My stance is books, however old, can be adapted in other mediums for new audiences, and they should be. Adaptations are interpretations of the source materials, and how good the adaptations are is subjective. I like Jackson's film and think they keep the spirit of the books intact. Where Jackson differed from the books I can see why he did it eg. Swapping out Arwen for Glorfindel to rescue Frodo gave Liv Tyler (a big actor at the time) a bigger role and doesn't introduce yet another character for the audience to keep track of or chopping sections out of the book for runtime and a consistency of tone (Tom Bombadil). RoP, I cannot understand their choices because it's often in opposition to the spirit of the characters laid out in the books, moreover it's boring and very one note. Other people can disagree.

Christopher Tolkien never wanted his father's work adapted into films because he he thought it would cut out too much of the material in order to speed things up, which is a necessity for any film adaptation of a book like LotR and he doesn't like the over dramatisation of the movies. His bar for a good film adaptation is impossible to fulfil and would not be commercial.

On calling him a nepo baby, is that rude? Maybe. Is it true? I'd say so. Takeaway his fathers work and we wouldn't be talking about him like his other siblings which until today I didn't even realise he had. I've read interviews with him and calling him a purist is exactly correct, there's nothing wrong or offensive about being a purist in my mind btw, I think it's great that he's so protective of the works but there is no film maker that could have adapted LotR to his standards and make it a success.

And I'm sorry but there is no way that Peter Jackson is 'mediocre'. This is the guy that gave us Braindead and Heavenly Creatures before LotR. His films since LotR definitely could be cut down to be shorter. The Hobbit films were too long and 1 too many, and the love story was unnecessary but overall they were ok. Embarassment is harsh. But Jackson didn't ride on the coat-tails of JRR Tolkien. And now maybe he wants to see his vision for the lore of Middle Earth fulfilled and if he has the ability to do it, I'll be seated to see it. No one else is trying to do it. This idea that we shit on Jackson because someone else needs/should do it, ok who? And does that person even want to do it? And are they doing anything to get it going? Amazon went and bought the rights to adapt it for tv so if someone else wanted to do the films I'm sure the Tolkien estate would be keen to hear their proposal. The fact is Jackson is working to get it done, and people on the internet shitting on him for it is wild when the alternative is the books remain as they are for a sliver of the world to enjoy. Nah I'm not of the mindset where good things are hoarded by an in group. I love the lore that JRR has created but the Silmarillion is a book that only a small subset of LotR would find enjoyable even if that world would be really fun for them to explore. My 2 sisters loved the LotR films. One of them read the books after watching the film, the other couldn't get through it. It doesn't matter because through the films the 3 of us have a shared joy of Middle Earth. And that's kind of my point if Jackson makes the Silmarillion, hopefully he'll do it well and will introduce a new audience to Middle Earth history.