generalfrevious said:

Like I said, it's because they split a 250 page book into three movies almost three hours long; basically the Hobbit is a cash grab that needs to justify the nine hour running time. With LOTR that was a product of artistic ambition, with the source material being longer and tonally different: it could be an epic trilogy. You really can't make an epic trilogy out a children's book, even though they are in the same fictional universe. I actually than Jackson for helping me appreciate JRR Tolkien, creative differences aside; but unfortunately he is trying to relive his glory days.

As someone who has always thought Bram Stoker's Dracula should be adapted as a trilogy of films I don't really have a problem so much with The Hobbit being told over three films with outside material and a tone more akin to the Lord of the Rings films. The book is a reasonable length and lots of things happen in it which would be probably have to be cut even in a two film adaptation.

I would have preferred the Lord of the Rings films to be four or may be five films to leave room for the material not included in the trilogy.

To be honest the only Jackson film that really felt Tolkien enough for me was Fellowship of the Ring but the others felt good as movies based on that material but not as close or literal adaptations. They all feel like they take place in the same universe (which isn't true of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings novels).

The PT however doesn't match the OT's description of the PT era. It doesn't feel like it takes place in the same cinematic universe and they are also three awful films.