I suspect Tolkien would view them both as disappointingly divergent, but at least the content of this series will presumably have to be approved by the Tolkien Estate, whereas Jackson’s films didn’t.
We got lucky that the Lord of the Rings movies were done with love and mostly explored the same themes as the books, even if they condensed the timeline (by decades!), re-envisioned characters, and often operated in a very different tone. The Hobbit…not so much.
I think that's why even many Tolkien diehards liked the LotR films: Jackson's love of Tolkien's stories was evident, and there was no attempt to "correct" or "update" them in any way. I think basing it visually off of John Howe and Alan Lee's artwork was key, as well. The most common complaints I've seen from Tolkienistas are more related to omissions: e.g. the Barrow-downs, Tom Bombadil, Radagast, etc. But it also makes sense why Jackson didn't include them.
If you're going to adapt a beloved and classic book series to the screen, I do think it is important to try to stay true to the actual themes and tone of the books as much as possible. Otherwise it runs the risk of getting into subversion. There's a time and place for that, but Tolkien? I think the best way to do that would be to do what Michael Moorcock did, when he subverted both Howard and Tolkien with his Elric character. Meaning, an entirely different story and world.
As far as specific "issues," I don't think it is "anti-Tolkien" to have non-white elves or hobbits. Casting is more diverse now than it was even 25 years ago, and films are explicitly made for a wider range of viewers than just "White people center, everyone else periphery." Obviously that's a good thing. And even though Tolkien created Middle-earth as a kind of mythological prehistoric Europe, there's no reason that elves and hobbits couldn't vary in skin color (not to mention, elves were originally from the east).
The one thing that seems to diverge from the spirit of Tolkien in a way that may end up feeling jarring, is the depiction of Galadriel as a young warrior. Without looking it up, I can't remember if she ever took up arms in the Silmarillion. Maybe? And no, this has nothing to do with Galadriel "belonging in a dress." It has more to do with who Galadriel was - including what her power was, which wasn't about physical combat, and her age and wisdom (she was already several thousand years old by the time of these stories). It seems somewhat diminishing of the character (On the other hand, while I really like Kate Blanchett, I found her depiction a bit stilted, like she was trying too hard to be "elfy" and just came across as a bit strange).
I suppose making Galadriel younger and less ethereal makes her more relatable, as what seems to be her role as primary protagonist. So again, from a film perspective, it makes sense, even if I think it might have been wiser to just create a new character.
