Unlike actual Hobbits, film series about them are not short

[Plotinus]

I think they overdid it in the movies at some points, though. For example, I still don't see the point of the "Aragorn falls down a cliff and everyone thinks he's dead and then he hallucinates Arwen but then arrives in Helm's Deep in time anyway" storyline in Two Towers.

It's also because they needed to get some Aragorn/Arwen interaction in there somehow, despite them being miles apart, because you can't just abandon a love story for an entire film, and it was important to keep that element as much as possible to avoid the total sausage party vibe of the book. Be grateful that they didn't go with the original plan of having Arwen turn up at Helm's Deep in person and fight orcs.

On the whole I agree with Dachs, though - Jackson's changes to the books were, in almost (not quite) all respects, improvements. As far as I'm concerned he can do what he likes with the Hobbit and I know I'll love it. I'm incredibly pleased to have three films to look forward to rather than just two.

 

[Leifmk]

Yes they are. Originally The Hobbit wasn't meant to be set in the same universe as his Middle Earth stories, and Tolkien decided to make it part of this universe when realizing he could get a good story by following up on Bilbo's ring. The appendices were made after LotR was released to better put The Hobbit into a LotR context.

Conversely, you can see how LotR started out, at least partially, as a pretty straight sequel to The Hobbit in much the same tone (complete with animals thinking articulate thoughts to themselves, etc), but this changes as the plot leaves the Shire.