Okay, let's take those points one at a time:
a) Creativity - nope, not seeing it. Compared to the books the creativity seemed to have gone out of the window.
b) Financially - yup, they made oodles of money, but that doesn't mean that they were any good (look no further than the dreadful Avatar to prove that point).
c) Tom Bombadil? His absence didn't worry me, but omitting The Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake.
Genrally speaking, Jackson chopped out far too much, added a lot of utter nonsense and, in doing so, completely changed many characters and their actions (Faramir, Eowyn and Denethor to name but three).
I'm pleased that Del Torro isn't directing The Hobbit - the guy fixates far too much on creature designs, putting them before the story. Then again, I'm also unhappy that Jackson is directing and co-writing The Hobbit. I certainly won't waste my money by watching it.
I$m totally with you on Avatar Theory, or as I like to call it, The Brian Adams Problem.
The films are a version of the story, and to be honest, as great a story as lotr (the book) is, as a piece of writing it's ever such hard work, to make it work on screen it had to be changed radically imho.
The films represent the Tolkien universe brilliantly in incredible detail, even if you don't like the dramatic treatment that can't be denied surely?
Plus their massive success introduced a whole new generation of fans to the books. That's a great thing.
The best thing about the hobbit is it's a much more concise story, but there that doesn't mean you're going to get a verbatim copy of the book, it sounds like a big chunk is going to be completely new prequel to lotr! *crosses fingers and hopes Jackson doesn't go all George Lucas*