The problem with the 'Hobbit' Movies

[Porcupine_I]

irstupid said:

Porcupine_I said:
The problem with the Hobbit movies is the size of the original book

Already addresssed this, but answer this question for me.

What did the Lord of the Rings leave out of their movies?
What is left in the Hobbit book?

There is a ton of stuff left to do in the Hobbit book and the lord of the RIngs didn't really leave out too terribly much.  So as I said before, the way the two books were written there is way more stuff in teh Hobbit per page than there is in Lord of teh Rings.  If the Hobbit was written like the Lord of teh Rings, the HObbit would easily be two full books, only on the content that is in the books.  If it added teh Gandalf stuff teh movie is, whereas the book just has him say " i was off klling a necromancer" then it could easily be near the Lord of the Rigns length.

For example, they left Tom Bombadil out of the Lord of the Rings for the obvious reason that his charackter would not fit the tone of the Movie, which was a good choice in my opinion.

But then they put that silly Radagast character into the Hobbit (which they also left out of Lord of the Rings) , they draw out scenes that were mere sentences in the book, and should not be more then a glimpse in the movie, like the fight of the stone giants or the fight with the trolls which were terrible i thought.

The problem also is that the Hobbit was basically a childrens book  and they somehow try to find a balance between being silly and retaining the Lord of the rings mood and it just doesn't work for me.