"The book version is lamer than the movies."

In the third movie, some invincible ghost guys show up and fix everything. Which I thought was kinda lame. Is this the same in the book?

You're not the only one

Even the director, Peter Jackson didn't like the idea of the Army of the Dead. He thought it was unbelievable, but decided to keep it in for die-hard fans of the books. Problem is, many die-hard fans are purists, meaning they hate his interpretation no matter what his decisions are.

The book version isn't better - it's worse

The book version of the story, no matter how hard people beneath and below me try to describe it as 'not as lame' or 'way cooler', is as lame (if not more lame) than the movie version.

In the book the Army of the Dead doesn't fight at Minas Tirith, but at Pelargir, a port in the south of Gondor which was also under attack from the Corsairs of Umbar (a city way down south).

But at the sight of the Army of the Dead the enemy forces flee, many of them into the water and drowning as a result. The remaining Gondorian forces are then taken upstream to Minas Tirith, and that's what helps them out in the book. So the Army of the Dead does not even fight, and doesn't do much beyond a massive beyond 'boo, I'm a scary ghost'.

Just think about that for a second: it's an entire army of ghosts, and they give one scare and thousands of evil battle-hardened Men run away, and the ghosts win the battle.

Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Yeah those guys. They are Men and over 4000 years old. They are described as Ring-wraiths for God's sake, and they have led the forces of the Enemy for thousands of years. But when the Haradrim suddenly see the undead in the ranks of Gondor they go batshit crazy and suicidal? I find that extremely hard to believe.

But that isn't everything that's wrong with the Army of the Dead - it's even unclear whether or not the ghosts of the enemy are actually dangerous!

In the book, Legolas tells Merry and Pippin what he saw at Pelargir and somewhat touches on this:

'Faint cries I heard, and dim horns blowing, and a murmur as of countless far voices: it was like the echo of some forgotten battle in the Dark Years long ago. Pale swords were drawn; but I know not whether their blades would still bite, for the Dead needed no longer any weapon but fear.'

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

So what does that make the plot of the book?

The book version is lamer than the movies.

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

Tolkiens dialog isn't perfect or flawless. His work isn't God's gift to mankind. It is not that when you tinker with the work you can only go backwards. You can very much, progress from the source material. And at times, Peter Jackson & Company (which include Alan Lee, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh) did progress.

But this isn't what people like to read. They like to gloat about how what monumental failures Peter Jackson made, and how he missed key moments, or iconic scenes. Whatever Peter Jackson (& Co) did, whatever we see, whatever way the producers decided to portray it, purists will always argue that the movie is the exact opposite of how it should be done.

That's not criticism

This gloating over how Peter Jackson "screwed up" is harming what could otherwise be a well-written answer. Many answers here on Quora regarding Tolkien issues have large portions dedicated on bashing Peter Jackson personally, and at times the most powerful language of the answer is dedicated to this dishonerable goal.

Don't get me wrong - there are parts of the movies that indeed could have played out better, both in terms of adaption of the book as in screenplay. But many of the answers here on Quora are not about that, and put up a façade as if their answers are about that. But these answers and posts are actually about insulting people and their work.

Dichotomies are created by those purists to give a notion of what the movies portray, and "what actually happened". And in the answers of the purists, those two are always the exact opposite of each other. Not because Peter Jackson made something that is the exact opposite of the source material, but because the purist makes it appear as if they are the opposite of each other. One such a person went as far as to say that The Hobbit movie trilogy has more in common with Conan the Barbarian than with the Hobbit. And it's not as such a comment is presented as a hyperbole - in this case, the guy means it.

So when you ask about something being lame, and then ask 'was it the same in the book?' many people will always say 'No, the book is always better!'. Some do so because they think the book version is indeed better in this particular case, and some will say so because they think that the book on which something is based is always better, and again others say that the book is better because they want to insult the people who made the movie.

But in this case, the movie version is better. And no amount of background information on geography, troop strength of tactical importance change the fact that the Army of the Dead is one of the weakest, if not the weakest point of the story (both movie and book-wise). The movie gave the army actual power and the oppertunity to do something meaningful to everyone. In the books, they only solve a problem that is presented late and in a minor way. But that's not the only thing that is wrong with the Army of the Dead.

Army of the Dead is an army of ghosts. Horror movies and horror stories always revolve around having one or very few monsters: Dracula (there is one vampire that is the source of evil), Frankenstein, The Mummy, etcetera. The idea of a ghost isn't new to us, and so we cannot approach it without biases and expectations. We know the power of one ghost: they can make people go insane, they can possess people and some are even capable of killing people.

So an entire army must have incredible power! And yet, canonically they never show this power. It's even unclear whether or not they can do anything at all. They are faced with forces that have thousands of years of experience in dealing with wraiths that are far more evil than the ones they are faced with, and yet they manage to scare them to death? The forces of Sauron are familiar with death, carnage and pillage, but this time they are scared of it?

