I agree, because I feel that the Hobbit, as a book, should not have been made in to a film, and definitely not three films. It is a bit too stretched out for a book that length. Honestly, unlike LOTR which was informed by all the different background history Professor Tolkien had created, the Hobbit started out more simply. I'm fine with that, and the film adaptation would have worked fine if it had come before LOTR.

However, when I separate it from the book and the LOTR saga (different tone, and different feel, which I would expect) I find it to be very enjoyable. Yes, it tries to reference LOTR too much, with Legolas, Frodo, and other nods that really are unnecessary, from a strict adaptation sense. But, I will credit them giving personality to 12 Dwarves who were really little more than rhyming names in the original story.

I agree that Jackson is trying to out do Jackson and it does a disservice to both LOTR and the Hobbit because neither, as films, are allowed to stand up on their own. But, that being said, I find them enjoyable, a lot of fun, a bit goofy in places, and very serious in other places.

I'll not comment on CGI because that really isn't something that bothers. Sure, there are shots that stand out to me, or I would not have done, but I can say that about ANY movie. Instead, I just enjoy the ride, and it is a fun ride for me. The CGI is just a tool used to get me there. Seeing as how I just had my imagination to get me through my first read of LOTR, I am appreciative of the visuals, probably more so than I should be

I agree that Jackson tried to outdo himself, but he also let himself have a bit more fun in this one too. It still feels like a character piece, around which Bilbo and Thorin are building towards the climax. I also have a tendency to separate the Hobbit from LOTR because I treat them as two different stories, not a large cohesive epic.