It's funny to see that we all have some points we are very sensitive to in a picture. It occured to me while chatting with some friends about Lord Of The Rings II, the movie. A friend of mine, who is a teacher of Roman History and spends her holidays in the ruins of Rome found the film great but there was a scene that was really shocking for her : she said the ruins of Osgiliath were totally unrealistic. According to her, these were the ruins expected from a concrete house, not an ancient stone house. The same applied, to Helm's Deep forteress. I had myself completely overlooked this but was fascinated during the whole film by Gollum's back : he has much too much vertebrae to be human (OK, he is a hobbit. Just to say that this wasn't realistic in my eyes since I am a GP). My wife wasn't too much bothered about this but declared that the charge of the Rohirims really seemed completely absurd : they charge down a 30 to 45 slope. She told me (and, given her horsemanship experience, I take her word on it), that a rider would have had a hard time leading his horse by the hand on such a slope without falling, so charging was right out of the question... This is not to criticize the film : we all liked it very much and agreed it was a work of fiction, not for depicting reality. This was just to say that we are very sensitive to some details in other's works. The shocking thing in these details might be in our eyes, not in the work we are seing. Remembering this could help reducing the trolling around... Compiler