Actually some of the discussion goes well beyond that to include
critiques of the use of archers at the Battle of Helm's Deep and the
construction of the fortifications. The elven archers had no business
in the battle. But having decided he had to include them, it would have
been nice if Jackson had employed them properly  (long distance) rather
than at point blank range. And the lack of such things as a draw bridge
and that the causeway openned directly into the keep demonstrated that
while Jackson might be a pretty decent film maker, he really could have
used someone who understood fortifications.

On Aug 4, 2004, at 12:07 PM, Vergil E. Noble wrote:

> Smoke Pfeiffer observed, "Of course, I know of some discussion lists
> that
> are even arguing the historical accuracy of the Lord of the Rings
> trilogy.
>
>
> One would hope that those individuals are, in fact, debating how
> faithfully
> Peter Jackson adapted Tolkien's books, but maybe not. Even if we think
> charitably of that debate, however, it points out a reality of film.
> To a
> literal purist, movies can't even get fiction right, so how can anyone
> hope
> that they would get history right enough to satisfy some of our
> academic
> ideals.