Comparing The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings is stupid.

The Hobbit contains a lot of CGI compared to Lord of the Rings. Everything on Lord of the Rings was built on location. Some of is still there like the Shire (it's a popular tourism spot in New Zealand). All the set in The Hobbit was built inside a warehouse/outside. For instance that whole barrel river scene was supposed to be shot at location but it flooded out so they rebuilt it outside the warehouse and used CGI.
All the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings contained lots of stuntmen (particularly Maoris). I think there was about 300 stuntmen? In The Hobbit there are barely any.
Peter Jackson said he had to produce the Hobbit quickly and they were able to because of CGI. He only had 1 year for each prequel. Where as Lord of The Rings he had 4-5x the amount of time. The amount of work put into Lord of the Rings is astonishing. I find it funny every dwarf and hobbit had a double and that they were real dwarfs in real life. 1 to 6 hours to put a costume on. Yikes!.

Ironically, some of your points don't add up, we don't have 300 stuntmen, we do have soldiers that were used in LotR. Were they particularly Maori... who knows but them, and what does that have to
do with the making of the movie, other than they were used as extras in battle scenes? Timeframe vs Natural weather, shit, no movie makers can control the outcome of the weather when it hinders
their production timeline, so they have to have a backup. As for dwarf doubles and dwarf extras... are you really moronic to not realise that the people used in LotR and Hobbit are normal sized... they
were not created with CGI, the image was manipulated by way of the lens, as you see in the old Star Wars movies etc. Anyway, since you quoted my post, I am assuming that you think the orcs in the
Hobbit are CGI made instead of the original soldiers used in LotR?