Back when An Unexpected Journey came out to mixed reviews, its defenders were keen to point out that it was merely the first in a three-part story and you couldn't condemn The Hobbit until it was over. After all, people didn't judge the whole The Lord Of The Rings trilogy on The Fellowship Of The Ring, did they? Well, yes they did - the first film was nominated for thirteen Oscars, including Best Picture - but humouring them people patiently waited to see how things transpired. Now, with the whole thing complete, it's totally acceptable to pass judgement. And boy were people right the first time around - The Hobbit is a bloated mess. Sure, there's the kernel of a good idea in there, but through a string of terrible production decisions it's lost in a greed that makes dragon sickness look like the flu. With his Star Wars prequels George Lucas failed to recapture the magic of the originals, but Peter Jackson went one worse with The Hobbit; he actively tried to copy his own previous work and failed embarrassingly. That's right - The Hobbit is worse than The Phantom Menace. And here are the ten biggest reasons why.
Honourable Mention - The Extra Material
When someone lists problems with The Hobbit, you can bet the amount of embellishment what is essentially a children's book has received will be there. On top of teasing out every possible event from the novel itself, the films have had copious subplots from The Return Of The King appendices and Peter Jackson's fevered brain thrown in for good measure. But don't forget that The Lord Of The Rings changed things up a fair bit in its transition to screen, cutting major parts (the Scouring of the Shire) and greatly expanding others (Aragorn and Arwen's relationship), and it worked perfectly well. The cases where it doesn't in The Hobbit (the entire character of Tauriel winds up being completely pointless) are less a issue with the notion of new material, and more to do with it being the product of greater problems, hence why it doesn't make the list proper.