> They're also giving it a sequel. As imagined and written by Peter Jackson.

It's weird, yes, but my understanding is that the "sequel" is still based on Tolkien's writing. I could be wrong about that, and I'm sure that still involves a fair degree of invention on the part of the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens writing team. To my mind, though, the LotR movie trilogy is so great they'll have the benefit of my doubt until they fail me.

Unlike you, though, I didn't have one iota of a problem with his adaptations. Well, I mean, the Faramir stuff was nonsense, and in a few other places in Two Towers he made what I feel were weak deviations from the books, but I think he made some improvements as well. The point is, the books remain the books, and I don't think movies do us any favors to be slavishly faithful.

Of greater concern to me is who is going to be directing these things. The Harry Potter franchise is a good illustration of how changing the director while leaving the rest of the crew and the source material alone can dramatically change the feel of the final work. Superficially, they all look and feel like they're cut from the same cloth, but note, for example, how Prisoner of Azkaban really gets under the skin, and how Order of the Phoenix doesn't.

If Sam Raimi does it, the action scenes are all going to be terrible. Cuaron and Del Toro would be much stronger choices, but I'd be minorly concerned their distinctive styles would clash with the existing movies. Really I'd just rather wait the extra time for Jackson to do them himself, but I guess that's not going to happen.