Ehhh, whatever. This seems like fan boy nit-picking. I haven't seen the second installment yet, but I did see the first. And I am kind of a fan boy, The Hobbit was the second book I ever read as a child (The Chronicles of Narnia being the first.) Anyways here's my perspective, I thought the original trilogy was pretty good. When I heard the Hobbit was being made I thought, "Okay it might work, not as epic but if Jackson reigns it in then it would be nice." Then I heard it was two parts. Okay, I guess there's the content there if you dig a little. Then I hear it's three parts... Well fuck, this is bound to be an overdrawn shit fest I was sure. Then I saw the first one. And lo and behold it was a fantastic movie. It had some overdrawn scenes but really it was solid throughout. I know it wasn't completely true to the source and liberally expanded it (which it should be mentioned is partly because Jackson can't draw from The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales, only the appendixes of TLTR, Tolikien's family has locked it down.) But he fleshed out a fantastic story around it. Bilbo is hardly lost in it, instead it puts his small view in context with a world descending into chaos. It makes it better IMO. Honestly it was the best possible way to do the Hobbit with the LOTR already out there. It would have been confusing to most people to suddenly have a very quaint story following such an epic, and it would have bored a great deal of the new fans. Let's be honest here, The Hobbit is a wonderful book. and if your not familiar with the Middle Earth I strongly recommend you start with it (preferably when your young, as it was written as a children's book.) But If you've already had the depth of the LOTR then it's bound to disappoint. Jackson has done an admirable job fleshing it thus far and placing it in context.

That said, the shitty CGI orcs suck. I mean really? So many opponents and you go back to Orcs? Fuck the spiders of Mirthwood could have ...