Olympic Torch 👹Uruk

All that was missing was the "Chariots of Fire" theme song and a row of guys wearing bandanas to slap the hand of the Olympic Orc as he passed. Not to mention the torch looked like an oversized sparkler...

I just read Rhi's post...coincidence that two people seperately thought of "Chariots of Fire"? I think not!

simbelmyne said:

All that was missing was the "Chariots of Fire" theme song and a row of guys wearing bandanas to slap the hand of the Olympic Orc as he passed. Not to mention the torch looked like an oversized sparkler...

I just read Rhi's post...coincidence that two people seperately thought of "Chariots of Fire"? I think not!

Click to expand...

Don't bash the sparkly torch! I like it! "He has lit the fire of Orthanc beneath our feet!" Sounds like a special fire to me.

And of course it's not a coincidence! Long has it been since I've known that simbelmyne and Rhi are one and the same!

Do you believe that sand provides grip?!

Click to expand...

I believe that thick sand and gravel will provide better grip for iron-shod horses than bare rock or large stones.

Have you thought of the effect that would rebound from that force when it met the wall of pikes at the bottom?

Click to expand...

Horses charging down a steep hill carrying riders with lances crash into rows of stationary Uruk-Hai. I think the Rohirrim would win in terms of force.
Yes, In a charge horses die. It's a hard truth but we have to accept it. The ten or so horsemen in the first row of the charge would probably be all impaled on the pikes (minus Gandalf & Eomer), but there are still 1,990 horsemen behind to push the corpses forward which provide shields against the pikes. These are the grim methods of warfare, but their death was glorious and worthy of song and remembrance.
Hail the Victorious Dead!

Thanks
Morgaphry

Well, that and the fact that the orcs pikes were lifted when the front row hit...

Morgaphry, that is bad tactics. The reality of such a charge would be that the entire first rank of horses would go down on the pikes, either crushing or throwing their riders, who would be trampled by the second rank, who would be pushed into the second rank of pikes by the third rank of horses behind them, and so on...massive loss of life without gaining much ground, and an extremely bad move.

But Peter Jackson has displayed a lack of tactical knowledge more than once in his films--yes, let's all go up to the Black Gate and stand in a little huddle (after we all get off horseback, don't want to have too much advantage against the wee orclings, do we?), and let the enemy walk out and surround us. Oh yes, that's just brilliant.

Rhiannon said:

Morgaphry, that is bad tactics. The reality of such a charge would be that the entire first rank of horses would go down on the pikes, either crushing or throwing their riders, who would be trampled by the second rank, who would be pushed into the second rank of pikes by the third rank of horses behind them, and so on...massive loss of life without gaining much ground, and an extremely bad move.

Click to expand...

*cough* The fact that Gandalf and/or the sunrise caused the orcs to lift their pikes really makes all this a moot point.

Rhiannon said:

But Peter Jackson has displayed a lack of tactical knowledge more than once in his films--yes, let's all go up to the Black Gate and stand in a little huddle (after we all get off horseback, don't want to have too much advantage against the wee orclings, do we?), and let the enemy walk out and surround us. Oh yes, that's just brilliant.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, they were surrounded in the book as well. It happened slightly differently but they made no move to try and move away from the emptying gates of Mordor. They stood in "their little huddle" as you say, and waited for the enemy to come at them.

Rhiannon said:

But Peter Jackson has displayed a lack of tactical knowledge more than once in his films--yes, let's all go up to the Black Gate and stand in a little huddle

Click to expand...

As GW said, they were just as surrounded in the book:

Little time was left to Aragorn for the ordering of his battle. Upon the one hill he stood with Gandalf, and there fair and desperate was raised the banner of the Trees and Stars. Upon the other hill hard by stood the banners of Rohan and Dol Amroth, White Horse and Silver Swan. And about each hill a ring was made facing all ways, bristling with spear and sword. ...

(from The Black Gate Opens in ROTK)

Click to expand...

You could argue that Aragorn's tactics were even worse in the book than in the movie because he divided his forces into two. Except for Aragorn keeping his vastly outnumbered forces together, Jackson filmed the tactical situation Tolkien gave him. Address your criticism to the dear professor.

Of course, this was not supposed to be a serious attack on the Black Gate. The whole thing was a suicidal diversion to distract Sauron's interest from inside Mordor.

