Well, the film wasn't supposed to be just a stretched-out Hobbit. If they had done that, it would've been pretty terrible. But Jackson filled it with a lot of other stuff like from the Appendices of Return of the King, for example. It's expanding the whole world, and tying things into LotR more (completely agreed that it doesn't match the LotR films, though). So it's definitely not The Hobbit, not perfectly, but it's that plus a lot added--debatable whether that's a good thing or bad thing. =P

But yeah, definitely better than An Unexpected Journey. And Smaug was just absolutely amazing--every moment he was on the screen was great. Benedict Cumberbatch was really the perfect choice for the voice, I thought.

Well, the film wasn't supposed to be just a stretched-out Hobbit. If they had done that, it would've been pretty terrible.

Ehhhh....

I mean, I can understand Jackson wanting to expand the story by adding all the Dol Goldur stuff (and I'm pretty okay with it), but this story doesn't need a lot of what he's putting on screen. Taurial and Legolas aren't necessary. That entire sequence of the Dwarves trying to catch Smaug in gold was unnecessary* and actually made movie-Smaug seem like a less menacing character than he was in the book. And there are several scenes, like the barrel ride and escape from Goblin Town, that just go on way too long and are too over the top for what they should be. It really does feel, to me anyway, like just that: A stretched out version of The Hobbit.

I stand by my belief that, even with Jackson wanting to expand the story, Hobbit could have easily been edited down to two films (or at least three shorter, better paced, films). Maybe they would have both been near Return of the King length, but a three hour (plus) runtime didn't stop it from telling a great (reasonably paced) story. Or making money. Or getting critical acclaim.

I do agree it was better than Unexpected Journey, though. I was able to enjoy this one for the most part while the former was just disappointing.

*Okay, so it was necessary for the movie so it could actually have a climax, but the two film deal eliminates that problem.

Personally, I think the entire scene in the barrels was incredibly drawn out and somewhat boring.

I thought the river chase was hilarious, to be honest.

Also, gilding Smaug was really a pretty good plan. since Red dragons are the most powerful of the chromatics, and Platinum dragons are the strongest of the metallics, by making Smaug a Gold dragon, they effectively not only depowered him, but forced him to swap from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good.

Or, they would have if it hadn't all gotten shaken off.

@V1P2--well, sure, it's debatable if all that was a good idea. =P My point was just that he wanted to add a bunch of extra stuff in, vs. just stretching out The Hobbit itself. But yeah, the whole love triangle in general was really poorly done, I thought, though I loved the inclusion of Tauriel overall--she had the potential to be (and indeed, was, with the exception of the love triangle thing) a really awesome character.

But yeah, I'd agree with the Goblin Town escape (that really was just pretty over the top, even for a fantasy movie, though I don't think it was horrible either), but personally I really liked the barrel ride scene.

Personally, I'm not against having a trilogy at all--more time in Jackson's adaptation of Middle-Earth, which I love. ^^ It's not the book exactly, but I do still enjoy seeing his adaptation. Here's hoping the third impresses...