Sure, but it's wrong that he was able to stop it.
We lost what could have been an interesting piece of art.
We should have more adaptations in the world not fewer.
We lost what could have been an interesting piece of art.
We should have more adaptations in the world not fewer.
Art has asymmetric upside – bad art doesn't really harm anyone (usually just gets forgotten) but good art enriches millions of people's lives.
It might have been amazing. It might have been bad-but-interesting. We'll never know!
So, for example, theft should be illegal, because a world of unrestricted IP theft might be one in which we would get a lot less art. But allowing Tolkien to block adaptations of his bestseller 14 years after publication was probably not good for art.
We can't know the contrapositive but I don't see why giving the author a veto makes good outcomes more likely, especially decades after a book is published.
If Tolkien had been alive he probably would have put an end to Jackson's efforts, too.