ovoon: You have described precisely what the critics have been complaining about, and what I am worried about. The movies are going to be bloated. Filled with needless details and scenes that accomplish very little.
One critic I believe said the movie felt like he was watching the extended edition already. It's far too long, far too slow. Most of the stuff is being added in as a sort of "because the fans will think it's cool" mentality, rather than a "this makes for good storytelling and film making" mentality.
There needs to be no bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings, at least nothing beyond 10 minutes. And cameos? From the whole cast of the last films? How would that serve any purpose other than "because the fans will like that enjoy cameos"?
How is the battle of Dol Guldor and the Necromancer going to fit with the tone that the Hobbit carries? It's not an epic, far from it. So it sounds like they're just shoehorning as much crap in as possible for an extra buck. And that hurts, as this should've been one standalone film, and it should've been made more carefully. Give me one 3 and a half hour long film and that should tell the whole story. Two parts is understandable I suppose, but it's dragging out then. Three? What a joke.
To each his own, I guess. I understand where you're coming from, but personally, I haven't had any problems with the lenghts in PJ's films so far (not even King Kong), so I remain optimistic.
As for the Hobbit not being an epic...weeeell, that's debatable, IMHO. It doesn't start like that, to be sure. However, with the Battle of the Five Armies and the slaying of Smaug, things definitely take a turn for the epic and the heroic, and those are things that are gonna be big in the movies. Besides, I'm not really opposed to seeing the events of Bilbo's journey put in the larger context of the wr against Sauron, even if it is somewhat gimmicky, what with all the cameos.
What can I say? I'm more of a fan of the Jackson flicks than of the novels. >_>