Are you annoyed by the length or the scariness of the monsters?

Both, since both contribute to the film's inappropriateness for children. Why do you ask?

I'm wondering what are practical solutions. It's pretty clear PJ is endemically unable to not put all the Tolkien in, so it would take more movies to accomplish the same OCD nerdery with shorter run times, and people are already pissed enough.

It would seem possible to be less scary more easily than shorter, but the risk of not having a visceral effect on the adults is probably not going to be broached. I don't have any young associations with the book, so I'm surprised when I hear four year old fans of it--I read it at age 11 or so, so the movie would probably be perfectly designed to freaky my shit in a way I enjoy.

It's impossible for me to put aside childless bias, but I think PG-13 is more appropriate for the world and threats I remember than PG, especially with him returning to a universe that had been constructed for an adult movie in the first place.

I can't really see him doing much other than PG-13, basically. I don't know enough about movie demographics to say if charged up adults represent a bigger potential pot than going PG and lightening the scare factor.

From a Hollywood perspective, and having already done very successful adult movies, the choices make sense. But The Hobbit as a book is pitched really young in tone - I'd say it's pitched at about 8 years old. It's funny to read, as an adult, because the plot is pretty objectively scary, but because of the brevity and the voice of the book, it doesn't scare children. It comes off as more gee-whiz adventure.

Tolkien was a chatty guy. He must have written down the age he was aiming at when he wrote it, no? Being appropriate for and pitched at don't have to have the same answer.

Rayner Unwin was the son of publisher Sir Stanley Unwin of the publishing firm George Allen & Unwin.

Young Unwin was a test subject for the firm; his father believed that children were the best judges of what made good children's books. He was paid one shilling for each written report, and in Rayner Unwin's own words, it was "good money in those days". In 1936, at the age of 10, he was asked to review The Hobbit, a book by J.R.R. Tolkien:”

“Bilbo Baggins was a Hobbit who lived in his Hobbit hole and never went for adventures, at last Gandalf the wizard and his Dwarves persuaded him to go. He had a very exiting (sic) time fighting goblins and wargs. At last they get to the lonely mountain; Smaug, the dragon who guards it is killed and after a terrific battle with the goblins he returned home — rich!

This book, with the help of maps, does not need any illustrations it is good and should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9.”

The Tolkien Professor (a former colleague), who did a whole podcast lecture series on The Hobbit a few years ago said he was specifically disappointed that they were doing The Hobbit after LotR because they were so different in tone and they would have to darken and change what is so clearly a children's story to make it fit into the LotR framework.

I do not remember how many times I had to sit through the LotR trilogy during Lilly's grade 1 obsession with it.

If she ever finishes The Hobbit (she refuses, because Smaug is her boo), I'm going to have to watch all those over and over again with a small child. I have no parental objections, as my small child found the live-action human violence less terrifying than she finds cartoon violence.

(Up made her run from the theatre in terror. The Winnie the Pooh movie that came out at some point recently, same thing. Helm's Deep? Walk in the park.)

Interesting, Tom. What I found said he didn't consider it a children's book (from Wikipedia too), so there might not be agreement.

as my small child found the live-action human violence less terrifying than she finds cartoon violence.

This is why she won't watch Nightmare Before Christmas with me, isn't it? Hmmm, maybe she'll be okay with Beetlejuice.