You could tell the entire Hobbit novel in two hours and forty minutes. Seriously, he's going to do three movies on The Hobbit that are going to clock in at at least eight hours? Oh, but of course, Peter Jackson is a genius. The same genius who decided to take a ninety-minute movie in King Kong and turn into into a bloated, three-hour-plus "epic."
Nail on the head.
However one parses it Jackson had more individual material for each one of his LOTR movies - including The Two Towers
, which shifted a chunk of the novel's actual story to the next film - than he does for the entire Hobbit Trilogy. While incorporating the appendices played an important role in the LOTR films (Arwen's story is drawn entirely from it), it'll play a much more significant and larger role in these films.
Wrong, utterly utterly wrong. The Hobbit has a huge amount of events in it. But it appears to be less then the other books because its written simpler. Almost no dialogue, little description of detail (at least in comparison to how he wrote the Lord of the Rings). Even his prose is much shorter in the Hobbit. But a huge number of events take place. Compare them to similar events in Lord of the Rings and you will see a sizable page difference.
Bilbo's story is (the time from his point of view in his universe) takes as long as Frodo's does, once Frodo packs and leaves Bag End (So kill a few chapters out of Fellowship). The difference is the stakes for the most part are smaller, and that the writing is much, much sparser.
Now you might not like that he is making the films in the same style and manner of the Lord of the Rings. Now thats a valid issue. Perhaps you wanted a brisk first person telling jumping from event to event. Maybe you wanted little to no dialogue, like the story. Thats fine.
But once the choice was made to tell the story in the third person (like Lotr), to have events take time to actually occur, to show the passage of time and getting from place to place. You are looking at a long story. Remember the Lord of the Rings was written just like the Hobbit as one book. Jackson told an 11 hour version of that book, and left hours still on the cutting room floor.
Sp far the only thing I don't like is unlike LoTR, where the first teaser announced it was a multipart film, so far no trailer has mentioned this being a multiple part film. Sure there has been a lot of mainstream press, trade press, and geek press, but the actually tv and movie trailers have yet to make notice of that.
Actually I strongly disagreed with you about Jackson not having to cu (he always cuts things from movies) just because he can make a three hour movie anytime doesn't mean he isn't cutting a lot of material as well. He is known for shooting a huge amount of material.
I disagreed about most extended cuts not being good. In fact that aren't that many films that actually have extended cuts released. Now a lot of films put out cut scenes, but the vast majority don't actually edit them into extended cuts. The majority of actual extended cut films I have scene I enjoyed more.
I also don't think keeping a run time from studio mandate is a good thing. If a book as the material for 3 or four hours I want to see it. If a studio says you must turn in a cut of 2 hours (something quite common back when I was younger the 70's and 80's) doesn't mean thats the best way to tell that story. See plenty I disagreed with you.