The Hobbit Trilogy

I have now seen two of the three in The Hobbit Trilogy, but after finally seeing Desolation of Smaug I wonder if a trilogy was needed.  The reason I say this is that I found a great amount of the film was left to travel shots and other scenery.  Don't get me wrong, Unexpected Journey and Desolation were beautifully shot.  However, the ending of Smaug was a let down.

If the movie had left off after (spoiler here) Smaug started to lay waste to Lake Town, then the name of the Movie would have made sense.  But that is not what happened and I am feeling very disappointed by the film.  The last thing I saw in Desolation of Smaug was the dragon flying away.  No destruction, no desolation, just disappointment.

Now don't get me wrong.  The first two films are wonderful and I will always recommend watching.  That being said, I think the same amount of detail to the story itself could have been done in a shorter period of time.  Could have condensed into one film, but two would have been better.  I think three was way too much and spent more on cinematography and less on the story.

I very much look forward to The Battle of Five Armies.  Again, this will be brilliantly shot and a visual wonder and we will finally get the conclusion we all know is coming.  But I still wonder if Peter Jackson stretched The Hobbit films out just because The Lord of the Rings was a trilogy?

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are very different in literary structure.  The Lord of the Rings was a three book trilogy.  The Hobbit was one book.  I never felt there was enough material for three films.

All this being said, I could be completely wrong in my assessment.  I will go back and watch all three movies once they are release in the trilogy set that you all know everyone will buy.  I will do a marathon day of watching The Hobbit Trilogy and then I will come back on here and most likely state that I am an idiot and ignore my earlier post about The Hobbit.  I just felt such a let down from the ending of Smaug.