I haven’t seen the second one yet, but the first was mostly a snoozer. He should probably have cut this down to two films, max. Not everything has to be a trilogy, it’s getting ridiculous.
The Hobbit is not a long book. There is no reason in the world why a movie picture adaptation should exceed 120 minutes. Total.
I disagree. While Peter Jackson should have included only relevant background material in the Hobbit, it should be as long as it needs to be.
In the Hobbit’s case, three movies might have been too much, but it certainly would have needed two movies to tell the whole story.
I haven’t seen the first one. If it’s that bad, then maybe Jackson should’ve done a “scouring of the Shire” in its place.
How ironic. Somebody complaining about trilogies when it comes to works of Tolkien.