I see a few people (not on here) are defending the Hobbit movies by saying, "well, it not LOTR and the subject matter is not as heavy, it's based on a children's book!".
That seems like a load of bull. If the films are based on a children's fairy tale, what was up with the long, dour battle? There were close up shots of butchered elf and Laketown people! Thorin was going to throw Bilbo over the ledge to break his neck just because of the truce. I could feel they were trying to make the Battle of the Five armies be as epic and grandiose as LOTR. If it's a children's fairy tale, why does it end with a young, neurotic Bilbo, fiddling around in his pocket for the ring with forbidding "evil ring" music? Shouldn't it have left off on a more uplifting note? The movies aren't about Sauron or the ring after all. If it's "not LOTR", why do we have Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman going into Sauron's spooky house of thrills and fighting Ringwraiths? Why Legolas or the Strider references that needlessly ponder to fans? Why Fellowship cue music when the Fellowship doesn't even exist? This isn't LOTR right? If this is a lighter fare, why the need for a copy-cat trilogy when the subject matter is more straight forward (Hobbit reluctantly leaves hole, gets dwarves out of trouble with his cunning, meets exotic characters and returns home an unlikely hero).
All those slow motion shots from the seizure inducing Sauron flame effect, to Galadriel going psycho, to Thorin getting trippy for three minutes in the gold pool and even the ice battle where Thorin just watches Azog float beneath him seemed like unnecessary bloat. We get these things but no wrap up on the Erebor, Thorin's funeral and what became of Laketown? Par that with side stories that don't even belong (Alfrid, Tauriel/Kili love, orc father/son) and it seems like unnecessary dramatic fluff that has no business being in a "lighter", "non-LOTR" adventure. They're all false stakes. Why should I care about Gandalf being trapped in a cage when I know he's going to make it out okay? Why should I care about Legolas fighting an Orc-Son when I know that A. Legolas is going to kill him in some "spectacular" fashion and, B. Orcs don't care about each other or show compassion, so what are the ramifications to Orc-Dad on the ice who will die shortly as well? If those things aren't needless filler, then why are they there to over complicate a relatively simple story? This is Bilbo's tale, a tale he tells with enthusiasm and passion, yet, after an exhausting battle it ends with a damaged goods Bilbo. I half expected him to check out after looking around at his picked through house (before it cuts to "LOTR"). Also, why would you have Tauriel/Fili/Legolas/Thranduil "love hurts so much!" scene have as much, or more importance over Bilbo and the death of Thorin? Huh? Those two are the main characters! Guess they needed that punchy Aragorn reference to promote next year's "Fellowship of the Ring" film . . . oh, wait.
The movies I dislike the most are the ones that always make me question and ask, "why?". After days of letting these Hobbit movies fester in my brain, that's all I can think of is "why". Why introduce battle worms if they're not going to be in the battle? Because of a sentence in the book? Why then focus on things that weren't in the book? If it's not LOTR, why treat it like it kinda-sorta is? Why does Thorin have a literal "dragon sickness" that he snaps out of by himself when simply being greedy would have been more compelling? I don't really think you need three movies filled with epic CGI, ADD battles, multiple contrived subplots and other distractions to tell the simple story of a Hobbit that was swept up in an adventure that made him appreciate his home and life more.
