>Peter Jackson did absolutley nothing to challenge the racist
>undertones that we both agree exist in the book.

this i agree with. and IMO he should have, no question.

>In my
>opinion, the LOTR films are not the definitive triumphs of
>filmmaking that they are praised as. I see Jackson's work as
>an empty text. His own unique voice and style appear NOWHERE.

well, his unique voice and style appear in the translation of the vision of the book to the vision we saw on the screen. this is no easy feat. i also don't think the films are "definitive triumphs of filmmaking" but it is hard to deny that they are incredibly well-made action movies. that may not be your cup of tea, but Jackson's skill, voice and style are evident.

>In an age where Tarantino is criticized for plagarism, how
>does Jackson get a free pass? Jackson more or less plagarized
>another man's work over the course of 9 hours without ever
>attempting to challenge the racism that exists in the author's
>text.

remaking a book into a movie, by definition, is not plagiarism.

>Jackson is not a groundbreaking filmmaker,

agreed.

>but a man who
>treats his art as product and is doing his best to cash in. If
>you don't believe me, then go to your local Burger King and
>get a King Kong double whopper.

you're ignoring the studio's role here. you can't make the kinds of films Jackson is making without huge studio funding, and that deal with the devil brings along with it some baggage, such as "moichandizing, moichandizing, moichandizing" (c) yogurt.

you should watch (or read) an interview with Jackson. i'm sure dude wants to make money, but he's really just a geek who loves his craft.