IMO (and this is only my opinion) it would be a good antidote against bloat and pretension.

Is there a pattern of that?

I have never seen Phantom, because my hatred of Sarah Brightman poisoned the show. Also, I am not sure it was a very good show.

Scooby Doo (and Shaggy) do not belong solving mysteries. They are dumb and annoying. I was a very serious child, and I loved mysteries, and I really could not understand why Velma and Daphne and Fred hung

I thought King Kong was wayyyy too long, though I enjoyed a lot of it. Everything I heard about the Lovely Bones sounded like it was a failed prestige literary adaptation. And now the expansion of Hobbit to three three hour plus movies has me worried this is a pattern, not a coincidence. It's like he's releasing his extended editions as first run.

I was a very serious child, and I loved mysteries, and I really could not understand why Velma and Daphne and Fred hung

Shaggy was their dealer?

But Frank, that sounds like you want him to do short movies, not that doing a short movie right afterwards would cure him of the Oscar infection. After seeing LotR, I don't think that has anything to do with awards--after the box office and general reaction, I bet he could do anything he wanted, especially in genre. And he likes big fancy effect-laden movies. A lot.

I just skimmed the IGN review, and I think this is pretty much 100% Jackson and what I was expecting:

Once the quest proper begins, though, The Hobbit, like the book, becomes a relentless series of chase scenes and action episodes

So far it feels like the extended Fellowship pacing, and I'm good with that. I get that he errs on the side of shoving more material in, but based on the Ring movies I don't think he'll drag it out thinly--just that he's likely to stuff in a lot of stuff that's not exciting before we get to where he starts stuffing in the fun bits,

See I'd love him to do another Forgotten Silver or Heavenly Creatures as well as the big effects movies. Not that I won't see the Hobbit films - I can't wait until Smaug turns up (though I wish it wasn't all the way until the third movie, which I'm guessing is how it will go). I'd just like to him to get back to his roots occasionally.

I don't know if they're roots so much as all he could get away with at the time.

Is there a pattern of that?

Like Frank said: King Kong, which was IMO self-indulgent and bloated. Some narratives are not well-served by lingering shots of carefully-crafted CGI. Or even action-packed sequences of carefully-crafted CGI, if they don't serve plot, character, or theme.

I'm a big LotR fan (books and movies), but there was some bloat even in the studio releases, and news of the 3-movie adaptation of The Hobbit made me nervous.

I'm going anyway, mind you. But I see Jackson as suffering a bit from what I like to call "Stephen King Syndrome" (or J.K. Rowling syndrome): the failure of the editorial process to serve the story rather than the storyteller. If everyone is going to buy the last Harry Potter book regardless of its content or flaws, there's no benefit to the publisher in doing anything but a most cursory proof-reading.

And if you're an author (or auteur) who's been given a free hand in anything you want to do for the last decade, you're unlikely to listen to any editorial comments noting that perhaps turning a relatively lightweight piece of children's adventure into a nine-hour epic isn't the best way to address the project.

That's my take, anyway. I'm still going, but I'm more wary of Jackson than I was in 2001.

Point at 'suela and nods in agreement.