What about the middle ground? Sure okay, it wasn't on par with the original trilogy, but it had relatively large boots to fill, and I don't think that was the original intention anyway. The Hobbit is good in its own right. It doesn't try to replicate Lord Of The Rings or live up to its expectations. It goes a different route and tries to tell a story in its own unique perspective. So in a way, the two trilogies probably shouldn't even be compared. I think it's slightly unfair that everyone is comparing them. The Hobbit has limited content due to there being only one book, whereas Lord Of The Rings had 3.