Peter Jackson was given a larger budget and still didn't want to do The Hobbit. He realized what it was, a money grab by the studio after the success of LOTR.
I have the extended versions of the series and one thing I have noticed as I watch The Hobbit followed by LOTR every fall/winter is that I am less critical and like The Hobbit more every time I see it because I am not comparing it. My major complaint is still the overuse of CGI and the cartoonish effect of Smaug and the head orcs.
Too much or too little CGI does not bother me. I was fine with that aspect in both sets of movies.
My negative opinion of
The Hobbit had nothing to do with the CGI and everything to do with the way they presented the story. Honestly, it was boring to me and it failed to generate any emotional connection with the characters. That is coming from someone who has fond memories of
The Hobbit book and story.
The LoTR movies were not my favorites, but they were enjoyable to watch and I understood why there were three of those. There should have only been one
The Hobbit movie, not three.
It was the same way with the Harry Potter movies. Outside of the first one, the movies really did not do the books justice. If anyone likes the HP movies, they really should read the books. While you can say that for many books made into movies, the HP movies are one of the best examples of that.
On a side note, if you like audio books, get the "Stephen Fry" (UK) narrated version of the Harry Potter audio books. Stephen does an amazing job of narrating and acting out those books. Some of the characters he plays sound just like the ones from the movies too.
While not great,
The Lord of the Rings movies did a much better job transitioning a great story to a theatre screen while
The Hobbit movies seemed to be made to cash in on a well-known story IP and recent LoTR popularity.
