Tintinmarch:
We all know he tends to...uh...change the look and feel of the originals too much.
That seems a bit of a jump, as you suggest that he did a "good job" with
LOTR, a far more substantial body of work than the relatively brief
King Kong with which you compare it.
Of course, "brief" is only in comparison to the
LOTR! My problem with
Kong was, if anything, that he actually tried too hard to put
too much of the original in: the original had stunning state-of-the-art effects work and staggering set pieces, so he bludgeons the viewer with even
more effects and
more set-pieces. The original is a fairly sprightly piece, at c. 100 mins.; the 2005 one bogged itself down at 180-something minutes (and I've never seen the 200 minute-plus extended version...).
I also found it hard to believe that Naomi Watts could swan around on the very top of the Empire State Building (in high heels, no less), having conversations with Adrien Brody, with not so much as a hair out of place, rather than hanging on for dear life to stop her being blown off in a gale...
But in terms of his attention to detail, and how beautifully he recreated the N.Y.C. of the depression-era, plus the ship and Kong Island - it was wonderful; if he applies this sort of love to Tintin, I'll be well pleased.