Brego wrote: If he has it must be a different film that we all saw, as TFOTR movie hardly contains any fighting or battle, as he supposedly hated so much. In fact there is less than in the book. No Gandalf v Nasgul or Elves v Orcs in Lorien.
As I say above, we should keep in mind that we don't have Chistopher Tolkien's lengthy criticism or summation of the first film. The Le Monde statement appears to refer to all three films. It may be that Christopher Tolkien would say the same thing about the first film alone, but we don't know that for sure.
With respect to the Nazgul and Lorien examples here, I think they are instances of Tolkien not focusing on battles in any case.
The first battle is not experienced 'firsthand', so to speak, by the reader, and is only a very brief reference from Gandalf as he recounts his adventures to the Council. However Peter Jackson took another brief reference from Gandalf here and chose to film it as a fight: his invented wizard duel; which was not a brief struggle in the films in my opinion.
The Orc reference is more immediate yet still 'off stage'. Tolkien has the Orcs pass by, and it's noted that they will be dealt with. And later in the chapter Haldir merely relates the news of a battle.
A couple of examples come to mind: compare Tolkien's treatment (in Moria) of the scene where the Orc-chieftain stabs Frodo -- to Jackson's treatment of this whole scene in the chamber.
Or compare (book versus film) the confrontation with the orcs after Boromir tries to take the One from Frodo. Actually I have a further argument about the book experience versus the film experience here with respect to violence, but as this post is long I won't go into that for now.
Not that these are the only examples that could be raised, but jumping ahead…
Brego wrote: In fact all 3 books contain more fighting than in the films. So CTs supposed quote that the movies are all action and war to titillate youth is simplify wrong.
The following is from a film review by Richard A. Zwelling. I note that this is from a favorable review, and I can link to the page if anyone wants (if the whole thing is family friendly).
Having now finished reading The Two Towers, it is clear to me that the film diverts much more from its source material than did The Fellowship. The Helm's Deep battle sequence, which occupies less than twenty pages of Tolkien's 300-plus page novel, is transformed into the titanic centerpiece of the film, a monumental struggle against seemingly impossible odds that occupies close to one-fourth of the film as a whole.
Richard seems to approve of this. I won't quibble with that opinion, but even if this statement is more of an impression than fact, the relative disparity is notable (not to mention the warg fight for instance). Again, I can't say this is factually true without doing a lot of work that I don't want to do, but I would agree that this battle is overlong, even to the verge of boring (for me).
[I also think there was too much 'camera moving' here, something too many directors seem to be doing these days. Kill Bill, a purposely violent film in any case, seems to have put a lot more thought into fight choreography for example, in my opinion]
That much said, I don't intend to do a 'full' analysis here. It would take hours of watching the films again, and considerable time to write up a critical comparison.
Plus I'm not getting paid
But the point here is also that Christopher Tolkien's opinion does not appear to be new or unique, when one considers whether holding such an opinion necessarily means that he hasn't seen the films.
Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger was asked to comment on Peter Jackson's Fellowship of The Ring. She answered:
I didn't like it. But then, it wasn't aimed at me. It was aimed at the generations who've grown up on Star Wars and hunger for more and more action and greater and greater special effects. Jackson has turned an extremely sophisticated, complex and subtle -- and very long -- story into an action movie that I think satisfies the audience for whom he made it.
Of course she went on a little after this, but this summation is not unlike Christopher Tolkien's in my opinion, and it's relatively brief as well.
The following is from David Bratman from his essay published in the book Tolkien On Film. I have edited it for brevity and to focus on certain parts. I don't think I've altered anything concerning the matter under discussion (with respect to context), and certainly don't intend to, but I have added some paragraph breaks of my own for an arguably easier (visual) read.
His [Peter Jackson] excision of Tolkien's moral fiber and nobility was so unnecessary: only small changes -- or, more accurately, lack of changes -- would have made all the difference. […]
Much of the set design is absolutely beautiful. […] But the tone and style bear almost no relationship to the book I have read and loved. The films are about war tactics: the novel is about moral issues that transcend the details of the war. The films dwell intensely on images of evil: the novel focuses lovingly on the Elves and Hobbits, giving attention to the beautiful things, and the homely pleasures, […]
They're good films. They just aren't The Lord of the Rings, and that's true far beyond the extent to which no film is the book from which it's made.
[David then refers to Tolkien's comments about a film scenario of 1958 which include how things in that treatment have flattened out the tale. David continues.]
In The Fellowship of the Ring alone, think of the violent attacks by the Ringwraiths in the Shire, instead of their being left a vague menace, and the onscreen appearance of their attack in Bree, which flatten out their later real attack on Weathertop […] And most of all, think of that completely and utterly superfluous and time-wasting falling bridge immediately before the bridge of Khazad-dum. What was Jackson thinking? This even fails on the level of film as film […]
*****
As for fights, the films' battle scenes go on and on, while the stays in Rivendell and Lorien are scanted: the novel depicts the battles briefly and in a detached style (as described by Matthew T. Dickerson in the first chapter of his book Following Gandalf), leaving whole chapters for the beauties of the Elven lands, which despite their lack of 'action' are many readers' favorites.
The book is more than its plot, and far more than its action scenes. As Elizabeth R. Milner wrote, 'The crux of the matter to me is that The Lord of the Rings is an action adventure in the same way that the Bible is a book about sex.' Jackson doesn't agree with this.
*****
[…] If a film has time for only, say, 10 percent of a book, Jackson chose his 10 percent almost entirely from a 20 percent selection of the original, ignoring everything that was in the other 80 percent.
David Bratman, Summa Jacksonica, Tolkien On Film
I know plenty of Jackson fans will disagree with that, or might argue that the mediums are different, hopefully going beyond that mutually agreed upon statement. In any case this is the longer version of my opinion that Christopher Tolkien has seen the films, given the interview in Le Monde along with Carl Hostetter's comments, and given that Christopher Tolkien's opinion does not seem to be unique or new among Unfans of the films.
I especially consider the brevity of his summation, where a measure of simplification can hardly be avoided. No doubt Christopher Tolkien is aware of the action in the books, or could count the battles and fights, or mere references to them, but I would say it's more about relative focus (generally speaking), and I think that given much more to say, Christopher Tolkien could present a compelling argument to back up his brief statement in the interview.
I'm not suggesting that he was forced to be brief, but whatever the circumstances, his particular statement about the films is brief.