Why would they make "The Hobbit" into 2 or 3 movies when by itself its smaller then any of the?

It all boils down to the fact that they wanted to make more money. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was shot back-to-back and could have easily made a 4th movie with all of the extra material that they later released as extended editions. But they didn't, because it wasn't a fad back then.

Nowadays, since Harry Potter and Twilight, it's become popular to split a book adaption into as many parts as you can. The Hobbit should have been a single movie. Splitting it into three parts is ridiculous. I mean, can you imagine watching a 8 1/2 hour long version of The Fellowship of The Ring? A book that is nearly 1 1/2 times the size of The Hobbit.

But I guess there is a silver lining to all of this. We won't have to wait for extended editions of The Hobbit to come out on Blu-Ray, because there won't be any.

Grrrr! I hate it when people say it's to make more money but it could be true. Maybe Peter Jackson wishes to add detail to the movies, or maybe to keep the movies 3 by 3 if you understand that, like star wars had six movies, so does The Lord Of The Rings.

LIARS! It is NOT to make more money! Peter Jackson & Co. are adding scenes from the Appendices (found at the end of the Return of the King) like the White Council (where Gandalf goes when he disappears for half the book), the Battle Against the Necromancer and more. This is the last set of Middle-Earth movies he is making so he wants to show as much as possible.

To make more money?

I also read about some fan films about the Lord of the Rings / Hobbit. Maybe you would be interested in this article as well: http://voices.yahoo.com/cant-wait-jrr-tolkiens-hob...

It's all about MONEY. The producers want as much $$$$$ as they can get. So they will drag the story out thru 3 movies and make triple what they would have made on one movie.

Reviews of the new movie ar (so far) not so good.

ummmm...To make more money..