Lets look at your points and actually try and stay calm and rational. Shall we.
Damn it. Between the studios greed and Peter Jackson's massive, narccissitic ego they are absolutely determined to ruin The Hobbit. Expanding The Hobbit to two movies was bad enough but three is complete overkill. Three movies for a 300-page book? Really? The appendix only adds another 125. Are the actors even under contract for a possible third movie? Because if they're not, it's clear this is a spur of the moment cash grab/egofest. I hope it doesn't effect shooting for the third season of Sherlock, something I'm even more interested in seeing than The Hobbit, especially after this nonsense.
First The studio didn't request this, Jackson did. While once presented the studio probably kissed his feet, I think its safe to say it wasn't brought up from a monetary stand point).
The production of the Hobbit was specifically delayed (one of the times at least) specifically to allow Martin Freeman to work both on Sherlock and to be available for the Hobbit. Since he already is scheduled to do pickups for film two next year, I am sure the extra work on top of that will still allow him to film a season 4 (he will already be able to do season three) if both actors agree to a season four (I don't know if that is signed on paper yet).
Now to the big one. You think the Hobbit should be done in one film. Sorry just not going to happen, nor was it ever going to happen if Jackson was writing or producing it, let alone directing it. That's just a Jackson thing, he likes long films, period. Now thinks to the rights issues between MGM and Warners, the studios were only going to be able to get deals made that would basically make them profits by green lighting two films. Sorry but thats the reality of having a property that we have one rights holder getting paid tens of millions who has no involvement in the films, and two studios who are working together, let alone on a project that is coming off the earlier property earning a billion of just the home market in the US, nearly three billion in world wide ticket sales, and billions more in WW home market, TV rights, and merchandising.
But avoid the business side of things. The book is 320 pages long, its dialogue light, as Tolkien rarely writes the dialogue that is going around Bilbo. Its also much less detailed then his later work on LoTR.
From the get go back in the days before Jackson was directing (it was still a two picture film), that we would actually be getting a lot of dialogue that Bilbo heard, but just described. That the Dwarves would each get unique voices (hell in the book do all of them even get lines?). That would greatly expand the scope of the film. We also know that brief passages were going to be shown in detail on the film. From traveling shots, to fighting scenes, to singing scenes. All take little time on paper but consume much more when filmed.
Take two examples, the book takes 11 pages to showcase Smaug versus Laketown and the Battle of the five armies (the book actually spends more time with the trolls). They are less then 1/30th of the written pages. Yet on film are certainly going to consume tens of minutes, probably over half an hour. Even if both those passages only took ten minutes of screen time, that would translate (if the rest of the book consumes the same ratio) a film the length of 300 minutes. Thats 5 hours. Now of course that isn't going to happen, some passages will get edited out, some will go quickly and some will take much, much longer.
That's without using any material from the appendix. As for its 128 pages, you do understand that there can be a passage about the Rising of the Necromancer thats one paragraph, that could consume twenty minutes of screen time when fleshed out and filmed (could be much less could be much more). As sparse as the writing of the Hobbit is, the appendix is even worse.
[quote]Jackson's statement is completely ridiculous. That part about the story of Bilbo Baggins story remaning untold is false./[quote] Actually first you would have to know if anything was cut from the Hobbit. Again Novels are usually cut, and cut dramatically to fit within a standard two hour film.
Look at Fellowship of the Ring Jackson released a 3 and half hour cut of that film, and there are huge sections of that book that aren't any part of the film. And thats again a 3 and a half hour cut of one book. If Jackson filmed everything in that book he would have easily added two hours. Easily.
So since you don't know what wasn't filmed from the Hobbit, you can't rationally make that point. Also since you think a version of the Hobbit that is shorter, which would also be an edited version, your point would also be in error.
The events going on in Middle-Earth during the book were important but weren't meant to be like the War of the Ring.
Actually agree. But here, in the Hobbit we don't get some of those events at all. Now if Jackson wants to devote the majority of the three films to the appendix material, then I would have serious issues, but we don't have any idea. None at all, about how much material in relationship to the material from the Hobbit is going to be in the movie.
Why is it that people think novels must be so heavily edited down to be good? We freely accept Short stories taking 2 plus hours in films, why is it so hard to accept novels taking several films to fully explore them?
Now I am not saying a film that is longer is going to be better. Not at all, nor am I saying a shorter film is going to be better. I think you can have bad short films, and bad long films (or multi films), just like you can have a great short film or a great long film.
Here are two examples.
Jane Austin's Pride & Prejudice a 400 page novel has been done in many forms. Yet the most critically (and I would say publicly as well) successful of these was an 8 part mini series (it took 5 full hours).
Look at the Lord of the Rings, its was intended as one novel, Jackson made three films, and also released director versions that were considerably longer. Yet critical reactions (from reviewers who reviewed both) seem to favor the extended cuts. Which basically equalled 2 full films for each volume. And all three still have major sections that have been edited out (Fellowship and Return of the King have lost the most).
I mean you compare the Hobbit to Kong, yet not LoTR (which I find odd to say the least). One is based on printed works the other isn't. One has extended notes to expand a story the other doesn't. You already mention your dislike for King Kong, how did you feel about the three LoTR films and the extended versions of those films (I assume you have seen them)?