Any-hoo, in response to the OP:
LOTR is likely to be the definitive film version of the saga for a long, long time to come. The next generation at least. The awesome scale, sweep and visually iconic nature of Jackson's work is just too well-entrenched (and still too profitable, not to put too fine a point on it) to get around.
It's certainly imperfect, though. I thought it was near-perfectly cast and performed, but almost all of Jackson's attempts to add to or reinterpret the source material are misfires. The Two Towers
, which contained the most of these (heaviest concentration of romance subplot, painful dwarf-tossing jokes, extraneous added action sequences) is the weakest instalment for that reason. A more faithful retelling would be more powerful in some ways.
But there may not be reason to remake it for future generations. A lot of the other flaws that make people uncomfortable about the movies now -- the endless sermonizing about Hope, the clear visual distinction between Good and Eeevil, ROTK's half-dozen endings -- are straight-up baked into the source material. In fact Jackson did a better job with cutting
extraneous source content than he did with adding in his own stuff -- we were wisely spared Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, due respects to the Tolkienologists who complained so bitterly about the latter.