But that's sort of my point.
If someone did view it as box-ticking, would that validate their reason for this adaptation to 'not be called the Hobbit'? It's still a bogus argument either way. That person just doesn't agree with the adaptation and is interpreting a certain change to the story/world to reflect the real world, even though it may not be the case.
I've seen similar criticisms over the choice to emphasize the 'I am not a Man!' slaying of the Witch King scene completely omitting the fact that in the books, he was hurt by a Merry's magical dagger that made him vulnerable to mortal weapons. Was it intentional to empower women? Was it just an oversight to cut down on unnecessary scenes? Is it both? Well it could be interpretted any way. I still don't think any interpretation would justify this not being a Lord of the Rings adaptation or imply Peter Jackson should have created his own universe because he couldn't abide to every detail. Cuz at the end of the day, what we're discussing is the details, and we can either look at it as something not very important, or hyper-focus on it as if it's the most important thing in the world. And no one is wrong in how they choose to interpret it.
I just don't think 'they should just make their own universe' is a valid criticism to make, because ultimately that is what an adaptation is. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is Lord of the Rings in his vision and universe. It is not Tolkien's LOTR, it is Peter Jackson's LOTR. They aren't the same universe even if we choose to regard it to be a very good adaptation.