A Response to 8 Most Frequent Complaints About the Hobbit

Rating: 10/10 (7 January 2013)

Since many reviews have already been written and almost everything has been said on the matter, I have decided to list the most frequent complaints brought up by the reviewers and discuss them (of course not ad personam, but in general terms).
Complaint 1 "The movie is too long given the fact it's based on a 300-page book."
This would be a valid point if it weren't for one thing: the movie uses far more material than you will find in the Hobbit book. Here is a list of scenes that are not covered in this particular Tolkien's work or only alluded to: a) The whole prologue b) Azog c) Radagast d) Dol Guldur e)The White Council
That is actually a substantial portion of the movie. Of course PJ tried to explain that, but in vain. Critics had already declared: "it's too long and the decision was of financial nature". Well, of course it was. But PJ had other reasons for splitting the movie into three parts and that reason was a great amount of additional material that would make the Hobbit more profound and a tad closer to the LOTR movies. Getting rid of those scenes would simplify the story even further and there would be even more complaints about the story being not as gripping as the one in LOTR.
Complaint 2 "There are sequences in the movie that drag, especially at the beginning of the movie."
Now this is interesting. Recently I've read old reviews of the Fellowship of the Ring from which I've learned that the pace of the movie is  too fast. And actually - I agree with it. You have this impression that characters in FOTR were not introduced properly. This time PJ had this luxury to devote more time to character exposition. But a lot of people have already gotten used to this "music video-like pace" of the movies where there is no time to stop and get to know the characters - which is a shame as I enjoyed the whole sequence in Bag End and felt like in the past where directors did not have to rush anywhere and could build the mood of the movie properly.
Complaint 3 "The movie does not have the magnitude of LOTR trilogy"
Of course, it doesn't. It is based on a children's book. This complaint should be addressed to Tolkien himself, not to PJ. The Hobbit is merely an introduction to the Middle Earth: Sauron is still weak, there are no black riders or Witch-king of Angmar. Instead, the characters fight  trolls and goblins. This is our source material this time so comparing it to LOTR is pointless.
Complaint 4 "The movie is childish and naive."
As above. The movie is based on the book for children. Still PJ did his best to expand it and add extra material to make it more complex and interesting for adults.
Complaint 5 "The movie strays away from the source material by making it darker than the book."
It has to if PJ wanted to make it consistent with LOTR trilogy. But still it is closer to the book than LOTR was so I can't understand the criticism here. As an adaptation it is definitely a more faithful film than LOTR.
Complaint 6 "The music repeats the same motifs from LOTR soundtrack."
Yes, it does only when we see the characters known from LOTR trilogy. Another device used to make the Hobbit more consistent with previous films – which, in my opinion, is a good idea.
Complaint 7 "The 48fps format makes it difficult for viewers to immerse in the world of Middle Earth."
For me this issue is blown out of proportions. A lot of scenes look much better in 48fps (battle scenes or landscape scenes). There is less chaos and blur and in other scenes (Bag End) when everything looks "too real" it is just a question of getting used to the new look which shouldn't be that difficult given the fact that we can see a similar effect watching a movie on a high quality 200 or 400 Hz LED TV at home.
Complaint 8 "The movie relies too much on CGi characters and does not look as real as LOTR."
With this I can agree though I can understand that it was difficult to shoot scenes with Azog fighting dwarfs when filmmakers wanted to show the difference in height between them. Plus, more CGI gives a different feel to the movie emphasizing its different (less serious) character.
Conclusion
All in all, this whole battle between enthusiastic reviews and extremely negative opinions which we are witnessing now resembles the situation when a famous music band, after releasing a seminal album, decides to produce something utterly different in style. A lot of people then are unable to embrace the change as they expected another record in the old style.
Same with the Hobbit. When it comes to the quality of filmmaking, it is comparable to LOTR trilogy. But since the history is simpler and the movie has a noticeably different look and style (more humor + more CGI), many people express disappointment. Clearly, the movie should gain more positive reviews once people understand it is a different story from LOTR.