The critical difference is that on the book there is a hill. Terrain makes all the difference. They are holding the high ground- and note that they form an outer ring of spears. This is a defensible position, and good tactics, since they're goal isn't to commit suicide but to be a distraction. They place themselves in a position where they will be able to hold their ground.

This is not done in a reasonable manner in the film. Sure, a charge on foot may be more dramatic, but it is really really dumb.

So because they stood on two hills (and lets not forget the marsh-like land around them) it was alright for them to divide their already little company into two and let armies 100 times their size surround them?

And yes, their goal was to be a distraction, but with the knowledge that it would most likely be total suicide.

It's never a good idea to turn your back towards the enemy.

Yes it's all right, because holding the high ground is the best way for a smaller force to keep its position. No, it is never a good idea to turn your back on the enemy- which is exactly what they did in the film. Not in the book.

Rhiannon, you're clearly being biast towards the book. Ofcourse it wasn't bad tactics because Tolkien wrote it! It was only bad tactics when Jackson did it.

They're both exactly alike, theres only a small difference, but still you complain about the movie being bad. That's just silly.

Considering the circumstances I suppose it would be alright to split up.

You said that in the film Aragorn should never have let himself be surrounded (although this was alright in the book). In order to avoid being totally closed in, Aragorn would have had to fall back. This involves turning around, thereby exposing their backs to the enemy. Instead, they formed in a circular manner, charging outward when the enemy came closer.

Ol'gaffer said:

Rhiannon, you're clearly being biast towards the book. Ofcourse it wasn't bad tactics because Tolkien wrote it! It was only bad tactics when Jackson did it.

Click to expand...

Well, duh.

They're both exactly alike, theres only a small difference, but still you complain about the movie being bad. That's just silly.

Click to expand...

Big difference, darling; the situation in the book is reasonable. It makes sense. The film takes the situation and changes it so that it becomes unreasonable and looks like a silly stunt.

You said that in the film Aragorn should never have let himself be surrounded (although this was alright in the book). In order to avoid being totally closed in, Aragorn would have had to fall back. This involves turning around, thereby exposing their backs to the enemy. Instead, they formed in a circular manner, charging outward when the enemy came closer.

Click to expand...

Since the film showed them on level ground, with no high ground to give them an advantage, then it would have been a better move to spread out, I think. And even if he did have to fall back, that wouldn't involve turning their back to the enemy- or did you never learn to walk backwards? Getting in a circular position and charging outward when the enemy came closer is also ridiculous. The point of forming that kind of formation is to stay put. If you're going to get in a little huddle, then the idea is to be immovable and make them come to you.
The sequence seemed to me to be poorly thought out, and poorly edited (where did the horses go?).

Rhiannon said:

Big difference, darling; the situation in the book is reasonable. It makes sense. The film takes the situation and changes it so that it becomes unreasonable and looks like a silly stunt.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to say that the professional reviewers, and indeed the vast majority of viewers didn't find it so.

Aragorn and co. were there for one reason, to distract Sauron by drawing out the armies of Mordor. They succeeded in doing so, the armies came, they attacked, and that gave F & S the free passage through Mordor which ultimately led to its successful completion.

By that point in the movie you were so bitter that anything you saw would be considered a 'silly stunt.'

Since the film showed them on level ground, with no high ground to give them an advantage, then it would have been a better move to spread out, I think.

Click to expand...

I think not.

And even if he did have to fall back, that wouldn't involve turning their back to the enemy- or did you never learn to walk backwards?

Click to expand...

You seriously think several thousand men walking backwards would prevent a running army of orcs from surrounding them?

And if you're going to resort to insults...well let's just say you need practice.

*snigger*

Getting in a circular position and charging outward when the enemy came closer is also ridiculous. The point of forming that kind of formation is to stay put. If you're going to get in a little huddle, then the idea is to be immovable and make them come to you.

Click to expand...

Charging outward increases the circumference of the circle, thereby allowing more men to the front lines, with some still as backup.

The sequence seemed to me to be poorly thought out, and poorly edited (where did the horses go?).

Click to expand...

All IYHO...

I always wondered where the horses went, in both versions. PJ's Aragorn and co. have about 4 or 5 which seem to disappear into thin air. Tolkien's have considerably more on the journey there, Aragorn and co. ride up to the Gate, and voila, we never hear of them again...Aragorn is standing under his banner and everyone is standing with spears on huge piles of rubbish.

Great minds mess up alike.

