Should this be called "The Hobbit"?

[yovargas]

And the film (in three parts) is also very much both "the story of the little, ordinary Hobbit who became a hero and saved the day with courage and kindness"....

I believe I said this before but.....the friend that I went to see Does with, who knows next to nothing about these stories, asked me afterward "I don't get why it's called The Hobbit?", essentially wondering why they would name the movie after what he perceived to be one of its smaller side characters. The story of the little, ordinary Hobbit is somewhere in there but I think it's quite the stretch to say that the film is "very much" about that hobbit.

[Primula Baggins]

Some of that apparent loss of focus on Bilbo is certainly because of the added scenes that don't involve Bilbo. But some of it is unavoidable.

The book is told from Bilbo's point of view, so whatever happens in the book is filtered through his eyes and his attitudes, commented on by his thoughts, and colored by his emotions—even if the scene's dialog and action involve other characters and Bilbo is simply a witness.

It isn't possible to do point of view in this way in film (at least without getting highly experimental), so where in the book Bilbo is front and center in the reader's mind, up on the screen he's a guy in the crowd—this would be true even for a scene that's more or less straight from the book.

[Smaug's voice]

Actually, the book is very much both "the story of the
little, ordinary Hobbit who became a hero and saved the day with courage
and kindness." and "the story of a dwarf king who is driven to reclaim
his kingdom despite everything." And the film (in three parts) is also
very much both "the story of the little, ordinary Hobbit who became a
hero and saved the day with courage and kindness." and "the story of a
dwarf king who is driven to reclaim his kingdom despite everything."

So yes, The Hobbit.

I take issue with the latter. The dwarves were on a not-so-honorable
mission to reclaim their treasure, not Erebor itself. It is only an excuse to push the little hobbit out into the big bad world so that the
actual core-theme of the book can take place - the one that matters.

It is because of this "noblization" of the quest that has decreased the inclusion of the real plot. I am in itself, not against this change.but I am now as PJ seems to prefer this over Bilbo's narrative.

[Smaug's voice]

Some of that apparent loss of focus on Bilbo is certainly
because of the added scenes that don't involve Bilbo. But some of it is
unavoidable.

The book is told from Bilbo's point of view, so whatever happens in the
book is filtered through his eyes and his attitudes, commented on by his
thoughts, and colored by his emotions—even if the scene's dialog and
action involve other characters and Bilbo is simply a witness.

It isn't possible to do point of view in this way in film (at least
without getting highly experimental), so where in the book Bilbo is
front and center in the reader's mind, up on the screen he's a guy in
the crowd—this would be true even for a scene that's more or less
straight from the book.

I too noticed that the real reason for a decrease in Bilbo's presence were the added scenes.
So in this case, why not simply involve Bilbo more in the added scenes? Show him more in the woodland realm? Give a few reaction shots during Barrels? Some more shots at Laketown? If this was done I would not have been complaining about Bilbo's lack of presence.

[yovargas]

So in this case, why not simply involve Bilbo more in the added scenes? Show him more in the woodland realm? Give a few reaction shots during Barrels? Some more shots at Laketown?

Because Bilbo can't kill orcs all kewl-like like everyone else can.