Viewers and critics alike have demonstrated their out-and-out disappointment with Peter Jacksons The Hobbit trilogy, claiming it to be all pixels and no pulse. But is this onslaught truly warranted? Maybe the trilogy was prematurely condemned under the curse of prequels, or like The Godfather: Part III (1990), perhaps its just misunderstood? It may also be that audiences arrived at the party with their Lord Of The Rings expectations or maybe, just maybe, if you look close enough, The Hobbit is actually every bit as good as, if not better than The Lord Of The Rings Thats right! Tolkien aficionados expected Jackson to achieve the same level of epic grandeur with the bloating of one novel as he achieved with three entirely separate novels - it would be like setting sail in a paper boat and expecting it to stay afloat it just doesnt happen. But dont be so quick to rule him out. With the reduced source material he had, Jackson nonetheless mapped out a sensational trilogy and theres a definitive beauty in that. The Hobbit trilogy suffers at the hands of relentless criticisms, but if cynics cap their hasty comparisons and consider the trilogy on its own merits, then there's actually much to love and admire about The Lord Of The Rings prequel series. Here are ten reasons why you are wrong about The Hobbit trilogy.