Smaug will be in teh second movie.  Pretty sure I saw a trailer already that had the scene of Bilbo going through the tunnel that leads to smaug.

I even heard that apparantly Smaug would be defeated in the second movie, that they were getting that far in the second movie.  Based on that Rumor, I'm expecting the movie to end with a bunch of armies starting their march to the Lonely Mountain to claim the gold.  

Then 3rd movie probably deal with Gandalf fighting Necromancer and the five armies battle.

A heart transplantation should fix this.

A Problem maybe that TLOU was a friends on a great journey road movie with tons of interessting stuff to discover,the hobbit is just the ugly thing at that time when it was not ugly and a storyline just enough to fill one single movie.By trying to make several movies the lack of substance would become too obvious=problem can't be fixed without too much cliche.

cacafina above me got it right. The Hobbit was written and published in the 1930s as a children's book (the genre would be young adult today, but that did not exist back then), and shares more in its tone and reading-difficulty with the Narnia stories, which were also aimed at younger readers while still being a bit too dense to be what we would call "children's" today. LotR was written throughout the 1940s and published in the mid '50s. It started as a mere sequel to The Hobbit, but then Tolkien decided to integrate it with his Middle Earth mythos, a just-for-fun (because publishers told him there was no way he could publish it) mythology that he devised so he could play around with linguistics and create imitations of the Norse myths that he so loved, and so had to do some minor ret-cons of The Hobbit in later editions regarding the finding of the ring and Gollum's characterization and Bilbo's reaction to Gollum.

Also in the hobbit it was portrayed that while the Wood Elves and Lake Men were longstanding allies, they absolutely did not like how the Dwarves conducted themselves after they came back, and very nearly went to war with the Dwarves before the Orcs and Wargs arrived, so it was actually a more tense portrayal than anything in LotR (although the Elf-man relationship was insanely casual compared to all the heaviness about mortality that was supposed to exist between them, but then the Sylvan Elves were supposed to be much more down-to-earth than the Noldor or even the Sindar, which could explain the disconnect without having to simply call it a ret-con)

Bold: after The Hobbit became popular hist editor asked to him to write a sequel, The Lord of the Rings was born... The Hobbit was write before The Lord of the Rings lol.

1936: The Hobbit
1954–1955: The Lord of the Rings

"Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book called The Hobbit, which he had written some years before for his own children, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin, who persuaded Tolkien to submit it for publication.[85] However, the book attracted adult readers as well as children, and it became popular enough for the publishers to ask Tolkien to produce a sequel.

The request for a sequel prompted Tolkien to begin what would become his most famous work: the epic novel The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien at first intended The Lord of the Rings to be a children's tale in the style of The Hobbit, but it quickly grew darker and more serious in the writing."

Who told you LOTR was write before Hobbit? I need to kill him

I struggled to get through An Unexpected Journey due to the pacing. Sure, the production values were ridiculous and lavish. Yes, you feel like you're in Middle Earth, but oof; sometimes you just have to ask "So where's the chase, and how do I cut to it?"

And I have no idea how they plan on stretching out the remainder of the story (if they stick strictly to what was in the novel) for an additional 5-6 hours (I'm realizing now that if the other two films are as long as the first, the entire story will be told over closer to 9 hours, not the 6 I originally posted). 

Part 1 ends with Flown to Mirkwood (Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire), which is about 1/3rd of the novel. I'm guessing they'll start with the spider lair and most likely finish Part 2 at the entrance of Smaug's lair/Lonely Mountain, which would be a massive dick move, but that would be about where the final third of the novel starts and it would be a natural place to leave everyone hanging to see the final third of the story.

Comedy is the point. If anything, it's too unfaithful to the book by being too heavy, not by being as light as it is.

Hm. Well that wouldn't be so bad then.

I suppose they could drag out the third film over the battle of five armies, but realistically, there was not a lot of story there and as much as I enjoy epic battle scenes, you can't stretch one out over a 2-3 hour film. Maybe they can; who knows. 

There is definitely a problem with the movie, and it has a lot to do with the books, especially the characters.

The Hobbit has quite a few names, but very few personalities. You can't do much to expand upon a plot when half of the named characters are dead weight.

Wait so everyone in here didn't like the Hobbit? Are you kidding me?

That movie was awesome. A solid 4/5.

Was it as EPIC as lotr? No. But i don't think its supposed to be....its just a different story with a different focus.

The problem with the Hobbit movies is the size of the original book