Although the padding out of the film with the addition of certain scenes, such as Gandalf's background adventure whilst our heroes are in Mirkwood, are welcome, many were unnecessary and detracted from the original novel. The Hobbit is one of the first of its kind, a true Heroes Journey in the monomyth style, based in a fantastical universe which set the tone for decades of following literature. At its core, the story follows Bilbo's ascension from a simple villager to a brave adventurer. By glossing over many of his heroic acts, either hurrying through their buildup in the headlong charge to get to the next flashy battle, or by attributing his actions to secondary characters or cameo actors. As such Bilbo's story is diluted, causing much of the story to feel shallow, and robbing it of some of the essential magic which made The Hobbit such a standout book and long-lived classic.
Peter Jackson did betray the message of The Hobbit in the film. The violent battles and overall story delivery took away from the true story of The Hobbit. While he will be viewed negatively for this you do have to remember it is his film and it was open to be done how he wanted to.
Peter Jackson is a true fan who cares more about the story than about how much money he can exploit from real fans, like most Hollywood producers do. He took great pains to bring Lord of the Rings to life, and he did the same for the Hobbit. It may be a little different than the book, but that is to be expected. Some things just cant be translated to the screen.
While Peter Jackson made some changes to the story of the Hobbit, that doesn't mean that he ruined the message of the book. There have to be changes with every movie that is translated from a book, and Jackson did a much better job that many other book to movie projects.
The Hobbit was written as a children's book. The spirit of Peter Jackon's interpretation of The Hobbit was completely true to this. Fans of The Lord of the Rings may have been expecting the same dark feel to the story, but The Hobbit was not written in that tone. As a huge fan of both the original books and of Peter Jackson's interpretations, I think that the director managed to set a beautiful and appropriate tone for J.R.R. Tolkien's novel while expanding on the information he had to set the stage as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings.
Several people have cried "exploitation" due to the splitting of The Hobbit into three movies. It might shock some people to learn that Tolkien only wrote The Lord of the Rings after seeing the huge monetary success that The Hobbit became.
The movie was extraordinary, and I think Tolkien himself would have been pleased with Jackson's interpretations of his work.
Peter Jackson's work on The Hobbit was great. Many people who saw it said it was good. Purest need to get over themselves and appreciate the work he gave us. I don't see why one could not appreciate the original message and the one Jackson gave. He did a good job.
Movies and books are apples and oranges according to Steven King. I agree with this. Movies rarely can be the same as the book for many reasons, time being the largest and most common example of differences. Then there is the idea of artistic freedoms which should always be acceptable. Movies themselves are a form of art and directors tend not to be novelist.