eek: How could they do this to me? I TRUSTED them!




:D

Dragon Prince of Caledor
16-02-2010, 18:07
lol but seriously one of the only problems I have with the movies is that they portray all good rank and file troops as if they are fighting whilst on a heavy dose of some kind of narcotic. The only guys they give any credit to are the named heroes and I say balls to this :P

Verm1s
18-02-2010, 10:52
it seems a pointless thing to add to the films...

Good lad. :)


I didn't like Gimli being the "funny little guy".

Particularly when there were four "funnier littler guys" for that kind of thing.

Imagine thirteen like that. Help us Guillermo Del Toro, you're our only hope.


peter jackson didn't feel the sacrifice and passing of the elves would be well enough portrayed within the movie

Peter Jackson didn't feel the creeping, unknown fear of the Watcher in the Water would be well enough portrayed without it popping out of the lake and going "Blaaaarghgnashgnashgnash" in the Fellowship's faces; or that a giant rampaging ape would be well enough portrayed without some romantic ice-skating. With the ape.
My opinion's that LotR and King Kong did so well because they were already hugely popular and iconic, and Weta carried them the rest of the way. Before those, the best PJ did was some over-the-top low-budget zombie flicks that four people outside Australasia have heard of, and The Frighteners. :rolleyes: The man couldn't direct traffic. He has no idea that sometimes subtlety and understatement might work better than excess.

The Marshel
18-02-2010, 11:35
peter jackon bash etc

did i say it was a good idea, did i say i agreed with it, did i say it improved lotr or took away from it?

from what i know, this is just the explanation for it. i roughly recall it being in the commentary. personally, i feel it added a nice visual element to the movie. Probably not needed, but if you want to really analyse it, most movies have more unneeded junk in bedded in their plot.

Suicide Messiah
20-02-2010, 15:00
You must remember this is Peter Jacksons LotR. He subs erkenbrad for eomer, beefs up arwens role, cuts bombadil etc. This happens a lot in the retelling of myths/ legends and seeing as thats what Tolkien was aiming for i cant see how its a bad thing.

Plus, i watched tTT the other night and the elves popping up at helms deep did bring a slight smile to my face. At the very least I think we can say it was cool.

I think that we should also consider that peter jacksons love for the books was one of the big reasons the films are as good as they are. It could have turned out like the new conan movie is shaping up to be. LotR, whatever its faults was a genuine attempt to make a great set of films based on the work of Tolkien.

kdh88
25-02-2010, 20:02
Another factor is the difference between movies and books. If you forget who a minor character is in a book (e.g. "who the heck is this Erkenbrand guy and where did he come from?"), you can easily go back and look. That isn't really possible in a theater. Therfore, movies tend towards fewer characters because there are fewer things for the audience to remember (and consequently forget). It also allows better characterization of the characters remaining, since time is more of concern for a movie than a book. Even in otherwise accurate historical films, it is fairly common to combine certain people and events for story-telling purposes. Note that there are several points besides Helm's Deep where changes are made that reduce the number of characters (Glorfindel, Bombadil, Halbarad, Beregrond), but that no new named characters are introduced.

On a side note, this is one of the reasons why I think the Silmarillion is a good book, but would be a lousy movie. There are entirely too many characters and events to portray in a visual format. This espescially applies to characters with simillar names and roles (Fingon/Fingolfin/Finrod, Turin/Hurin/Tuor/Huor), which exacerbates the confusion.

Whitwort Stormbringer
25-02-2010, 23:11
On a side note, this is one of the reasons why I think the Silmarillion is a good book, but would be a lousy movie. There are entirely too many characters and events to portray in a visual format. This espescially applies to characters with simillar names and roles (Fingon/Fingolfin/Finrod, Turin/Hurin/Tuor/Huor), which exacerbates the confusion.

I do think that the Silmarillion would make a cool series of shorts, however - some of the stories would be very cool on film!

Condottiere
25-02-2010, 23:22
The stories are actually epic in scope, and doing it so diminishes them; the problem is dialogue, since it would have to be invented.