Why did The Hobbit movies get such a lukewarm reception?

Maybe because of too many special effects

Since age 10 I've enjoyed Tolkien's works for its tranquillity, stoicism, and silent reflections on dignity and humanism.

I did however enjoy the Fellowship movie, and The Two Towers was mostly ok.

I've never read the books but my husband has and he says they bore little resemblance to the books,he didn't like the white Ork.

Because they're terrible movies. Boring, ugly, meandering, indulgent, nonsensical, obsessed with meaningless detail,drawn out, badly acted by people in horrible makeup, and totally lacking in the wonders of New Zealand.

And I say that as a huge LOTR fan. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in my life... In a movie theater anyway.

Considering all the money the Hobbit movies made, I look upon the reception given them as anything but "lukewarm".

They were tepid because they took a book that is thinner than a packet of fags and tried to turn it into every Abrahamic inspired texts' thickness combined.

Imagine doing that for real, imagine the fallout from doing so.

That's why its reception was 'lukewarm'.

I think because people had gotten sick of Middle Earth by the end of the LOTR trilogy, and then having yet another 3 hour per movie trilogy so soon after that was just too much. I loved the LOTR trilogy, but I was unable to take myself back there for 9 more hours of Middle Earth.

Because they are terrible, unwatchable pieces of garbage that were a major cash-in and a disgrace to Jackson's career and Tolkien's legacy.