Sorry, GW, I didn't mean to be insulting you. I'm gloriously cranky today (cold. blah) so you're getting the snarkier end of the scale. You see, I have this crippling misconception that I'm clever or something...I forget that not everyone is used to just rolling their eyes and ignoring me. Though if you say I need practice...are you volunteering to serve as a target?

I do think that it's possible for troops in formation to back up. Not very fast, maybe, and not for very far, but it is possible. I don't really see the necessity, though. I was just pointing out the possibility.

I'm glad to say that the professional reviewers, and indeed the vast majority of viewers didn't find it so.

Click to expand...

It's great that so many other people were able to enjoy the film and weren't put off by the things that bothered me, but if I ever reach the point where I think something just because a bunch of other people thought so, please just shoot me and put me out of my misery...

I'm just sayin'.

Charging outward increases the circumference of the circle, thereby allowing more men to the front lines, with some still as backup.

Click to expand...

But my point is that you do not want that. In that kind of formation you want your front line to be as small as possible, because the smaller your front line is, the fewer the number of enemies that can get at you at a time is. You want to keep the formation as compact as possible. If you spread out, the enemy could go between your lines and penetrate the formation, breaking your forces up. It's easier to pick off a few guys over here and a few guys over there than it is to run up against a solid wall.

By that point in the movie you were so bitter that anything you saw would be considered a 'silly stunt.'

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I freely admit that I'm very bitter about the whole thing, because I withheld judgement after TTT, hoping that RotK would fix everything, and it didn't. Nope nope nope. And I do not like Jackson's battle scenes, as a rule. I'm annoyed that he took up precious time adding stuff instead of using the material already available in the book. I'm easily irritated. And it does tend to come seeping out. I'm really not trying to ruin other people's enjoyment of the film- well, maybe on some level I am, but I don't particularly expect to have any effect, it just entertains me to be snarky. I find my own commentaries vastly amusing. I don't think they're worth getting mad over, though...so please do feel free to hit me with a rubber chicken and tell me to shut up when the acid I'm dripping starts burning holes in things.

But before you do, let me outline what I mean about the tactics. It's fun, and I don't really think my point is made illegitimate by the fact that I'm bitter about the movie overall. By the way, have a cookie.

Aragorn's objective is to hold the enemy's attention. Agreed? Good. His objective is not to go out in a blaze of kamikaze glory. Do we still agree? Okay.
What's the best way to carry out this objective? Not by charging a superior force, that wouldn't do much good. Not by everybody getting killed, that wouldn't work either. He needs to keep the enemy occupied for as long as possible, right? Still with me? So he wants to delay being run over, ground into the dirt, or retreating as long as possible. The best way to accomplish all this is to dig in his heels and hold his ground. Right? Good? Okay. He wants to keep his forces together, so that the bad guys can't pick them off when they get seperated. He needs to have a defensible position to work from. Oh goody, there are these handy hill things over here, those'll work. Everyone knows that it is an advantage to hold the higher ground and make the other guys climb upwards to get at you, right? And if there's marshy ground around it's even better, because they have to slog through it to climb up the hill to get at you and you get to stand on solid ground. Whee, isn't this great?
So now we're on the hill. It's kind of a small hill, so this group will go over to that hill, because we don't want anyone standing in any marshy ground, right? The idea is to avoid the marshy ground, after all. So we're all set up on the hill. Whee, look at the view. This is nice. So we have the high ground, we have solid footing, things are looking good for us, except for that little problem of there being lots more of them than we have. We've established that it's a bad idea to spread your forces out because it makes it easier for the enemy to whack you one. And we don't want the bad guys penetrating into our inner ranks of reserves. And we can't be pushed back, because we're in a pretty little circle so we have nowhere to go. So we want a good, solid, tight front line. Foot soldiers usually use shorter swords, after all, and are used to being in formation with a shield partner on their right. You lock that line in so that the big ugly slobbering things can't come at you more than a few at a time, and you keep your forces in ranks so that when Joe in the front gets spitted, Frank behind him can step up and take his place so that the bad guys don't break through the line. And even better, we'll stick some nice sharp spears out there so that they'll think twice about charging up after us after they've gotten through the wet ground and gone up the hill.
So we're all set up on the hill, and we can just camp out for a while, because we ain't going nowhere, and it's going to take them a while to hack their way through all of us. There are more of them, but they can't all come at us at once, because we have a small front line. They can bulldoze over us because we're on a hill and we have pretty spears and we're in a tight little block. Their only choice is to come after us and try to wear us down.