That sounds unbelievable

To me, that sounds unbelievable. The only thing that I am not sure if it's a good thing or not is that in the books the whole ordeal with the Army happens more or less off-screen, and is only told by the characters in hindsight. This is good in the sense that we shy away from a weak point in the story. It is bad because you have an army of ghosts, and you don't even get to see it in action. It's like having a group of the coolest guys ever which do all kind of crazy cool stuff, but when you see them they sit around and do nothing.

Yeah, it's like that, but then in a book. So the whole ordeal with Pelargir being attacked was avoided in the movies, and with that a several minor characters that were thankfully omitted in the movie. Instead of "fighting" offscreen, they actually join the main battle and do something. That solved:

• The power issue of the Army of the Dead - instead of being a scary army, that may or may not be actually able to kill someone, it turns the army into an actual army
  
• The Army of the Dead, amazing as it is, is moved from backstage to the front stage and we actually get to see the show down between the forces of Mordor and this new Army
  
• The Pelargir line involves several extra characters, which were thus avoided. People already had trouble distinguishing every character in a movie that had over 20 characters
  
• It made sure the movie audience didn't grow 'battle-tired'. The main focus of the movie is the battle of Minas Tirith. It takes about 15 minutes, and is full of action. You don't want people to grow tired of fighting before the actual battle starts.
  

The importance of the battle at Pelargir was so that Aragorn could get Gondorian forces in time to Minas Tirith. Since not using the Army of the Dead for this (or only showing them in a very short way) was a no-go, this battle would have needed to happen early on in the movie, so you can have Aragorn panicking about not getting to Minas Tirith in time.

This screws up the pace of the movie, which otherwise builds up to the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, and you would have to show them another battle after the first one that involved an army of ghosts. The audience would be bored of fighting by the time the Pelennor battle starts, and it would be very difficult to top a battle involving the undead.

• It would also break the rhythm that was now established after two movies - a big battle at the end, followed by a closing epilogue (Amon-Hen in Fellowship of the Ring and Helm's Deep at the Two Towers).
  

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

So is it lame? Yes, definitely. But at least it's better than in the books.

Even the director, Peter Jackson didn't like the idea of the Army of the Dead. He thought it was unbelievable, but decided to keep it in for die-hard fans of the books.

Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Yeah those guys. They are Men and over 4000 years old. They are described as Ring-wraiths for God's sake, and they have led the forces of the Enemy for thousands of years. But when the Haradrim suddenly see the undead in the ranks of Gondor they go batshit crazy and suicidal? I find that extremely hard to believe.

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

This screws up the pace of the movie, which otherwise builds up to the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, and you would have to show them another battle after the first one that involved an army of ghosts. The audience would be bored of fighting by the time the Pelennor battle starts, and it would be very difficult to top a battle involving the undead.

It would also break the rhythm that was now established after two movies - a big battle at the end, followed by a closing epilogue (Amon-Hen in Fellowship of the Ring and Helm's Deep at the Two Towers).

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

Eldorion wrote:

Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Bull fucking shit. There is zero evidence that the Corsairs deal regularly with the Nazgul. They do not live under the Dark Lord. They live in an independent city-state and are simply (subservient) allies of Sauron. They mainly work as pirates (who, at least in real history, are famous for being superstitious). This guy actually has a point that the real denizens of Mordor who deal with Sauron, Nazgul, and/or sorcerery on a regular basis wouldn't have been as afraid of the Dead Men. This is actually a point in favor of letting the Dead go once they fight the corsairs instead of bringing them to Minas Tirith.

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

Apparently this guy forgot Sam's thoughts in TTT (turned into a monologue by Faramir in the film) about how the Haradrim weren't actually evil and were just fighting for what they thought or had been told, same as the men of Gondor. Same point holds true for the Corsairs, though arguably less so since they're pirates. It's bizarre, this guy refers to the books at plenty of points, but he either has an incredibly selective memory or he's just being dishonest.

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

Fuck you, dude. Purists have spent almost seventeen fucking years explaining WHY they think that PJ's changes were not improvements. If you're too lazy to read up on the history of the debate before mouthing off, that's your problem.

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

I love how he relegates the largest complaint to the very end of his post and still doesn't really mention the heart of most people's issue with it, namely, that the sudden arrival and total victory of the Dead Men represents a negation of the sacrifice by everyone else at Minas Tirith and is an anticlimactic end to the battle (as opposed to being just part of the build-up to the main battle).

God, what a terrible post. I feel dirty just quoting it.

Lancebloke wrote:It was a pretty shitty critique though. And I agree Eldo.... he might as well have picked the colour of horses or type of grass...