It's pretty hard to determine that when you haven't and will not see the movie. That's like me not seeing The Dark Knight trilogy and claiming that Nolan simply stretched them out too much.
Peter Jackson did an incredible job with the trilogy. I don't see how we should judge the runtime before even seeing the film. And since when is runtime an issue? If it's too long for you, I don't see that as a shortcoming on the director's part. I see that as the viewer lacking the will to fully maintain an interest in the movie they're watching. I just think that if runtime is one of the first complaints, then that means it's probably a pretty damn impressive film.
I'm excited. I know it's going to be long. And I'm excited.
I've read the book multiple times (childhood favorite) so I know all the elements of the plot. This movie was 3.5 hours. At that rate, the "trilogy" will be 10.5. The Hobbit is a short book. That is unacceptable. Look at the greatest book to movie adaptations and you will notice that none of them are ungodly long (as in 10.5 hours long). David Lean did a great job with Dr. Zhivago and it's about 3 hours and 15 minutes - and that book is a true epic. The Hobbit is not an epic, no matter how you slice it.