terrible adaptation and terrible film

Rating: 4/10 (19 December 2012)

I saw the normal 24 fps non 3D version of The Hobbit so I have nothing to say about the quality of the controversial 48fps version or the 3D version.
First off anyone that says "you have to read the book " which some of the com-mentors on this board have mentioned as one of the reasons why critics aren't as enthused as the fans, should realize that a filmmakers job is not to create a companion piece for a book but to create a comprehensible film that can stand on its own and doesn't require research to be appreciated. This is coming from someone who almost always prefers the book and has refused to see certain movies because of how much suck-age is involved with the casting of actors, the director or the screenwriter some of the films that I flat out refuse to watch are Seabiscuit, The Adventures of Tintin The Watchmen etc. Some of my favorite films are based on some of my favorite books though such as Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, Princes Bride To Kill a Mockingbird etc. so I guess great books can be adapted into great films.
This is my breakdown of the film.
pro- The acting: there weren't any bad performances, most of them were actually very strong-8/10
pro- The sets, costumes and props were all amazing -8/10
pro- Cinematography: the film looked very beautiful-8/10
con-adaptation of material: turning a 400 page book into a nine hour trilogy is f%cking stupid. I read fan-boy comments defending the dragging pace of the film by saying that the book is slow in in some parts too, the major difference between a book and a film though is that an author has to set the scene, tell you what the characters are doing and what they are saying, whereas a film accomplishes two thirds of this visually, thus a film should always be shorter than the source material-2/10
con- the action: many of the action sequences were incredibly nonsensical and unnecessarily stupid. Here is a short list of scenes that annoyed me the most.
The rock monsters(literal rock em' sock em' robots). I understand they were in the book but the characters never took a ride on them in the book FYI to all you fan-boys and how do 12 dwarfs and a hobbit hang on to fighting mountains in the rain with boulders being flung about.
Thorin getting clubbed in the face with a mace (def: stick with heavy spiky metal on the end used to crush armor) by an opponent twice his size mounted on a giant dog. REALLY!!!.. IT'S A GODDAMN MACE , Thorin walks away unscathed.
Domino pine tree's: this was also a sweet nugget that peter Jackson pulled from his rectum because it sure didn't go down like that in the book, dwarfs jumping from one tree to the next as the tree's tumble to the ground.
Surfing down a cavern on a bridge with 14 people on it, they land safely in the soft embrace of the splintered bridge fragments hundreds of feet below, for comedic effect 600 lb. goblin king with ball-sack chin falls on them. HOW IS THIS ACCEPTABLE OR ENTERTAINING TO PEOPLE .
There are too many stupid things in this movie for me to write them all down, suffice it to say that peter Jackson has joined the "I'M SO F#CKING AWESOME DIRECTORS CLUB" with the likes of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. You can only join this club if you are a self congratulatory director that surrounds themselves with yes men.