Why split the book it in three movies??

Rating: 6/10 (16 December 2013)

Now. When I watched the first movies of Hobbit (An Unexpected Journey), I felt that it was justified to dedicate just a bit less than half of the book to it. It was very much like the book, with few added scenes, like of "Radagast the brown" that is barely mentioned in the book and actually gave a better understanding of the story. A perfect adaptation of the Book!
After watching the second part (Desolation of Smaug), I see only one reason of why the remaining +/- 60% of the story were split in two parts, which is, putting it plainly - Why not kill the chicken that lays golden eggs one year later and squeeze as many eggs as you can? Makes sense, right? (Money rules the world!) The difference from the first movie, however, is noticeable - to maintain, more or less the same length of the movie and leave enough material for the third part at the same time, more scenes had to be invented. Elf-dwarf romance felt unnecessary, just as the "catch me if you can" game that dwarfs played with Smaug in the halls of the Lonely Mountain (visually impressive, bravo to that!) also left me wondering of it's actual necessity. The movie ends where the chapter "Fire and Water" of the book starts - leaving not that much to tell, about 20% of written story. Unless the makers of the third part of the movie have some aces hidden in their sleeves, I am afraid that the third part will need to be filled with even more, even less necessary scenes.
Concluding. If you are of fan of fantasy and of Tolkien's world as such, of course, you will not doubt to go and see this movie. Just as you will wait for the third part to come out and, as a faithful fan that you are, you will go and see that too. Still, to me, it left a bit of a feeling of deception and I can give it only 6 stars VS 9.5 that I would give to the first part.