True there are only like 3 dwarfs worth mentioning.

1. Thorin - for obvious reason

2. Balin - he is basically Bilbo's closest friend and supporter it seems.

3. Bomber - fat dwarf, who is easily recognizable and his weight has a few plot points to it.

????

4. maybe fili and kili - they tend to be sent to do bitch work all the time due to being the youngest.  

????

But even in the books, it seems teh whole company of dwarfs loses more and more of their personality from the point where the first movie ended to the end of the book.   They kind of turn into a group of fawning Bilbo fans.   

THere is a reason the book is called "The HOBBIT"

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.  

The problem? Same as LotR...when you watch it, you wonder if that untalented wanker ever actually read the book(s).

I somee what agree. but for me its more the characters that are lacking. lotr had the best cast of characters ever that helped make the movie so memorable

im guna pretend i didnt read that.

Pretty much.  The Hobbit is an enjoyable read from beginning to end, but the issue with the characters is a serious barrier in translating it to film.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InorW-mhiKE

Bwahahahaha ='D

I feel that it comes down to the source material, as others have said. The Hobbit book is being stretched and the story is not as adult-oriented.

SIDE NOTE: Only the first 2 films are covering the Hobbit book. The 3rd film is covering the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR. That's my understanding, at least.

Be my guest, you can pretend all you want.

I was growing up in 80s with those books, and only thing that ever came close to do them justice in translating properly atmosphere and characters is that, although far, far from perfect, animated movie from 1978.

it doesn't matter when you grew up. i also grew up with them and nearly everything in lotr was spot on for me. its a matter of opinion lucky your opinion on it is not the same was 98% of everyone else that watched it