Jackson made a big point about filming in 3D HFR, and "future-proofing" the Hobbit movies. I'm confident that 20 years from now, LOTR will hold up visually better than the Hobbit will. Was Dain CG? He looked so fake in his introduction that I wanted to just leave. Azog did look very real in his death scene, but I never thought Bolg looked any good. Just a silly cartoon.

Avatar made great points, and I agree with most of them, but I actually thought Freeman's Bilbo was one of the best parts of this movie. He gave me my only chuckle: his reaction when Thranduil confronted him about the incidents in Mirkwood. Maybe he would have been a less fascinating part of a great movie, but this was no great movie.

I'm not a purist, but only a fraction of the events of this movie were represented in the book in any way. This isn't a problem if the movie turns out great, but in this case, it's just a crappy rewrite.

Mr. Shore, what happened? So many beats didn't land due to a score that couldn't find the right tone.

This movie was missing some establishing shots. Up on the pillar where Thorin went to meet Azog, the dwarves split up and they kept cutting between them; on the move, without establishing where they were. I didn't need a geolocation, but I needed more information than just a head shot with a sky in the background. In fact I found a lot of the editing choices in this film appalling. How many honest and trustworthy eyes saw cuts of this movie before its release?

All in all, I find myself a bit saddened by how these films turned out. I had hoped for the best, and I even had myself convinced for a while that AUJ was much better than it is (It's still the only one of the three I find tolerable). I was pretty young when Episode I came out, and I didn't grow up with Star Wars, so I guess I can say that Peter Jackson is my George Lucas. I spent most of BotFA pondering what happened to him– where his senses went. LOTR was certainly no fluke, so I've got no explanation for it all.

I had the strange impression during the opening Lake town scene of everyone trying to "get back in the groove", for lack of a better term. I haven't watched DOS since theaters but I just felt this strange air of none of the actors buying into the proceedings at all, which diminished after that point and I had also not felt in the previous installments. I don't know if it's just me or if I'm doing a terrible job of articulating this.

Overall, this one felt torturous. I was so thoroughly disappointed by AUJ, as I think most sane people were, that, with extremely lowered expectations, I did manage to enjoy DOS and all of its excesses. But this one seemed to crank of the issues of these films, and Jackson's filmmaking style in general up to 11. The most enjoyment I've gotten from these films is seeing Legolas perform ridiculous CGI stunts, as that seems to be one of the only qualities these films share with LOTR.

^^

I know one can be made, for certain.

If you ever listen to some of the music, it doesn't all qualify as unnecessary

Like I said, this is my perspective. Tell me a story that is self-contained, and I will judge that story accordingly. I don't judge Chronicles of Riddick against Pitch Black, or vice versa.

Keep in mind, my perspective on film is regarding characters and story, with the rest being trappings. The Hobbit will succeed, or fail, based upon its ability to establish characters and carry their story through. It establishes new characters (Thorin, namely) with a story that does not connect to LOTR save for the fact that Bilbo and Gandalf are involved.

Obviously, Jackson has woven more pieces from LOTR that Tolkien intended, so I will regard those characters  accordingly. Really, the only impact that has on me is that Gandalf, Legolas, Elrond, Galadriel and Bilbo won't die.