So, in the book you're aware that all this is going on, or at least you're vaguely aware that something to that effect is going on.
In the movie, it just looks...strange. Especially when everyone is standing there with blank, idiotic expressions on their faces, staring after Aragorn who has just gone running off whooping. And, oops, there go those short people, maybe we'd better go after them?

Of course, I'm a cantankerous female. That's my opinion on the battle scene, take it or leave it. Lots of action movies in the past have proved that you don't need good tactics to have a battle and get away with it.

Orginally posted by Turin:
Yeah, that annoyed me too. Why would he only tell Legolas to 'bring him down', and why was Legolas shooting so slow, usually he shoots about 5 a second but it seemed to take him longer to aim at him.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. He wasn't the only one there, there were other Elves around, why not have them help too. Also, all through the movies FOTR, and TTT Legolas has been shooting arrows quick and accurate, barely aiming as he did it, it seemed, and felling the orcs, goblins and what nots like nothing to it with one arrow, now he can't take down one runner? Come on.

Gandalf White said:

You seriously think several thousand men walking backwards would prevent a running army of orcs from surrounding them?

Click to expand...

I find it odd that you pooh-pooh Rhiannon's guerilla tactics yet tell me that the women and children of Edoras would have been better off fleeing "into the hills" - where the walking group would be quickly surrounded by thousands of orcs- than going to the strongest fortress of Rohan!

Great minds mess up alike.

Click to expand...

Tolkien and PJ? *coughs* Is this suppossed to be sarcastic?

Sorry to say, GW, there is more than one smart lady out there who disagrees with you...

simbelmyne said:

Sorry to say, GW, there is more than one smart lady out there who disagrees with you...

Click to expand...

Oooh, GW, watch out now! You've made the girls mad! I'm sitting over here with Simbelmyne. Cookie?

Rhiannon said:

His objective is not to go out in a blaze of kamikaze glory. Do we still agree?

Click to expand...

Not entirely.

First, consider what would have happened if Frodo and Sam were a day or two slower in getting to Mount Doom. They don't know what is going on outside Mordor and Aragorn and company certainly don't know what is going on inside. If Frodo and Sam were slower, Aragorn and company would all have been orc lunch meat by the time they reached Mount Doom. Your "defensive" positions on those little hills would have made not one bit of difference. We all enjoy the way it went in LOTR, but I suspect if PJ had written something where this kind of perfect, accidental timing happened, you would have howled bloody murder.

As to going out in a "blaze of kamikaze glory" we have Gandalf's words in "The Last Debate" in LOTR:

'We must walk open-eyed into that trap, with courage, but small hope for ourselves. For, my lords, it may well prove that we ourselves shall perish utterly in a black battle far from the living lands; so that even if Barad-dur be thrown down, we shall not live to see a new age. But this, I deem, is our duty. And better so then to perish nonetheless -- as we surely shall, if we sit here -- and know as we die that no new age shall be.'

Click to expand...

Sure sounds pretty suicidal to me!

You are attacking PJ for following Tolkien's story line. This is hardly fair.

Gandalf says that they might die. They knew that already. But they hardly made a goal out of it! They were ready to take the risk, but I'm sure they intended to delay the necessity as long as possible.

Also, I think that my nice defensive positions on the hills could indeed have held out for at least a day, though perhaps not longer. Questions like did they have provisions or water in the formation with them come to mind. I'll look around and see if I can't come up with some military history to back me up.

You are attacking PJ for following Tolkien's story line. This is hardly fair.

Click to expand...

"Who said life is fair? Where is that written?"
I maintain that the sequence as presented in the film struck me as being silly, and I give reasons for why the sequence in the book strikes me as being perfectly reasonable. If we want to talk about convenient timing, where do those darn eagles aka gods in the machine keep coming from? My point is that I didn't like the sequence in the film and that it is perfectly reasonable for me not to like the sequence in the film. And that Peter Jackson has a poor grasp of strategy; there are plenty of other examples, like not evacuating the women and children from the lower levels of Minas Tirith until after the wall was breached. Or the fact that said wall is apparently made out of cheese. Not to mention his apparent fascination with elephants.
I hate elephants.

Did I mention that I'm a cantankarous female? You have been warned.