He did OK, but they were overlong, inconsistent, poorly paced, full of one-dimensional characters and set-piece battle scenes with deus ex machina outcomes, and so. much. exposition. You couldn't do a better job serving the books with more editing, but you could make three better movies by getting each (with the possible exception of Fellowship, which is a strong movie that just starts a little slow) down under 100 minutes.
But that's not a problem for a TV series, which is why GoT --- despite being categorically worse source material! --- is in the aggregate stronger than the LoTR films, even if you leave out the execrable Hobbit movies.
>He did OK, but they were overlong, inconsistent, poorly paced, full of one-dimensional characters and set-piece battle scenes with deus ex machina outcomes, and so. much. exposition.
Sounds quite faithful to me. The books are plodding, most of the characters are fairly simple, and there's entire chapters that describe rolling hills and lush forests...to say nothing of the songs.
But that's not a problem for a TV series, which is why GoT --- despite being categorically worse source material! --- is in the aggregate stronger than the LoTR films, even if you leave out the execrable Hobbit movies.