[Nerwen]

Nicely put, Morth, and I think you may have got at the heart of the problem. That CoH is very different story from LotR is not in dispute. That it is an "anti-LotR" (or a counterpoint, or a repudiation, or an authorial self-deconstruction, or whatever other colourful terms anyone feels like coming up with) ...no, I just don't see it. Surely the two would mirror each other more directly, or at least have many clear links to one another? I think the "contrast" is largely an illusion created by the fact the CoH happens to be the only other story to be published as a full-length adult novel. In fact, I suspect a lot of the "startled" critics had only read The Lord of the Rings before, and had no idea how complex and diverse Tolkien's fictional creation actually was.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Perhaps there are larger issues at stake here, or at least more general questions. How do adaptations of famous authors work to mould expectations about the texts an author produces? And what happens when these expectations are not met?

Oh, well, what usually happens is that quite a lot of people who go on to read the book either don't like it, or mentally re-write it to fit the film they've seen, as in your own example:

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Many, for example, swear that the Army of the Dead really did liberate Minas Tirith, when in fact the Dead's role in the film amounted to a crude deus ex machina poorly executed.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

An hypothetical CoH film (faithfully executed) has the capacity to shift expectations and widen Tolkien's pop culture appeal, or at least generate a sense of nuance. Conversely, a badly made adaptation has the capacity to cheapen Tolkien and threated to make him even more generic than he is already perceived to be.

Indeed; I'm sure that's something we can all agree with. I think what's puzzling everyone is why you've chosen such an elaborate way of posing a question that can't really be given a direct answer beyond "yes" or "no". As you might put it yourself, there's little there we can "engage with". Basically, you're asking, "if a certain series of very unlikely events took place, might they have a certain minor effect on pop culture?" Now, you can call this a thought experiment, if you like, but those tend to have a bit more point to them.

I have to say, though, tumhalad– at the risk of offending you– that my experience has been that people who go to a great deal of trouble to pose more-or-less dead-end (or unanswerable) questions are often really trying to argue something else entirely. I say this because my feeling is that there is a purpose to your asking this "hypothetical question" that you haven't yet stated as such. Is that right?