Martin Freeman was tremendous as Bilbo. And if you don't compare to LOTR it's a very good adaptation.

But there are two main criticisms that I agree with.

• it was too long and they added too many subplots that didn't exist in the book

• it used too much CGI and not enough practical effects

As a LOTR nerd it doesn't bother me too much because I'm happy to get more content. But as a film, I think it could have been executed better. There was never enough book to fill 3 whole movies.

I think when they were released, everybody brought the expectations they had from tLotR, which kinda doomed it from the start. That was lightning in a bottle, you can do EVERYTHING right and not get that same kind of success.

The Hobbit Trilogy is good when you remove those expectations.

If they'd just stuck to the book, not shoehorning in subplots and characters for fan service, like Legolas, and made at most 2 films it would have been great. The pacing just isn't there for 3 films, and it's clearly obvious.

The Hobbit is shorter than any of the LoTR novels, and the studio demand for a trilogy is the biggest core issue. The base that nearly every issue comes back to.

I've find a fan-made edited version online who cut away the whole elf-romance arc and it feels way better to watch.

Where did the spare barrel come from?

I saw the first Hobbit film in the theater in 3D and 48 frames per second. That was a fucking trip...felt like I was watching a 3D soap opera somehow.

The first film and a half is rather good. It starts going downhill at the river barrel scene.

Then there was the dragon fight in the third one, oh dear was that terrible.

The whole Gandalf knocking off for a bit is cannon though, so I am fine. It kinda explains why the eye returned to Mordor after so long time.