Would he have hated Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and other Tolkien movies?

He'd of disliked the extra scenes featuring Arwen at the expense of Glorfindel and of course the creation of Tauriel and her unbelievable romance with a handsome dwarf!

I’m sure he’d of been disappointed with the omission of The Scouring of the Shire most of all, that is such an important chapter and not just an afterthought, but I can understand why Jackson left it out.

Hear, hear!

I think Tolkien would understand the condensing or omission of elements - Bombadil for example (I believe he mentioned this in one of his letters...) - but would have been horrified by the alteration of the essential themes and nature of the story.

As a Tolkien geek, I both recognise the movies' flaws, but I also do really enjoy the films and I think they got as close as could have been hoped for under the circumstances. It would be nice to see the books done in a more "Tolkien" fashion, but I doubt they would be as mass-marketable because they wouldn't have the same action-adventure vibe. So, a "pure" conjuring of Lord of the Rings onto the big screen is a bit of a Catch-22. In order to have the capital necessary to oversee such a grand, epic production, you need to make it appeal to the fast-paced action crowd so it will sell. But if you do that, you rob the work of its pastoral qualities and mythological grandeur, as well as drawing focus away from the Hobbits and towards the sword-wielding heroes.

I also suspect that any future adaptations will become more and more riddled with PC nonsense - gender-swapped characters for instance - which will make it even more impossible to get a better version to the screen.

Your last paragraph and statement nails it entirely: the stuff Jackson got right he bullseyed like Robin Hood and William Tell had a baby and that baby made movies. When he misses, you're scratching your head.

Some of his alterations baffle me. Why change Faramir? It adds runtime. I think it was something to do with diminishing the power of the Ring in the audiences' mind, but I think if you did it right it would work; show Faramir deeply tempted and show him reject that evil and master himself.

Of course. And with thee I shudder.

Thank you, glynn. JRR was, first and foremost, a linguist.

Well done, sir!

It's possible... He might have just wanted a good deal of creative control on the projects, which might have made those adaptations more than flawed gems, but into unforgettable masterpieces. Imagine Bakshi's creative engine and Tolkien hawkishly guarding the shooting script to preserve integrity. It could have been unassailable!

Can you imagine the letters he'd write to Jackson, if Tolkien were alive and still of sound mind (I know it’s a tall ask!) the letters today would be released as a book and be a top seller on Amazon!

I’m not so sure. Someone who created characters and mythology may look at it very differently from someone who grew up with it and has lived off someone else’s creations. (Like the differences between the father and son in Knives Out). I think Tolkien might have realized that movies and books are different storytelling methods, and the story has to be adapted to the medium.